User talk:C. W. Gilmore/Archives/2017/December

Archives

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, C. W. Gilmore. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore protests

I don't see anything in that cited source that reflects what's written in that sentence. Also, the cited source is an opinion column, and the written sentence in the article is represented as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. It certainly can't stay the way it is. Rockypedia (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'My story began with a call to the city desk by a priest at a Catholic church along Old York Road, about two miles north of the central downtown area. A man who had been robbed had come knocking at rectory door in the wee hours, seeking help. To the priest’s astonishment when he called the police, he was told that officers could not respond there because it was a “gray area.”'[1]

@Rockypedia the past segregation of Baltimore lead to a very polarised city and the police at that time had areas they would and would not go, in order to keep racial tensions down. Thus it depended on who you were and where you were as to what type of response the police would offer according to the article. Remember, Maryland had been a slave state and the issues of race still plague the state and the city of Baltimore, so this story gives context to current events. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. None of this is specifically about the Baltimore protests. And while the sentiments expressed in the sentence I removed are admirable, they are not a summary of the cited source, so it's WP:OR. And the cited source is an opinion column. All of which makes it an open-and-shut case: it doesn't belong in the article. I'm removing it, because there's no justification for including it. If you revert that again, that's called edit warring, and I'll find an admin to make sure it doesn't happen again. If you want it included, I suggest you start an RfC, which I'm sure will quickly draw opinions from other editors that will tell you the same things I just did. Rockypedia (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source and statement are context for the way the current protests unfolded and it is opinion from a reporter that reported on events 45yrs past and reflected on how it relates to today's events. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute any of this, except maybe the conflation of the source and statement, as the statement didn't really state anything that was in the source. My removal was based entirely on policy, not an emotional response to the material. Rockypedia (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it completely was a bit over the top, as the source is solid and the opinion of a veteran Baltimore journalist giving context to the historical issues of race and poverty that still exist in Baltimore. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine as written now. Rockypedia (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving...

The simple solution to archving is to sign up to have it automatically archived by one of the bots that do that. User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo has directions. For a simple solution, I suggest copying the following and placing it at the VERY top of this page. This will set up monthly archive pages and move old discussions to the archives after 14 days. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(14d) | archive = User talk:C. W. Gilmore/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}}}}

Thanks but I don't think it worked. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this one may have worked:

-{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(5d) | archive = User talk:Example/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}} }}-

At least I hope so, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't get it to show up. Anyway, I guess I have a week to work on it. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do appreciate your trying to help. The things I would like to learn is how to archive, how to file an AN/I and how to email someone. These are things I have yet to learn. I hope my changes will work and I guess I will find out in a few days. Thanks again for taking the time to try and help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, thanks for fixing that mistake. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To email - there is a toolbox on the userpage of the person you're interested in emailing. (Either user or user talk will do). Click on the "email this user" link and it'll set you up. Wikipedia:Emailing users has the nitty-gritty. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with emails and auto-archive. Ealdgyth, I did not mean to be gruff with you but I just got blocked for a week out of the blue for adding a link. I don't believe and never have believed that was the correct outcome from a complaint filed, that I was not even directly involved.[2] I felt at the time that an IBAN was the correct course, given the actors involved and in fact, the Admins finally saw that as well, just took them a few months and now I'm attempting to get the TBAN lifted. Or I was, but that seems impossible now.

Enough of that, I do wish to thank you and now I even have time to read up on how to file an AN/I and other complaints, in case I run into difficulties in the future. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now adding links to my Sandbox is a violation?

CYBERPOWER you went through my Sandbox and check it. You said I could link to pages, so what has changed? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your IBAN is directly up this page. It explicitly says you are not to mention DS. There are no exceptions mentioned. Since all the pages in his userepace include his username, obviously linking to one is mentioning him. Whatever device you use to edit Wikipedia undoubtedly has some ability to store information. You could have made use of it but instead decided to violate your IBAN. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, I will explain again that all this is new to me. I group up with computers running on punch cards and learning to type on a manual typewriter. I have not even learned the email system on Wiki, so I'm doing the best I can. I was at one time allowed to link to pages, but it appears that I can't do that anymore as the rules have changed without warning. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punch cards were still around when I was learning to program, and I learned to type on a manual too.*ding*

Age isn't an excuse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, WP:AGF is still a guideline. Nihlus 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the rules without notice is, SarekOfVulcan (talk), I had been allowed to link to pages to I was to use for my appeal, until now it seems. I did not know rules changed, with a new Admin. This is all new and I'm still learning, but it's easier when you have a teacher and not a disciplinarian as a guide. Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, SarekOfVulcan (talk), I can't even get auto-archive to work; this is not my natural world and I'm a fish out of water. The rules said one thing, then changed overnight. This is my issue with your block, if the rules changed; then tell me the new rules: Go through my Sandbox and clear out what you think is a violation as CYBERPOWER did. Tell me specifically what the new rules are and I will follow them (to the letter). But this is out of the blue and I really don't understand what is different today from yesterday when I did the same thing? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. You didn't do it yesterday. You haven't done it in that sandbox since the IBAN was imposed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, SarekOfVulcan (talk), but I did since Nov. 14th: [3] [4] [5] [6] It has just been a while. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the sandbox. You didn't add a new reference to DS until today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In example #2 I added the name and in example #3, I copied from CYBERPOWER TP and it's Cyberpower678 saying, "If you're going to use it file for an appeal of your ban, I will allow it, but I would make it clear that this is there for appeal purposes, otherwise, someone will come after you for it, and I would suggest that you then follow through with the appeal process, sooner than later." and I even copied that other user's name AGAIN. This is why this block is such a shock. I had no idea it was even close to a violation, SarekOfVulcan (talk). C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here. If you can't see the difference between copying the exact wording of an interaction ban placed on you, and digging up dirt on the other user from years ago, nothing I say is going to be useful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{od}It is not 'dirt', but a long standing pattern of incivility that no one would be shocked if it continued to this very day; showing that the pattern is in the interaction with the IBAN other is key for showing that a TBAN is not needed, for it was only in interacting with the incivility of others that lead to the TBAN, SarekOfVulcan (talk). Look back at the original complaint [7] and even then, I asked for a IBAN; but no one listened. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Violation of interaction ban with Darkness Shines here. The IBAN clearly states "This includes...mentioning the other user". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? I was adding links for my appeal of the TBAN as allowed by CYBERPOWER that went through my sandbox. I was readying my appeal. What did I do that was not allowed SarekOfVulcan (talk)?
- Now that the IBAN is in place, I wanted to appeal the TBAN as unneeded. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is rather hard to explain that the reason to lift the TBAN is that there is now an IBAN, without mentioning the IBAN and the interaction between the two. SarekOfVulcan (talk), Please talk this over with CYBERPOWER. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

C. W. Gilmore/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Following the guidelines set byCYBERPOWER for the use of the sandbox to conform to the IBAN, only pages are linked and only those pages needed for the appeal of the TBAN. In fact, I was to in the process of putting it together when this block was place on my account. Now that there is an IBAN, there is no need for a TBAN, for the disruption was in great part due to the interactions. I made no mention of anyone, only added a link, as I was told I could, to help with my appeal of the TBAN C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've read through all of this, and the prior actions at ANI and ANEW. Topic and interaction bans are often a last step before a full ban, and they're dependent on a competent and willing observation of the restriction.

In this case, and in other prior discussions, you seem to be doing absolutely everything you can to get back at the other editor without tripping the ban. This is just deliberate boundary probing. You're indicating that you want to have your topic ban removed - a topic ban on a very, very narrow topic where the other editor is still quite active. It will be almost impossible for you to do anything there without eventually landing right back at ANI. This latest edit, creating a naughty list, falls in to the category of "things that would have been obvious to someone who was really wanting to avoid drama." I don't see any issues with the block, and the discussions following it are concerning.

I know you're not honestly looking for feedback; you have a single-minded purpose and I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears. But move on. There was consensus building for an indefinite community ban at ANI in October. Drmies was gracious enough to cut that short and implement a topic ban. You seem to be actively sabotaging that, or at least showing that you lack the ability to follow it. Just move on - find another topic to edit competently for a while. Work collaboratively with others and get a better feel for the project. Stay far away from any of this; it's really not hard. Kuru (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Kuru,on Nov.26th ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} said that another violation would result in a "72hr" block, so imagine my surprise at a week block for posting a link to a page? If you could see your way to 'amending' this block to that level. I will, firstly, remove all content from my sandbox that might be of issue and the follow the guidelines as I stated on CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) Talk Page. I will stay away from all pages where I find others active and will refrain from interaction. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally fail to see how a post made on DS's talk page 2 years ago, even closely relates to appealing your TBAN. That edit to me appears to be an overstep of the leniency I allowed.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 16:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that civility is the issue, CYBERPOWER, and that with the IBAN such problems with the topic will not arise. The TBAN, I feel was a misplaced BAN, it needed to be an IBAN as I said at that time to end disruptive editing. Now that the IBAN is in place, it allows for the civil interaction on the topic and that 2yr old ban shows that I am not the one with incivility issues on the topic. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noted that the cloud of conflict has been leaving me and following others, this is because of the incivility of others and not me. This is the reason that the topic is significant to my request for the lifting of the TBAN, for civility can now be maintained and the articles enhanced given the IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, you won't be able to successfully appeal a ban when the appealer says it was a misplaced ban. You need to address why the ban on you is no longer necessary. AKAIK, bringing DS's civility to light isn't going to get you anywhere. But, as the other user in the section below points out, why aren't you documenting this offline?—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 16:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we have gone through this before, I would do it offline, if I knew how, but I don't even know how you guys email each other, let alone store something offline. I was taking your advice, CYBERPOWER, and trying to put together the appeal of my TBAN quickly as you suggested, when this got thrown at me. I have said from the beginning that a TBAN was misplaced, and that the IBAN was the correct course to avoid disruptions (no one listened to me them) and now I'm trying to get the TBAN lifted; but this got thrown at me. What is different today, than a week ago, when I could add a link? I truly don't understand and all I'm trying to do is get the TBAN appeal process started, but this block is making that impossible at the moment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. W. Gilmore - a diff from 2015 of DS's unblock is utterly unrelated to your iban with DS because YOU WERE NOT EDITING WHEN THAT DIFF HAPPENED (see your contributions from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2016.) You do NOT need to show it for an appeal. It has no bearing on YOUR behavior, which is what you need to deal with as far as any appeal. I've said this before, and I'll repeat it... drop everything to do with the person you're IBANed with. Do not think about him. Do not follow him. Drop it. That's what an IBAN is. You should forget he exists. The only way you'll successfully appeal your IBAN is to show that you HAVE forgotten he exists - which digging into the past history of his talk page does NOT show. You're just digging your hole deeper in regards to ever getting this IBAN repealed. Remember - he does not exist. You don't edit ANYTHING that contains his name, edits, talk pages, user subpages, or any discussions where he is mentioned or is discussing with others. Consider it as an extreme case of shunning such as the Amish practice... ignore completely. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, that would be true if editors have changed over the past two years, but if it shows a long term pattern; then it is very much related as part of that pattern. The issues regarding the subject of the TBAN, was not really about the topic but the uncivil discourse and that is where the pattern shows; in fact, it shows that subject of the IBAN, is uncivil when they do not get their POV on an article even to this day; thus a TBAN was misplaced. The IBAN was the correct course of action. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, once the TBAN is lifted, I plan on clearing even my sandbox and yes, I know of the shunning and will take that approach completely. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to get the point. Whatever DS does or doesn't do or did or didn't do ... either now or in the past... will NOT effect your appeal of a IBAN with him. The only thing that will change your status in regard to an IBAN is your (YOU, not his) behavior going FORWARD from the point the IBAN was imposed. It is assumed that any behavior by either party that was in the past was taken into account in the impostition of the IBAN. By continuing to think (and ignore advice to the contrary) that DS's past behavior will exonerate you from your IBAN, you're continuing to show the battleground behavior that got the IBAN imposed in the first place. Frankly, the editing community got sick of the squabbles between the two of you and separated you two so the squabbling would cease. The only way to get the IBAN removed is to show that you are no longer in battleground mode... and you are empathetically showing that you still are pursuing the battleground behavior... you're looking at the other editor's past behaviors and edits and blocks and bans. I can't put it any plainer - drop the issue of DS's past behavior. It will only hurt your chances of sucessfully appealing your IBAN with DS. Concentrate on editing uncontentiously and ignoring the other editor. And then you MIGHT have a chance in a year or so of sucessfully appealing the IBAN. But drop the idea of appealing the IBAN for at LEAST six months. You need to show that you've improved your behavior - and immediately (defined as sometime under a year) appealing an IBAN just won't help your case at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You're failing to get the point. Whatever DS does or doesn't do or did or didn't do ... either now or in the past... will NOT effect your appeal of a IBAN with him." It is a TBAN that I'm appealing as it is not needed since the IBAN is in place. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse then, because it is YOUR behavior that keeps the TBAN in place. You still need to show that you've changed your behavior and editing. What DS did in 2015 does not affect YOUR behavior on the Patriot Prayer page. It isn't related, except that you've developed a battleground mentality towards DS AND the whole Patriot Prayer area. You won't succeed in appealing the TBAN except by changing your behavior moving forward. Quite frankly, the fact that you can't see that there is no connection between DS's behavior in 2015 and your editing behavior that led to a TBAN on Patriot Prayer makes it quite clear that the TBAN is still needed. Before the TBAN is lifted, you're going to need to be able to see what of your actions led to the TBAN.. so that you can change them and show other editors that you HAVE changed your approach. Give it at least six months of editing in other areas without trouble before even considering appealing the TBAN - it's a very narrow TBAN and doesn't really affect you much, if you are really taking on board the fact that WP:BATTLEGROUND is frowned on. One of the best ways to get rid of a TBAN is to acknowledge your own behaviors that led to the TBAN and to never, ever, ever try to show that some other editor's actions were behind your behavior. All the last bit does is make it look like you're trying to shift the blame for your own behaviors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't show a damn thing as I am Blocked for doing today what I had done for the past month. It just became an issue today for some reason, I know not and blocked I am. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is not the best time to lecture on the proper way to sway the Wiki gods, as I just got blocked today for doing the same thing I did for the past month. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means a Wiki god, just someone with a dirty mop. In any event that diff you added to your sandbox is way beyond the scope of appealing your TBAN. Your behavior is what got you TBANned. You need to demonstrate why the TBAN is no longer needed. With that being said I would allow you to link to diffs mentioning DS if it is only being used to prepare your appeal. A diff from 2.75 years ago, on DS's talk page, is way beyond the scope for material that can be used to appeal and in no way will demonstrate why your TBAN is unnecessary. I'm not inclined to reverse the block in this case.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 19:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion regarding the TBAN, as the dust up follows other editors and showing that pattern of incivility 'over the years' is why, then and now I asked for the IBAN. CYBERPOWER as you mix together the two issues to condemn before I have a chance to build my case fully against the TBAN, and present it. Now, your last statement, showing you have the power to be judge, jury and executioner (how is that not acting like a Wiki god?). C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the original complaint by K.e.coffman was in regards to incivility. [8]
Note the past pattern of incivility and punishment, including now. It is a pattern, of incivility that follows the other right up to this day.
Note that my interactions with other editors have been civil, even in disagreement.

I think you need to re-read the discussion that led to your TBAN. It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Proposal for topic ban for User:C. W. Gilmore on Patriot Prayer. Note that the original complaint was that "CWG is prepared to argue anything to a ridiculous amount, including unsourced/poorly sourced material and original research".. and other, long-term editors, agreed. In fact, you were lucky to not just get indef blocked. It was YOUR behavior in relentlessly arguing over every tiny detail (gee... where am I seeing THAT behavior) that got you the TBAN. NOTHING to do with the person you're IBANed from. Until you can change your style of editing ... you won't get the TBAN lifted because you won't have changed what led to the TBAN. Quite frankly, if you don't change your behavior, you'll end up indefinitely banned. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, if you don't want to argue, then you can stop lecturing me about my attitude on my TP. -Thank for the page, but I already have that page linked, though I wounder if that will get me blocked for another week? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As complaints about incivility were a large part of the TBAN [9] and were an issue before as well as being an issue since; then it follows that such incivility will also be a part of the appeal for now there is a IBAN the incivility on any topic, and in fact, every topic has not been an issue. I should not have to take being abused with gutter language, and now, I do not have to deal with it since the IBAN. I should not have to deal with someone slow edit warring (First by removing references, then saying the information is un-sourced before having it deleted several months later), and now, I do not have to deal with it since the IBAN. I should not have to deal with editors push POV or acting like they WP:OWN articles, and now, I do not have to deal with it since the IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my part, I have learned over the past few months how to work within the parameters of Wiki, by de-escolating conflicts over contentious issues. I have learned about arbitration and RfC to better resolve issues that are at stalemate from editors with sincere disagreements over points of view. I've also learned that there are some great egos that must be taken into account and dealt with gently. I have learned that some people use reporting of others like a weapon, to badger and intimidate and that those are the most dangerous ones to avoid if at all possible. But mostly I have learned patients as things on Wiki can move very, very slowly and I can not rush things; like now, I will now have to wait several more months before requesting the lifting of the TBAN thanks to this stink over a link. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of duration of Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

C. W. Gilmore/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On Nov.26th ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} said that a violation would result in a "72hr" block, so I request a review of the duration of this "168hr" block as excessive and unnecessary and I plan to removed all sections of issue from my Sandbox once the block expires. I plan to take no more such actions and plan to avoid any page where the other IBAN party may be active within the past week. I request the Block be modified to "72hrs" in line with the previous statements, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A week sounds reasonable to me. There are no set block lengths for specific violations. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just warning you, WP:BOOMERANG applies here (well, somewhat) and may result in your block being substantially extended. Are you sure you think this block is so out of line? You haven't really made a compelling case, in my opinion, but I decided not to officially review the block. --Yamla (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please not what 'Oshwah' stated on a block back on Nov. 26th, that it would a violation would be "72hrs". All I did was to add another link to my sandbox and that got me a week block? Please consider these issues and that I have stated I want to remove all issue related materials from my sandbox as my first act once un-blocked. I had no idea the link was a violation, but no matter, being told one thing at one time and having that more then doubled, seems excessive and unnecessary. Please review, for excessiveness of duration, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note: I will wait a some time before appealing the TBAN and it will be only focused on my actions. There are some areas 'near' the banned area that I can contribute in the future so I will only attempt to have that TBAN narrowed in the future, and again, based only on my actions. But I find it impossible to make progress on even removing times from my sandbox at the present time, so shortening the block to be in line with what I had been told would allow me to begin rehabilitation that much sooner. Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no set block lengths for specific violations." as stated; but to have one Admin. say it will be "72hrs" and then to have it be "168hrs" makes the process look very arbitrary and capricious by it's very inconsistency. -I will bother you no more. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm Anmccaff. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jefferson Davis Park, Washington have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Adding A "see also" to something which is mentioned in the text, rather prominently, might be a goodfaith error - once. Restoring it with the edit summary you used is coatracking. Anmccaff (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on the article talking page before making major edits as to not be disruptive, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive edits are your own. You're not listening to what other editors are trying to point out to you. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is linked above in the article and appreciate the explanation as we do not want to 'overlink' it, you are correct. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to take more care in the future making edits that could be construed as edit warring, such as the above mentioned edits. You just got unblocked yo, there was case for 3RR there. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just need a reasonable explanation of the "why", which you helpfully provided, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gabriel syme, I got blocked for adding a link to my sandbox. The nice thing is that I do learn from my mistakes. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you surely don't seem like you've been learning. You're edit warring report will probably boomerang. I'd advise you to back way off and read the policies more thoroughly. Your call of course, best of luck. Gabriel syme (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I will respond when I have time. Your behavior on this issue is ludicrous. What makes you think you are the arbiter of this article, or its talk Page's content? You are again editwarring, over this and other issues without engaging in discussion. You do not set deadlines here. Consensus means an agreement of some sort has been reached. You know I disagree....that was clearly shown by reverting your change earlier today. You are rapidly heading for another block, and I suspect the next one will be an indefinite. Most editors here have never been the subject of any block or ban. In the past month you've been subject to two separate bans and at least one block. I cannot speak for the entire community, but I'm sick and tired of you wasting my time. In this case, time I could have been using to prepare a response to you wasted on responding to your jackassery. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome to make positive and congenial comments on the talking page which are productive to the discussions at hand before making massive deletions to the page. Thank you so much for your interest and unique input. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Box

- Useful pages**
Images [10]
Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Adventure
Teahouse
Wikipedia:Third opinion
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
WP:TWINK

5 Pillars of Wikipedia: [11]

Essay: User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior

Working space to file an Appeal of Topical ban

Topic ban amended and clarified

Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does my sandbox which links to pages from that topic, I have gathered for my appeal, violate this ban? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use it file for an appeal of your ban, I will allow it, but I would make it clear that this is there for appeal purposes, otherwise, someone will come after you for it, and I would suggest that you then follow through with the appeal process, sooner than later.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are now subject to an interaction ban

Per the ANI discussion:

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note "...explicit clarification on your IBAN that both of you are not to respond at all to discussions started by the other." Plus WP:IBAN

Thanks as I have been waiting for this for a month, thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Appeal: Past violations: Darkness Shines

Start Appeal Process: [12]

[13] [14] May 2017 (archive) This restriction was to last until 29 November, or 6 months (diff). However, recently the user has persistently made abusive, combative, and/or snide remarks on article:

18:03, 28 September 2017 ("just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse")
01:39, 30 September 2017 ("as usual you refuse to fucking listen")
13:27, 1 October 2017 ("what the fuck are you on?")
13:40, 1 October 2017 ("O look, another geographically challenged person")
15:33, 6 October 2017 (accusation of trolling)
15:49, 6 October 2017 ("you'll be getting abusive language soon enough if you keep being a dick")
15:51, 6 October 2017 (changed "being a dick" to "pissing me off")

An anonymous user requested that Darkness Shines specifically strike that last comment (diff), which Darkness Shines has not done. I haven't included all the instances of gratuitous profanity by this user at TP either. I have made some edits to that article, and would like to contribute further, but Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility ~~and stubbornness~~ that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible.

5 Pillars of Wikipedia: [15]

Information for appeal: [16] [17] [18] [19]

Ban information:

In-Civility no time limit: [20] TBAN: [21]

Conduct issues should be taken to WP:ANI as needed. Feel free to open a DRN topic again if you wish to discuss the content of the article in question. An alternative would be to garner community input via a WP:RFC.

So, this is a "ban placed by the community"; you can find it registered at WP:Editing restrictions. To appeal, please look at the outlined procedure at WP:UNBAN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for appeal: [22]

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN

What was the link to?, that might be a clue to why you were banned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point as even adding this [23] got reported to AN/I. Not going near the edge of the IBAN means that.
Have a great holiday season. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of IBAN

@Slatersteven - 19:05, 14 November 2017 for date of IBAN C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to have a habit of showing up on pages he has edited. It is (frankly) stretching the imagination to try and see this as not deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not bore you with a long list of these [24][25][26][27], because I could go on and on; but you get the point. The ones that are beyond the pale are these examples: I ask a question of Cyberpower about [28] and within 20minutes that very image in up (and mislabeled) [29]. I mention on Drmies's TP that I want to create an article[30] and within 10hrs, this Rose City Antifa pops up. I know there are many areas where interests overlap, but everything I have show is since the IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, I tried to stay off pages until there were clear for 5days, now it appears it will be 30days and I have never gone to AN/I. The only thing I ask is that distance is maintained and to stop responding directly after me, give me some room as I'm trying to do. And above all, stop going to AN/I all the time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the problem is that you still fetch up on pages that you have never edited before after DS does. It is also hard to belive you tried to stay of pages you have never edited before. Maybe you are innocent, but it looks odd.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it has to do with some of the editors followed like Marek or Tornado. There are also some shared interests (if for different reasons), my being person with Scotland, Mexico, Spain and Germany. So I follow alot of stories that engage the history of these places along with the USA and Canada, plus articles that are in the news, I tend to follow up on Wiki to gain background. This is said with all honestly and contributions to pages I do much less than what I research. I do not like to make mistake so I have to hyper-focus for a while or I get lost going everywhere. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I edit [31] and then [32]; I will not go screaming to AN/I; yet it does look odd. This is the type of stuff I would be reported for, but when I'm directly responded to as in those first examples, I went to an Admin and asked for space. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just stop talking about him, mentioning him, pointing to him, or doing anything that involves him? You need to worry a lot less about what he is doing right now. Nihlus 18:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does have something of a valid point, after all (after the IBAN) DS had him on his watch list and jumped the moment he saw anything even vaguely reportable (and got a ban as a result). This is the problem, even the "stalking" is not all one way, just in a different way.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for an interaction ban violation at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sea_lioning&diff=820145999&oldid=820143209. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made mistakes and I am trying to learn from all of them, that is how we all grow as people. I now know AfDs are discussions and I should not respond.

Thanks everyone and happy editing, to all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References to look into

Just so I don't forget where I was: [33] [34]

If I return. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per the private email between you and me, and with Sarek as well, I have unblocked you.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

@Slatersteven, I had followed Marek [35] so I had no idea about the merger talks on the other page. Not sure any amount of time delay could not cause that to happen again. I've imposed a 5day ban to keep my distance above what is required by the IBAN rules, and even that doesn't seem enough to stay out of AN/I. Any advice on that one? I honestly did not know what was going on with the other article's TP and don't know what I could have done different. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 week Block

I've blocked you for 2 weeks. I cannot fathom how you could think this is OK, after all of the long discussion in that ANI thread: [36]. Ignoring the previous block, which looks like was undone early, the natural progression here is 2 weeks. I know there's some discussion about 3 months or something, but if there's an arbcom case I imagine that won't make much of a difference. Stop. Talking. About. Each. Other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some, I do not bring every small thing to AN/I, but I was being followed during the IBAN and I will not back down from the available facts witch support that this was the case. It happened and if it take me being punish to set the record correct, so be it. [37] I will accept this, but to note, I was being followed. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IBAN only works if you embrace it fully. As I've told others with any kind of ban, you have to erase the user and/or the topic from your brain, as if they don't exist. Don't watch any pages involving whatever the ban topic might be, and don't go looking for violations. If you do become aware of a possible violation, don't talk about it here - send an email to your most trusted admin and ask, "What about this?" If they agree it's a violation, they'll do something about it. If they don't, then forget it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to understand that I was stalked for 6 weeks after the IBAN. This is provable and until someone acknowledges that as a fact. I will not let it go. I was stalked and the stalker confessed. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And talk page access is removed. Appeal to WP:UTRS if you think you can do it without violating your interaction ban any further. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. You should have notified someone off-wiki. Heed my advice once your block is up and your talk page access is restored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you were (in a different way) stalking each other. You really do need to totally drop this. When your block (and talk page access is "voked") is over never mention DS again, if there is an issue contact an admin (using e-mail). If this does not end you will get a permanent block (DS might, but it will get overturned, and only he will win).Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: What part of WP:INVOLVED are you so incapable of understanding at this point? I fully support the block but I do not support your continued disregard for policy, nor your continued insistence that you handle this matter, nor the removal of talk page access. What is it going to take for you to realize this? Nihlus 23:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored based on your email. Once I can be confident you'll make a similar assurance for all of your edits on every page, in every namespace I'm willing to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN has been revised

Per the discussion at ANI, the IBAN has been revised to the following:

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

Please keep in mind my clause that I have personally placed on the both of you is still active.

Both parties are also restricted from responding to discussions started by the other unless it is a complaint about them.

Good luck.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you still reach out to me when you think there is an issue as I don't want you to get blocked for making indirect mentions of DS. Your best bet is to just ignore him. Use this tool on highly active pages to make sure you are not in violation of the restriction. If you need something requested such as page protection or reporting a vandal, send it to me and I will request it for you. Please take this seriously as this is essentially the final chance you have. Thanks. Nihlus 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will work on using that tool and will do 30dys from now on. (I hope, I don't make a mistake, but work very hard on it.) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 week Block

I've blocked you for 2 weeks.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN advice

Here's some advice I would recommend going forward:

Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations. That means if you start a discussion, and the other responds, or you know there's a direct response to you, or an override of an edit you made, be it a revert or simply changing what you changed.
If you feel you are being quietly hounded or harassed, or being followed, then make a note of it, off wiki of course, saving diffs in chronological order that demonstrate the harassment. If you have collected multiple occurrences noted down, and you know it proves beyond a doubt that you are being followed, then present it to ANI. If the other admins agree, action will be taken.
Chances are other users are watching and will file IBAN violation reports for you if it's blatantly obvious that it is one. Let them do it instead. If you find no one intervening, then file the report yourself.

Per the discussion at ANI, the IBAN has been revised to the following:

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

Please keep in mind my clause that I have personally placed on the both of you is still active.

Both parties are also restricted from responding to discussions started by the other unless it is a complaint about them.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat)

IBAN

I suspect your IBAn with DS will still be in effect, I would suggest not breaching it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I have no plans to breach it or to have it's terms altered, since I never know if I will need it in the future for my protection. Thanks again, Slatersteven as your advice is always welcome. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert my edit [38] that was at 28days and apologized for the mistake. Thanks again for your warning - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Slatersteven, I was accused a few months back of sending an email as a sock, this was untrue, but I believe if anyone did, it may have been TopGun as I am not alone in having an IBAN. I can not prove it, but it is my suspicion, none the less, for there is quite a trail of destruction which is not hard to follow over the years. Have a great day and even better editing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced precence

Real life takes priority. Will be online less for about 3 months or more. Please be kind to each other, bye. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable internet access for a while. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is not the lack of reliable internet currently, it's seeing people (though few) in kilts, for no other reason than it is their daily wear. In a queue behind a man in a Stewart kilt just yesterday, not in Kansas anymore. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will be so happy to get back to regular internet service, even though it is beautiful outside, to step out is to go into a deep freeze with a biting wind that only the dog seem not to care. Hope to be back sooner than later. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The old ones would say in Gaelic, "It was so windy it would blow the horns off a rams.", but nowadays it blows out the power and the internet. Thankfully, both just came back on before it was set to get really cold. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for this edit which is a blatant violation of your TBAN of topics related to or mentioning Patriot Prayer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —CYBERPOWER ([[User talk:Chat]]) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? What did I do to violate the TBAN? I did not post on the Patriot Prayer pages, nor mention them anywhere on Wiki? @Cyberpower678: Please explain my mistake specifically so I do not make such an error again, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited the talk page of a political activist who manages Patriot Prayer. In your edit you explicitly mentioned them. That’s is also a no-no.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one I'm guessing. Arkon (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me quoting 'directly from the article'[39] My mistake that the quote mentioned PP, I only meant to include the first part about his wife. Arkon,User:Cyberpower678 Could someone please delete that part about PP from the Talk Page, I would be most appreciative of it. Thanks and I'm so sorry, that was not my intention - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not removed, I will do so as soon as I'm able and sorry cause you more work. I messed that one up when I added the quote but forgot to delete the PP part, sorry again. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: You will have to do it for me, if you don't mind. I mentioned PP by accident in quoting the article so I violated my TBAN, my mistake. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you also know why I've been shy to edit the page directly. I think the information in that article will help to fill in Joey's personal life section so there is more than just one sentence, but I don't think it will be done by me, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber asked me for a second opinion as a neutral admin on the English Wikipedia admins IRC channel, so I'm commenting because of that. Looking at your block log, you've had plenty of interaction with the Wikipedia community based sanctions system: you know how they work. You know admins construe them broadly. You have been given second chances in the past on IBAN violations. You then directly mention a topic you have been banned from on the page of a leader of the organization, where the infobox has a picture of him wearing a Patriot Prayer tshirt and says he is known for the organization. Additionally, the name "Patriot Prayer" is mentioned 7 times in the article itself (not counting the references) and his involvement with that group is clearly the focus of the article to the point where I would argue quite strongly that any edit to the page itself is a violation of your topic ban. You made this edit in the article space today as well. The reference you were moving around includes in it's first sentence Violence, of one kind or another, tends to follow Joey Gibson, a Maria Cantwell opponent and leader of the controversial Patriot Prayer group.
Given your previous block log, I think a block is justified here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, I take full responsibility for my mistake about quoting from a news article. It was my error for not editing that portion out of the quote. I have not questioned the 2wk block, but accept it. However, it I had information on that article that had nothing to do with the are of the TBAN, it had to do with Joey's person life and past to help fill in that very bare section. Cyber was fully within his rights to do what he did, though I wish I had had a chance it correct it before the block went into effect, no matter. As soon as I am able, I will reverse my error on the Talk Page and sorry to take up your time over my mistake. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Not a problem. I was just offering a second opinion as an uninvolved administrator regarding the block. Please be more careful in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the worst part of this mistake is that I was in the process of putting in a request to ask for the TBAN to be lifted, this will set that back by months. It was a mistake and a very stupid on at that. Sorry, but I only intended to get information out there for other editors to help fill in [40] and step back from the article. I edit to article was only 'spacing' as I combined the last sentence into the paragraph above so it read better about his Senatorial campaign. I had no intention of doing major edits to the page or to mention Joey's group. Sorry again, my mistake - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban amended and clarified

Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: That edit does not seem to violate this? I do not understand - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, that was a mistake and I missed it. I only meant to give personal background on Joey and I only meant to include quote about his wife, but I did not delete the rest. Sorry again and I except full responsibility for my mistake, it was unintended. My first actions will be to remove that part of the quote, when able. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was focused on the details of his recovery from crime and homelessness and as a side wanted to add that detail about his wife's name, I did not even see the PP part. It is totally my fault and should have been more careful, sorry again for this mistake and any trouble it may have caused. I will fix this blatant violation once I can edit again and I really can't say sorry enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one question, is this being done as punishment or as deterrent? - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to sanction blocks, the line between that blurs. It sort of becomes a little of both, but primarily it's because the community found your overall behavior regarding Patriot Prayer to be disruptive as to why you should stay away from the topic. So the block is in a sense a community backed block based on previous disruptive behavior as assessed by the community. I recommend filing an unblock request to have another admin look at this as I've blocked and unblocked you plenty of times already.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then User:Cyberpower678, may I ask that next time you please give me a chance to fix my mistake before blocking me. This was an error and though blatant, it was not intended. Sorry for my mistake and think about allowing someone to fix an honest error before bringing down the hammer. Thanks and sorry again for the trouble. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've conferred with other admins, and we all agree that you should be unblocked, and sternly reminded that while the mistake was honest, making it too many times reflects badly, so be careful in the future until your TBAN is rescinded.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to comment here and commend you on your civil replies in response to the block and your willingness to apologize and accept responsibility for your actions. This, underneath it all, is the kind of behavior that we should see from someone whose genuinely working on improving their behavior and who really wants to be part of the community and learn from their mistakes. I want you to know that it didn't go unnoticed and I encourage you to keep it up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to have the TBAN lifted and my stupid mistake did not help, sorry I didn't catch it. I have already corrected this error and trying hard not to make waves but to work collaboratively to improve wiki as my only focus. Sorry again. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced precence

Real life takes priority. Will be online less for about 3 months or more. Please be kind to each other, bye. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable internet access for a while. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is not the lack of reliable internet currently, it's seeing people (though few) in kilts, for no other reason than it is their daily wear. In a queue behind a man in a Stewart kilt just yesterday, not in Kansas anymore. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will be so happy to get back to regular internet service, even though it is beautiful outside, to step out is to go into a deep freeze with a biting wind that only the dog seem not to care. Hope to be back sooner than later. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The old ones would say in Gaelic, "It was so windy it would blow the horns off a rams.", but nowadays it blows out the power and the internet. Thankfully, both just came back on before it was set to get really cold. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for this edit which is a blatant violation of your TBAN of topics related to or mentioning Patriot Prayer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —CYBERPOWER ([[User talk:Chat]]) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? What did I do to violate the TBAN? I did not post on the Patriot Prayer pages, nor mention them anywhere on Wiki? @Cyberpower678: Please explain my mistake specifically so I do not make such an error again, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited the talk page of a political activist who manages Patriot Prayer. In your edit you explicitly mentioned them. That’s is also a no-no.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one I'm guessing. Arkon (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me quoting 'directly from the article'[41] My mistake that the quote mentioned PP, I only meant to include the first part about his wife. Arkon,User:Cyberpower678 Could someone please delete that part about PP from the Talk Page, I would be most appreciative of it. Thanks and I'm so sorry, that was not my intention - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not removed, I will do so as soon as I'm able and sorry cause you more work. I messed that one up when I added the quote but forgot to delete the PP part, sorry again. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: You will have to do it for me, if you don't mind. I mentioned PP by accident in quoting the article so I violated my TBAN, my mistake. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you also know why I've been shy to edit the page directly. I think the information in that article will help to fill in Joey's personal life section so there is more than just one sentence, but I don't think it will be done by me, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber asked me for a second opinion as a neutral admin on the English Wikipedia admins IRC channel, so I'm commenting because of that. Looking at your block log, you've had plenty of interaction with the Wikipedia community based sanctions system: you know how they work. You know admins construe them broadly. You have been given second chances in the past on IBAN violations. You then directly mention a topic you have been banned from on the page of a leader of the organization, where the infobox has a picture of him wearing a Patriot Prayer tshirt and says he is known for the organization. Additionally, the name "Patriot Prayer" is mentioned 7 times in the article itself (not counting the references) and his involvement with that group is clearly the focus of the article to the point where I would argue quite strongly that any edit to the page itself is a violation of your topic ban. You made this edit in the article space today as well. The reference you were moving around includes in it's first sentence Violence, of one kind or another, tends to follow Joey Gibson, a Maria Cantwell opponent and leader of the controversial Patriot Prayer group.
Given your previous block log, I think a block is justified here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, I take full responsibility for my mistake about quoting from a news article. It was my error for not editing that portion out of the quote. I have not questioned the 2wk block, but accept it. However, it I had information on that article that had nothing to do with the are of the TBAN, it had to do with Joey's person life and past to help fill in that very bare section. Cyber was fully within his rights to do what he did, though I wish I had had a chance it correct it before the block went into effect, no matter. As soon as I am able, I will reverse my error on the Talk Page and sorry to take up your time over my mistake. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Not a problem. I was just offering a second opinion as an uninvolved administrator regarding the block. Please be more careful in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the worst part of this mistake is that I was in the process of putting in a request to ask for the TBAN to be lifted, this will set that back by months. It was a mistake and a very stupid on at that. Sorry, but I only intended to get information out there for other editors to help fill in [42] and step back from the article. I edit to article was only 'spacing' as I combined the last sentence into the paragraph above so it read better about his Senatorial campaign. I had no intention of doing major edits to the page or to mention Joey's group. Sorry again, my mistake - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban amended and clarified

Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: That edit does not seem to violate this? I do not understand - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, that was a mistake and I missed it. I only meant to give personal background on Joey and I only meant to include quote about his wife, but I did not delete the rest. Sorry again and I except full responsibility for my mistake, it was unintended. My first actions will be to remove that part of the quote, when able. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was focused on the details of his recovery from crime and homelessness and as a side wanted to add that detail about his wife's name, I did not even see the PP part. It is totally my fault and should have been more careful, sorry again for this mistake and any trouble it may have caused. I will fix this blatant violation once I can edit again and I really can't say sorry enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one question, is this being done as punishment or as deterrent? - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to sanction blocks, the line between that blurs. It sort of becomes a little of both, but primarily it's because the community found your overall behavior regarding Patriot Prayer to be disruptive as to why you should stay away from the topic. So the block is in a sense a community backed block based on previous disruptive behavior as assessed by the community. I recommend filing an unblock request to have another admin look at this as I've blocked and unblocked you plenty of times already.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then User:Cyberpower678, may I ask that next time you please give me a chance to fix my mistake before blocking me. This was an error and though blatant, it was not intended. Sorry for my mistake and think about allowing someone to fix an honest error before bringing down the hammer. Thanks and sorry again for the trouble. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've conferred with other admins, and we all agree that you should be unblocked, and sternly reminded that while the mistake was honest, making it too many times reflects badly, so be careful in the future until your TBAN is rescinded.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to comment here and commend you on your civil replies in response to the block and your willingness to apologize and accept responsibility for your actions. This, underneath it all, is the kind of behavior that we should see from someone whose genuinely working on improving their behavior and who really wants to be part of the community and learn from their mistakes. I want you to know that it didn't go unnoticed and I encourage you to keep it up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to have the TBAN lifted and my stupid mistake did not help, sorry I didn't catch it. I have already corrected this error and trying hard not to make waves but to work collaboratively to improve wiki as my only focus. Sorry again. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]