User talk:Jack4576

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (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).

Jack4576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

~~This Admin is WP:INVOLVED as me and them have a history. I would not be opposed to this block being imposed by another admin if they think such a thing is necessary.~~

INDEF is ~~also~~ an excessive sanction. I genuinely believed there was consensus, and I stopped reverting edits after a compromise position was reached. A time-limited or page-limited block would be more appropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Putting an end date on the block does nothing to guarantee that your edit warring will cease, and blocking from a specific article or page doesn't guarantee that you won't edit war on other articles or pages. I agree that this block is necessary to prevent disruption and that you haven't provided sufficient grounds to remove it yet. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (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.

Something interesting.

Jack, I know you are currently blocked and I would have sent you an email, but I didn't see an email link. Anyway, I thought you might find this project interesting: Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping. Happy reading! Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Huggums, thanks for reaching out. That’s an interesting thread. If I was unblocked i’d support the proposal. Targeted nominations are a problem on this site. On some rare occasions I think I’ve received a bit of that

I’ve made an anonymised address you’re welcome to email me on anytime; roses-realist0z@icloud.com

Hope you’ve been well. Best Jack4576 (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I sent you an email to the address listed above if it is still active. Thanks. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 08:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huggums, thank you for reaching out. It seems that the email address is no longer working

I’ve created a new alias, might I request that you forward your email to anonjack4576@icloud.com

Thanks again. Jack4576 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will do. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of La Lune (restaurant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article La Lune (restaurant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Lune (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I once again remind editors of the consensus position; that WP:AUD does not apply to prevent major news publication from supporting notability for subjects located in the city that the major news publication is headquartered.

Given the numerous reminders to editors regarding this issue, and the clear outcome of group discussions in the past, it is regrettable that some editors continue to claim that major newspapers in Melbourne cannot be used as a source for businesses located in Melbourne. This disregard of consensus ought to be addressed by the community.

In addition to being contrary to consensus, the position is self-evidently problematic. The position excludes the NYT from being a source for business subjects located in NYC; which would be an absurd result. I invite editors to reflect upon whether their interpretation of some of this site's rules are more damaging than beneficial.

We are all here to build an encyclopedia, and relying upon spurious, controversial, absurd, and nonsensical interpretations of the WP:AUD notability rule only serves to undermine and erase good-faith and quality contributions by editors across this website. Jack4576 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was late to the party. I would have voted to keep even though it appears my vote would not have mattered anyway. It passes AUD by having at least one regional or state level source to go along with the other sources. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 21:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks Huggums. Despite the presence of state & regional sources, it is too often the case that editors push forward a view that a state-level source cannot support a subject within its borders; because that subject is ‘local’ to the source.

This has caused numerous articles about subjects based in Perth, supported by The West Australian to be deleted; and the same for subjects based in Melbourne, supported by sources like The Age.

This needs to be resolved once and for all via an RfC, because there is a group of editors on this site that keep pushing for this view; despite the fact that it is a minority one. Past discussions of this rule have shown that most editors regard such an interpretation to be unworkable.

It’s frustrating as a contributor trying to add to this site, that a group of editors relies on an absurd interpretation of the AUD rule to frequently delete contributions. It is usually the same names in these discussions pushing the same absurd position.

If or when my account is unbanned at some point I hope to create an RfC to resolve this. In the meantime all I can do is watch contributions about Australian local subjects be deleted; even when those subjects are covered in the national paper of record. Jack4576 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me to the discussion when you have it. This is a request. Thanks. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 23:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Huggums, will do Jack4576 (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of La Lune restaurant.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of La Lune restaurant.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Angelica Panopoulos

The article Angelica Panopoulos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most of the sourcing, which doesn't mention her in passing, is about the subject being elected as major or of them doing standard mayor things such as making speeches. They've been a councillor for just under 4 years and were mayor for two years. They place they were a mayor of is a local government area in Melbourne which has a population of 181,725 (as at June 2018), which is not a city of at least regional prominence. They are not notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty. WP:POLOUTCOMES would suggest this article be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES is not a guideline that has been adopted by the community through consensus Jack4576 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ai sponge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ai sponge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ai sponge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Jack4576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to make a request that my account be unblocked and sanctions lifted.

I would like to resume contributing constructively to this website and creating articles.

I am happy to make a commitment to change the behaviour that led to the block, including the edit war to the Black War page that led to my permanent block. If it would assist the admin receiving this request, a conditional unblock with a page block on that page is requested.

I understand that my editing has disrupted the site in the past and I am willing to commit to a change in editing style. I have had six months to reflect and have not made any edits to the site since then. I am willing to follow rules, and have been on good behaviour the last six months; with no sockpuppeting or other disruptive editing patterns.

I humbly request that sanctions be lifted so I can resume constructive contributions in a positive way, especially regarding articles pertaining to my areas of interest.

Thank you and my sincere apologies for disruptions to the site that led to the previous sanctions imposed upon my account.

Kind regards, Jack4576

Decline reason:

You've been blocked twice (1, 2) for skirting the edge of your topic ban. You should know by now that a topic ban from AFD prevents you from commenting about AFD. That does not only mean "no commenting at AFD", it also includes talking about AFD in unrelated venues, such as your talk page. That means no commenting on AFD arguments or talking about a proposed policy concerning AFD. Given you did so while being blocked and in the past six months, I have zero confidence you would abide by a hypothetical 1RR restriction. Please come back in six months (without violating your topic ban in the interim) with an appeal that explains exactly what actions led to a block and what you will do in the future to avoid a future block. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:56, 2 December 2024 (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.

Jack4576 (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: - how do you feel about modifying this block to a partial block of Black War? PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PhilKnight: I'm not particularly persuaded by this unblock request as it is does not address in any real detail an understanding of what led to the block, and during their prior block they demonstrated a misunderstanding of the edit warring policy, making it likely they may continue to violate that policy rhrough further misunderstanding. However, if you feel they should be unblocked per Wikipedia:Standard offer I won't object, though I would suggest an indefinite 1RR restriction in lieu of a p-block as their history of edit warring is not focused on that single article. I would also note to Jack4576 that Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Jack4576 would still be in effect; they are indefinitely topic banned from WP:AFD after an ANI discussion and would need to appeal that community-imposed restriction through the community (at WP:AN). - Aoidh (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I won't unblock, and will leave the unblock request to another admin. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have just declined the unblock, but I will note for the future that Jack was also pblocked from WP: and WT: space at the time of the siteblock. I think those should be reimposed if and when Jack is unblocked. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Could I be given a shorter timeframe to further demonstrate compliance and re-apply for the unblock. Six months from today is a long time. Would three months be reasonable? Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that you have an active topic ban which you have been violating, you would need a 1RR WP:CONDUNBLOCK, and would need 2–3 pblocks (WP: and WT: space plus potentially Black War), I considered telling you that your best bet would be waiting a full year. I still don't think that would be a bad idea. Six months is the short time period. I will add that part of the WP:SO is wait six months with zero edits, and that includes no replying to comments on your talk page. I am not that strict, but I will not be the one to review your next request. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I’ll return to make another request in 6 months after demonstrating another half year of compliance with the existing blocks and bans.
  
  I look forward to hopefully resuming constructive contributions at a later date
  
  Jack4576 (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @HouseBlaster, I feel like your original decline rationale is based on a line of misinterpretations that goes for a far ways back that got started a long time ago where nobody caught it and several admins just followed suit one after the other, passing the mistakes down the line without question and without anybody noticing until now. The thing I am questioning is this idea that Jack has somehow been skirting his topic ban or "teasing the edge of it" by merely talking about policies related to deletions when those very same content deletion policies are necessary for article editing or specific content deletion discussions not related to AfD. It was and has been an absurd application of the consensus of his topic ban when there is no mention at all of there being restrictions anywhere else except AfD at WP:Editing restrictions#Jack4576 nor was there any consensus for any other restrictions anywhere else at the ANI talk. The harshest thing that was suggested for him in that talk was a topic ban from "...any and all deletion discussions whereever..." but that was found to have no consensus. [emphasis added] Looking over the block log I see that where you say Jack was blocked for teasing the edge of his topic ban, but it is really hard to determine what the block was actually mainly for since many things are mentioned and the first thing linked to is disruptive editing. Even stranger still is the fact that everything else in that particular block log seems to be things that could be clearly linked to some policy, but the part you said the block is for doesn't even seem to be too sure of itself and almost seems thrown in together with the others as an afterthought. Even the very next admin action seems to use the same boilerplate rationale as the one before it not being any more informative as to the main reason for the action other than adding a namespace block. Moving further down the log we finally get a well defined clear cut picture of this misinterpretation of the consensus clearly manifesting itself in the form of an admin violating this user's topic ban for merely making a polemic comment about deletion discussions. He didn't even participate in any deletion discussion at all. He merely expressed an opinion presumably on a user talk page. What tha?!? I think if we reconstruct Jack's past actions some of his blocks might not have occurred or might have been reversed had there been somebody there to notice these things and challenge them at the time and I also think that we would not and should not be discussing "skirting the edge of a topic ban" as a denial for block when there was never any consensus for that to begin with. Things went way off the rails here trying to get Jack on track, and I realize he has some issues to work through, but look at us so do we. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 13:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  See WP:TBAN: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase 'broadly construed'". That means that unless there is an explicit carve-out in the topic ban (and there is not), it also includes talking about AFD, including at this talk page. I will note that the topic ban is not "AFD participation", it is simply "AFD". And as I said in the unblock request, if Jack is not following their current restriction, I have zero confidence that Jack can follow an additional 1RR restriction (which would be necessary to address the chronic edit warring). Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  With all due respect, you seem to be willfully ignoring the clearly and unambiguously specified carve-out that was made in the closing statement of the ANI made by El C that struck the balance of consensus somewhere between some softer restrictions that were proposed and harder ones encompassing all deletion discussions everywhere. That appears to be fairly clear and unambiguous to me that the restrictions were not intended to be any softer, but they were also not intended to be so harsh as to include all discussions everywhere. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 18:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  (edit conflict) We can ask El C what they meant by their close, but the "harder" sanction being proposed was a ban from all deletion discussions (i.e. CFD, TFD, MFD, RFD, and FFD, in addition to AFD). See Wikipedia:Deletion discussions for the normal definition of that term on Wikipedia. A carve-out would say something like Jack4576 is topic banned from AFD, but Jack4576 is permitted to comment about AFD in other forums or Jack4576 is banned from participating at AFD, but may comment about notability in other discussions. But that is not what we have here. We have a topic ban from AFD. That is what is logged at WP:EDR#Jack4576, and that means it applies to discussing AFD and related policies in the context of AFD. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see anything anywhere at WP:TBAN saying it applies to related policies and for damn good reason. You would effectively be banning an editor from editing without actually pushing any block buttons since any related policies they needed for editing/deleting/discussing content within an article would be the same ones they would be topic banned from. It's an absurd application of the TBAN policy that I've seen far too commonly used. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  They are not forbidden from discussing WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. They are forbidden from discussing them in the context of AFD. So this paragraph in this article complies with WP:NOTEVERYTHING because xyz is fine, but "this article should not be deleted because WP:NOT says xyz" is a violation. Discussing a policy to limit AFD nominations is a violation. Discussing particular AFDs is a violation. It is perfectly possible to edit without responding to messages left on your talk page about deletion discussions, or commenting on various policy proposals which only apply to deletion.
  As I said above, unless there is a specific exemption in the ban, WP:TBAN is clear that a topic ban from AFD includes talking about anything related to AFD – including, but not limited to, deletion policies and guidelines in the context of AFD. Is there any reason why that would not include discussing things like the notability of articles which are up for deletion at AFD?
  Have you considered that a common application of the TBAN policy might be the consensus way of applying the policy? If you think that the policy is absurd or needs clarification, you are welcome to open a discussion at WT:BAN. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I have considered all that, but have you considered that when Jack commented here he was only responding to my suggested reading which was intended to be communicated as a private email between Jack and I, but there wasn't one available and that response itself was taken out of a larger context to the process of Jack and I trying to establish communication off Wiki so any perceived technical violation of his TBAN could also be considered to be an unintended consequence of this process if you have any good faith whatsoever. May I ask why you didn't choose the latter? Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 21:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I absolutely did assume both of you were acting in good faith, but trying to establish communication off of Wikipedia is not an exception to a TBAN. Banned means banned – it applies to all situations, in all contexts, regardless of the good faith of the violation, unless specified otherwise. You could've simply asked, "Hey Jack, can I email you? There is a proposal I think you would find interesting." (Of course, that would be considered WP:CANVASSing if Jack were permitted to !vote.) Jack did not need to answer your question about the proposal; they could have simply cut out the first paragraph of their response, leaving just the contact details. I think that it was a little careless on your part to essentially bait Jack into talking about a proposal concerning AFD, but your conduct is not the subject of discussion here. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, let's do talk about my conduct as well as yours and the community's because I think it is relevant here since it seems Jack is the one being penalized for our collective conduct. These discussions are always framed as if the only possible subject of the discussion just has to be the person who is blocked like no other source of the problem could possibly exist, but if all it takes is just me (or anyone else in the community) being a little careless to get jack effectively baited, then isn't that the source of a problem as well? And, doesn't the problem extend further to the community at large when you've just explained to me that the prevailing consensual norm seems to be what some people view as absurd application of policy which you even suggested be taken up at the talk page of TBAN? I mean who in heck do we think we are that Jack must be penalized for our rights to petty bickering about what technically makes a TBAN? Your position on the matter seems to be very clearly following this same type of narrative that frames things as if there can be no possible explanations other than your own which says there absolutely was a violation that occurred and easily could have been avoided if it simply had been "cut out", and you claim you are not that strict, but you have repeated the same kind of rigid rigor throughout this discussion in spite of the fact that I have presented arguments suggesting that there are other possibilities including ambiguous terms of the topic ban as well as differences of opinion on how the application of TBAN could be interpreted. Not to mention the fact that you suggested Jack should not even reply to comments on his talk page for 6 months. Not strict? So, he isn't even allowed to participate in his own unblock discussions without fear of being penalized for it according to your interpretation? Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 07:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not to mention the fact that you suggested Jack should not even reply to comments on his talk page for 6 months. See: Wikipedia:Standard offer. I know you think you are helping, but if you want to help Jack, take this to your talk page or HouseBlaster's. Stop replying here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would rather discussions relevant to sanctions upon my account, occur on my talk page, as it is the logical place for such discussions to occur. Jack4576 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Besides, point 1. under the Standard offer guidelines refers to a user not sockpuppeting or making alternative accounts to edit the English Wikipedia for Six months. It doesn't appear to be a rule about editing anywhere on Wikipedia at all.
  
  I would suspect that the phrase "English Wikipedia" as written in the rule was intended to refer to mainspace, not areas of the site like user talk pages. Such a reading is overly literal and so is pretty unintuitive. HouseBlaster's own comment above that they are "not that strict" indicates to me that they probably agree with that position. If I am wrong on this, I would welcome an Admin letting me know, and I will stop commenting completely on my talk page for the next six months in order to comply with this guideline.
  
  The "i.e." within rule 1 further indicates that this is probably a rule intended to outline that a sanctioned editor should not edit mainspace; through evasions like sockpuppeting, rather than being an issue about whether or not an editor engages in discussions on their own talk page.
  
  I haven't been blocked from my own talk page, and it would be a surprising result if replying to comments on my talk page in a manner that complies with sanctions such as community imposed TBans; would negatively affect my ability to request sanctions be removed from my account in six months time.
  
  Anyway, Sirfurboy, I'd request that you no longer comment on my talk page as your contributions here strike me as unhelpful in resolving this discussion in a reasonable fashion. Jack4576 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Huggums, Jack is responsible for his own behavior. Jack is in this situation because of their own actions. Not mine. Not yours. His own. If he violates the TBAN, that is his own fault. If you think that topic bans in general are too strongly enforced, WT:BAN is the place to change the policy. To say that differently, the community does not see the extent of topic bans as a problem. You obviously do. But you are not entitled to present your position as if it binding on me.
  You are not the problem here. You are not going to get sanctioned for your single remark almost five months ago. There is a difference between an unwise remark (which you made) and a blatant violation of a topic ban (which Jack made). What is relevant is consensus, which is that TBANs apply everywhere.
  Regarding me being strict: I do not believe I am. Requiring that someone comply with the terms of a topic ban is not being strict. With all due respect, "topic bans do not apply on the editor's talk page" is not a valid interpretation of WP:TBAN.
  The traditional standard offer means zero edits on English Wikipedia. Edits to English Wikipedia means what it sounds like: edits to English Wikipedia. Editing your talk page on the English Wikipedia counts as editing the English Wikipedia. If it only applied to mainspace, it would say so. The idea is that you appeal six months after the conclusion of your last appeal, so you are not jeopardizing your ability to participate in an appeal. What I said in full: I will add that part of the WP:SO is wait six months with zero edits, and that includes no replying to comments on your talk page. I am not that strict, but I will not be the one to review your next request. I do not require that people comply with all the terms of the standard offer. In particular, I allow some replies to comments on your talk page (provided they are not topic ban violations). I am not bound by the standard offer; it is just an essay.
  I am not going to continue talking past you, Huggums. I have commented at length here explaining my position, but I am not required to satisfy you with my answers to questions. I am required to be accountable for my actions; at this point, if you disagree with my declining this unblock request, you have my blessing to file a thread at WP:XRV so we can get consensus on this matter. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The purpose of the standard offer rule is to demonstrate that a user is capable of complying with sanctions upon their account, for a reasonable period of time. i.e. six months.
  
  I do not have any sanctions preventing me from editing my talk page, so long as those edits follow the rules. (i.e. are non-disruptive and are for a legitimate purpose, such as the discussion we are having right now)
  
  The guideline is "Wait at least six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion". The "i.e." restates that rule in different words; clarifying that the user shouldn't use another named account or IP address to evade sanctions.
  
  It seems a strange and overly literal interpretation to say that the standard offer guideline (1) means that users aren't able to use their accounts in a manner that complies with existing sanctions.
  
  Otherwise, the guideline would mean that users that are subject to partial site blocks can't apply to have those blocks removed after six months; merely because they productively edited other pages across the site.
  
  For example, if a user was TBanned from the Isreal/Palestine debate, and complied for six months; it would be a strange way to interpret WP:SO to claim that, because they were editing the page on beanie babies during the six month period, that because they made any edit to the site for that period, that the standard offer guideline doesn't apply. Jack4576 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with Jack that I thought it was an overly strict interpretation, but I will say this much for House Blaster that he still made an effort to clarify things regardless of the fact that he was saying he didn't owe me any answers and I will appreciate the fact that he made it clear there was absolutely no intention whatsoever to deprive this editor of being able to respond to their unblock request. I will also ask House Blaster and the rest of the community to please forgive my frustration in presenting this issue in a way suggesting it was a personality flaw as opposed to presenting as a more direct question. I get heted up and passionate about these issues sometimes resulting in them manifesting as getting slightly personal towards other editors in spite of my best efforts. I still have a couple of arguments that could be made, but I think I agree that both House Blaster and I have beat a dead horse for long enough in this discussion and so in regards to the offer to take the matter to another venue I have decided to respectfully decline because Jack has made it known to me that his desire is to revisit the review in 6 months when all of our perspectives are hopefully more conducive to him being unblocked. Thanks. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  In addition, I propose that if Jack has had to endure much stricter restrictions than community consensus actually required to begin with due to some weird administrative error, then some kind of reparations should be made and Jack should somehow be restored. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]