Jump to content

User talk:L235

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Blueford v. Arkansas" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 3 March 2018.
This user helped get "Lafler v. Cooper" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 12 April 2018.
This user helped get "Napue v. Illinois" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 4 September 2018.
This user helped get "Regents of University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 2 February 2018.
This user helped get "Sessions v. Dimaya" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 8 May 2018.
This user helped get "United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 1 April 2018.
This user wrote "Lafler v. Cooper" which became a good article on 3 July 2018.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:L236)


The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 5

[edit]


MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate unblock

[edit]

What is the meaning of this? I very clearly did not give my approval on this unblock. The fact that you specifically requested my input makes this all the more baffling. Why did you ask for my input just to entirely disregard my direct input? I am very not okay with this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Hey Serge. I considered and appreciated your input alongside the response of the blocked user, as provided in the unblock review process. My concluding comment, as well as the conditional unblock condition, were intended to focus on (and make sure the user understands) the concerns you raised after I pinged you, and to ensure that if any inappropriate edit arises, the user will be disallowed from editing the article with a minimal amount of fuss – without even requiring admin action. In the end though, the block appeal process is for review by uninvolved administrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you're supposed to consult with the blocking admin. What you did was not "consulting". You flat out ignored me and acted against my wishes. You didn't even attempt to engage me in discussion. This is not in fact how the unblock system is meant to function. Read the last paragraph of the very section you just linked to - unblocking admin are to take actions that shouldn't lead to WP:WW. How do you reconcile that with what you did? Concerns were not addressed. Discussions went unresolved. Multiple other editors also rejected the unblock on the same concerns I had. Yet you decide to unilaterally ignore all of that? Deeply disappointed by your judgement call here. I'm really shocked, I believed we've engaged in the past, and I had seen you as a reasonable editor. But this was not handled well at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I apologize. Clearly I misread how strong your objection was. That's on me. For what it's worth, though, I took your input quite seriously, and it's also on me that I didn't make that more clear in the thread.
If you really want to, you have my permission to reinstate the block and reopen the appeal. Removing this partial block doesn't in fact matter that much to me. I will say, this degree of response is somewhat surprising. I reduced a one-page partial block to a restriction that if anyone objects to the user's editing, the user must stop. It seemed to me to be a fairly minor action.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Or, I am also glad to self-report this to AN for community input if you prefer. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for AN if you're willing to undo your action and reopen the discussions on it.
My frustration, beyond what I outlined above, is that I don't believe that anything has changed with this editor. There was a lot of warnings and attempted guidance before I resorted to a block. A lot of refusal to use sources, a lot of WP:IDHT excuses, etc, lead us to the block. And when I asked them to demonstrate how they've added sources to other articles recently, they couldn't provide any, and appeared to be unwilling to make any new edits to prove this either. To me, it doesn't look like they're willing to edit in accordance to using sources. They're attitude appears to be that they don't need to be able to use sources to make minor adjustments, but their interest doesn't appear to be grammar or copywriting, so it's just going to become an issue again if they don't address it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]