User talk:Supdiop

Welcome to Supdiop's talk page

This is Supdiop's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Wikicology's RfA

Hi Supdiop.

Thank you for recently participating in Wikicology's RfA. I noticed, however, that you cited WP:NOTNOW in your oppose rationale. The essay in question is only for obviously inexperienced users who are not aware of what adminship really is, but unfortunately it is often misused. A user with several thousand edits and over a year of experience (and especially one that is nominated by an experienced user) almost certainly does not qualify for opposition under NOTNOW, and is at least worthy of some serious consideration. Please read WP:NOTNOTNOW for more information. Thank you. --Biblioworm 01:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to my talk page and telling me this. I think he doesn't have enough experience to become admin. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your blocks for vandalism and disruption earlier this month as a result of your reaction to your RfA, do you really think that slapping NOTNOW (even unlinked, saying "NOTNOW" clearly means the essay, rather than just saying "not now") onto the candidacies of others and telling them to return to RfA after "maybe a year later or even more" is fair? As for NOTNOW to "remind everyone about [your] RFA", this practice is unnecessary at best (nobody has forgotten your RfA) and vindictive at worst. Acalamari 13:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acalamari: Because I was blocked, everything I suggest to a RFA candidate (even it is a bit harsh) is unfair? In what way my blocks are related to this? I voted oppose because I felt that candidate doesn't have enough experience to become an admin. I left NOTNOW like that after removing the link because it will tell people that his RFA was similar to my RFA and they should remember what happened to my RFA. Is it wrong? I strongly felt that RFA should not pass, I agree with that. If I was taking revenge of my RFA on other candidates, why would I support Yamaguchi's RFA? I felt that Yamaguchi will become a good admin that's why. I can't prove you that I was not taking any revenge but I can tell you that I was not taking any revenge. Your logic is completely flawed. By your logic, if a failed RFA user and once blocked user opposes, they are just taking revenge and enjoying other's RFAs fail. Do you agree with that? As a bureaucrat do you discount those opposes? - Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what people are saying is, don't do that anymore. Don't !vote NOTNOW at any further RfAs. If you oppose a candidate, give a cogent well-researched analysis, with examples, instead. Or just don't !vote. If they really are dreadfully inexperienced, your oppose !vote won't be necessary at all. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to oppose for any reason you like; my point was that it looks like hypocrisy to have recently run for adminship yourself and then been blocked afterwards, to then go on to oppose someone with just as much experience as you (or more) with nothing more than (until you amended it, after being challenged) a link to a page intended for new users. You felt that you were experienced enough to become an administrator yet are now opposing people with a similar experience level to you to "remind" people of your RfA; I don't see why you feel it necessary to remind people of your candidacy - doing so is likely to cause people to think you are opposing in revenge, even though you state this isn't the case (and I do believe you).

Evidently, you were on the "winning" side with that particular RfA but I agree with Softlavender above: a detailed oppose is preferable to a link. Detailed supports are more helpful than blank supports, too.

And in answer to your last question, no, I'm not going to discount an oppose simply because the voter themselves is guilty of the same thing they're accusing the candidate of, unless the oppose has been demonstrated by other participants to be false. Acalamari 20:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You felt that you were experienced enough to become an administrator" - this is enough for me to assume that you know very very little about what happened after my RFA and why I requested for adminship.

"doing so is likely to cause people to think you are opposing in revenge" - What if another person votes oppose with the reason 'Hey look at that recent RFA, that RFA is similar to this RFA. Probably, this RFA should also be unsuccessful like that one. It is unfair if this RFA passes.' is that revenge? No? Even though, I didn't say that, I made people think that. Yeah it's different when 'I say that', but it could not only be a revenge, it could be anything else. I didn't have revenge in my mind. It might be good faith mentioning of that RFA without the intent of revenge.

Why would I be upset about my RFA which was going to fail for sure? I wanted to get blocked indefinitely because I was upset about the edit war with softlavander and also I thought I should stop editing wikipedia at that time, that's why I edited disruptively. I would take revenge on softlavander if my intentions were to take revenge. I wouldn't take revenge on other people's RFAs. I hope you'll understand what I am trying to say. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you are trying to tell us is that you are fully aware that not only was your RfA a farce but also that you are aware that you are not really qualified to be voting on any other RfAs and that although you are certainly free to oppose for any reason you like, your votes are the kind that are putting truly worthy candidate off from running for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Hi. I agree with you. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 13:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAC

Hello! Just as an FYI, when you close deletion discussions, be sure to add {{NAC}} after your decision so we know that you're not an admin. You can follow that link to get more information, and WP:PING me if you have any questions! Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will do that from next time. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly

you removed some vandalism from my talk page. This is a first for me, but as they say, "There is a first time for everything," so thank you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I usually don't patrol talk pages for vandalism. Some talk pages in my watchlist were vandalized so I looked at that ip address's contributions. Most vandals don't target talkpages, so it's uncommon. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Of The Soviet Union

Hi Sudiop; I made no contribution to the page, Hero Of The Soviet Union. In fact I have never visited that page. There must be some error. 59.101.49.97 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, Supdiop, but I've replied to this person on their talk page, explaining that the edit was probably made by a different person using the same IP address. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bilorv, I've enabled that message in my twinkle preferences. Now all my warnings will have that message. ;) - Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Could an admin who has this talk page on their watchlist please block them for either (a) pestering me, or (b) being completely clueless? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you just yet, but I am going to ask you to please recuse yourself from initiating any discussion relating to advanced permisssions, including WP:PERM and of course WP:RFA for a minimum of at least three months. And leave Floquenbeam alone please. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Anna

Hi there Supdiop.

You are facing a fork in the road, right now. A life choice. Something that you will remember forever. A good memory when you are older, or a bad one. A success or failure. I want to help you to see it.

This is a moment where you can quickly develop maturity and make good decisions, or go in the other direction. You must ask yourself what you want:

A: You go forward editing the mainspace. Walk away from all this RfA stuff, involvement in back pages, locking horns with others, the aggravation of past problems. Start anew. Be strong.

B: Persist with your past ways. End up blocked. A failure. A bad memory.

You can choose. This is an opportunity to shape your future however you wish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should pay attention to Anna's words. The community has said repeatedly that you need much more experience (years, not a month) and maturity before handling advanced user rights. But you are not paying attention and your efforts are frustrated. You made a great start working on articles and if you could continue with that for another year, perhaps voters could look past your blocks and early behavior. But that's not going to happen now, or in December or January.

I realize this isn't a pleasant conversation to have. But how you conduct yourself will determine whether you can become a productive editor or one who will face blocks of longer duration. It's up to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting people's time...

...or you will be blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supdiop, as a bureaucrat I endorse the closure of your RfA. It has no hope of succeeding and keeping it open is of no benefit to the community. I strongly suggest you take a bit of time out to think about your contributions here. At the moment, I am afraid people are fast running out of patience with you. WJBscribe (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HighInBC 00:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you a 72 hour block for being disruptive. I strongly suspect that if I had not done this another admin may have given you an indef block. You are rapidly using up the patience of the community. HighInBC 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I don't care - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floqueen should also get a block for threatening me. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone will be happy now. Good ending - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the good advice of other editors to change your ways, you have retained the attitude that has gotten you blocked on four previous occasions. It seems that you treat receiving advanced privileges as your right, even resorting to obvious mistruths in an attempt to get them, rather than something you get after earning trust and confidence in your judgement. In continuing your pursuit, you have wasted the time of many other editors and show no signs of stopping. You may of course appeal this block but reviewing admins should examine your past wildly erratic behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I don't care. I got what I wanted. You did just what I was hoping for. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy to see this, but this was a long time coming competence block. We'll tolerate a lack of competence for a long time. We'll tolerate a lack of clue for a long time. We'll tolerate a bad attitude for a long time. We'll even tolerate a bit of pointy disruption. But all of your problematic tendencies have culminated in this one moment and you've decided to harass the admin who warned that this would happen. You must have been trying for this. I don't know why else you'd put yourself into this situation. I know a failed RfA can be emotionally stressful, but there's no one but yourself to blame for attempting another one so soon. I don't know what you thought would happen. This definitely does not make everyone happy. You had a lot of people trying to help you. You received more warning than most, and you pushed it past the point of no return. You have no one but yourself to blame for this. Swarm ♠ 02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't evade this block. I did evade my October block though. My another account is User:James lujel, I created that in June. Thank you. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also signed in to and used it one more time just before filing your RFA yesterday. The level of cluelessness displayed in the last two days here is staggering. I would put it to you now that the standard offfer for blocked users is your best course of action. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I was doing was doing is unacceptable. I was addicted to Wikipedia. I had no other choice. I can't think of any other way to get out of the addiction. I tried to stop but I couldn't. You may call this lack of competence or whatever, I know what I was doing and everything went according to my plan. I wanted to get blocked indefinitely and make everyone hate me, so that I will lose interest in editing wikipedia. I have no interest in disrupting wikipedia, all I wanted was to stop editing. I know this is not a good way but I had no choice. Sorry - Supdiop (T🔹C) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You think you had "no other choice"? What about this or this or even something like this? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins usually don't block indefinitely if I request them. I want to keep an eye on my watchlist from time to time. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 20:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop the whole "everything went according to plan" bit, it is not believable. I would again suggest the standard offer, instead of wasting time in the pointless conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23

Hi Bbb23, you said I occasionally edit constructively, really? You even said I used multiple accounts to disrupt wikipedia, show me one disruptive edit from any one of my other accounts, except my last edit from User:Supdiop 2. Supdiop 2 was my alternative account. What are you trying to do? Do you have any grudge against me? I always considered you as my friend. Why are you removing comments from my talk page? - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence did you have before running CU on my account that I used another account other than Supdiop 2? I declared that Supdiop 2 is my alternative account, then why did you tag it as sock? I used James lujel to edit constructively, then why did you block it and tagged it as sockpuppet? - Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I've revoked your talk page access so that no one wastes any time here. At this point, DENY applies. We're not interested in the drama. You can appeal via UTRS.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFER

Supdiop, I was surprised to see your unblock request an ANI because I thought you really wanted to stop editing on Wikipedia and you went out of your way to get an indefinite block through your disruptive conduct and bad attitude towards other editors.

If you do want to return to editing, you've been advised to take The Standard Offer. Here it is in case you don't want to visit that page:

It's simple:
Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.

Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.

Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

Every time you are discovered socking, the clock is reset and you need to wait another six months. My advice is if you ever want to return as an editor in good standing, forget about Wikipedia and return in June 2016 and request that your block be reviewed. Any sooner than this or attempts to sock will only lead to further frustration for you. See you next year, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record a UTRS request was filed after talk page access was removed and Supdiop was advised of the standard offer then as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored

I have restored talk page access to make an unblock request. Any other use and I will remove it again. -- GB fan 20:28, 5 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I would like to thank GB fan for giving me the opportunity to request unblock. Secondly, I apologize for my behavior which led to my indefinite block, it will not repeat again. I will not create any accounts in future. I will start a new chapter in my wiki-career. I will revert vandalism, create articles, review drafts, and help new editors, if you unblock me. I will not request any advanced rights except rollback. I want to help wikipedia, that's why I am requesting unblock. I spent lot of time editing wikipedia in last 8 months. I am asking you to give me a chance so that I will continue editing wikipedia. Yes, I edited disruptively to control my addiction but I didn't think that I will get blocked for that. I was actually surprised to see that I was blocked for 72 hours. Even though, I said I don't care, I did care about it. I was later blocked indefinitely. Later Bbb23 ran cu and found my another account, James lujel, I used it to edit constructively but I evaded my October block using it, which is clearly against wikipedia policies, and I am sorry for that. Again, I won't create any other accounts and I will not edit disruptively again. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Frankly, I cannot believe the audacity of this request. Being fully aware that evading a block is against policy, you created a new account on November 30 with the sole purpose of resuming a role as a "helper" in the IRC help channel. It is so, so hard to read this request with a straight face knowing that you as recently as this week were flaunting the rules you so desperately claim to want to follow. This "addiction" will not be cured by unblocking you—please find another hobby for the next six months. — foxj 00:25, 6 December 2015 (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.

I really really want to help new editors on IRC help channel that's why I created that account. I won't create any accounts in future. Give me a last chance. Thanks- Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating another sockpuppet account less than a week ago and then having the nerve to request an unblock today, the day after it was found out and blocked, was the last straw. Your talk page access has been revoked again - make a new request at WP:UTRS in six months, and DO NOT create any more sock accounts in the meantime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

Given the continuing block evasion (via IP [1] and probably elsewhere) going on even as I type this, I think it's time for Supdiop to receive a site ban. He's been disrupting, socking, and trolling for nearly two solid months, and has repeatedly demonstrated a defiance of Wikipedia policies and ignored every warning (from the gentlest to the sternest). He has more than exhausted the community's patience. I don't know whether he's doing this in order to actually receive a site ban, but at this point, whatever the motivation, the community cannot waste any more time on him. I think he's reached WP:BMB. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock: [2]. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the community at large or arbcom can impose a full site ban. However, there is the concept of the "defacto" ban, meaning a block that basically no admin would overturn, and

I'm pretty sure we've reached that point with Supdiop, so a discussion is probably not needed, but if you insist you would need to open a discussion, I believe at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock: [3]. I think it's worth mentioning/listing the IP socks here for the benefit of any UTRS-reviewing admin. In terms of ANI/ArbCom, I personally am staying off the drama boards at present because of burnout, but if anyone starts such a thread/case it should be notified here anyway. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked a bunch of these today. Any admin who unblocks unilaterally will get a boatload of trouts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I didn't even see [4], [5], and [6]. Nice work, Neil. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think a site ban would be perfectly in order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also FWIW, Supdiop seems to have been trouble from the get-go, not just the past two months of accelerated trolling. See the repeated warnings he accumulated when he first started editing from this account at the beginning of March this year: [7]; and he quickly moved to a spree of SPEEDY-tagging stubs within minutes of their creation, even after several warnings and several agreements not to continue doing that [8]. I haven't trawled through the rest of the posts on his TP, but these early signs seem to be warnings of things that have recently escalated to all-out trolling. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is already under the de-facto site ban, and I don't see any reason to waste time in lengthily discussion that would not change anything. Anyway, the right place to propose a ban would be WP:AN, not WP:ANI (see the text at the top of WP:AN: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: [...] ban proposals [...]."). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment (a site ban discussion on this page is not appropriate): In the years I've been here, I've encountered a handful of young editors who seem to have very similar personalities - they're headstrong verging on obsessive, will not listen to what they're being told, repeatedly beg for last chances, and will promise anything if they think it will get them what they want (and they invariably fail to keep those promises). It's connected with immaturity, I'm sure, and the only solution is a lengthy separation from the project until they grow up a bit more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Supdiop, I got your email asking me "tell them not to site ban me" - and I'm replying here because I don't want to give you my email address. I cannot tell anyone not to do anything, so that's not going to happen. I must also warn you: you have been disruptive in sending appeals to multiple people's talk pages using block-evading IP addresses, so *do not* even think of doing anything similar by email - if I hear of it happening I will remove your ability to use the Wikipedia email system. What you need to do now is log out of Wikipedia and just go away and find something else to do for at least six months - and do not email me again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got a similar email, and will not be replying for the same reasons. That, and it was sent only an hour or so after this so it's kind of hard to take seriously. Please, for your own good, cut it out. Beeblebrox (talk)

Supdiop IRC with me

I just PMed at IRC with him. I urged him not to sock. He promised to wait 6 months. I said I would support his return after that time. Let's see how things go. (I asked him if it was okay to post with this information and said it was okay.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that sounds good. If Supdiop can actually prove he can keep his word by genuinely waiting and not creating any new accounts or editing logged out, I would also support an unblock after six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People.. WP:IAF. Let this be the end of it. -- œ^™ 11:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this user is socking again, under User: 117.252.254.85. When i woke up this morning, i saw on my watchlist that on Anna Frodesiak's take page that someone had reverted edits by this user, and they were about unblocking Supdiop. The potential sock has been blocked now Class455fan1 (talk to me) 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jippex aka., Supdiop in IRC has pointed out that this IP is not him. He also has added that he'd contact a checkuser about this. I guess, we could AGF awaiting further information. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice this edit: [9] and several more like it. I appears "CosmicEmperor" is annoyed that Sup is being given leniency(not sure what he means by that) and may be the one running around acting like Sup. The posts by CE follow the same pattern as the earlier posts ostensibly from Sup. HighInBC 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It now seems that he's not contacting a CU, he also adds, it is evident that someone else is doing that. (I have no personal opinions to make). Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread (opened by Biblioworm)

Supdiop has continued to sock and to contact admins. (Surprise!) After blocking the latest sock just now, Biblioworm opened a thread on ANI: [10]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

Hi. To the extent you visit this talkpage, please be aware that per community consensus here you have been banned from editing Wikipedia.

What this means (and how it is different to your previous indefinite block) includes:

Any edits you or your sockpuppets make may be immediately reverted by any editor.
There is absolutely no point in any further on-wiki appeals, or promises to create X articles or stop socking if you are unbanned. Any further appeals along these lines are very likely to be deleted without debate.

The process for appealing a ban is listed here and is essentially an email appeal to Arbcom, or an administrator who may then place the appeal before the community for discussion. There is no minimum period before an appeal can be lodged, but it is very likely that any appeal in the next twelve months will be summarily declined.

Essentially, the community patience has been exhausted and you have been asked to find a different hobby than editing Wikipedia articles. Please don't take this personally, but do please abide by it and stay away from Wikipedia, at least for the next twelve months. After that you might consider a an appeal, noting there is no guarantee that it will be granted.

It's regrettable that this has occurred. All the best for your future elsewhere than Wikipedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Orphaned non-free image File:USA Today BTTF Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:USA Today BTTF Logo.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) 02:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Supdiop/rollbackuserlist.js

User:Supdiop/rollbackuserlist.js, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supdiop/rollbackuserlist.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Supdiop/rollbackuserlist.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bobherry Talk Edits 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]