User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2023 1

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Bigdelboy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jo Boyce

Hello, Djm-leighpark. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jo Boyce".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:William Creuze

Hello, Djm-leighpark. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "William Creuze".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #70412

is closed. @HJ Mitchell:, user has left you a bequest. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #73102

is convincing enough that I'd like to restore TPA. Don't recall if there is a CBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@El C: What say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a check user? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#User:Djm-leighpark bullying seems to be the ANI that resulted in the block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Restoring TPA con permiso El C. Noting El C wishes to not be pinged. Djm-leighpark, please do not ping El C or anyone else for that matter to your talk page. This will likely need to go to the Admin's Notice Board. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou Deepfriedokra. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 22:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Declaration of alternative accounts

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (main enWP account)
• DeirgeDel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (formerly Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga and now my main non-enWP account)
• Bigdelboy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Djm-mobile (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• DeirgeBot (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 22:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Downsizing (property) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Downsizing (property) 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/Downsizing (property) 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.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: I AGF you did not mean it but and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. is simply not true and mentally stressing for me. I can neither contribute to that discussion not attempt to improve the article. As a blocked user I am unable to contribute to that discussion. I will confess that that I have failed to expand that article as I would like, and that the late DGG seemed to see some potential in it and I somewhat feel I have let him down. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 04:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not realise that you can't edit at the moment. The above notice has been placed automatically by Twinkle, hope you will forgive me for not editing it. That said, I still don't see how an article about a common term (moving to a smaller/larger house) could meaningfully stand there as an independent entry in an encyclopaedia, and it seems a few editors agree with me.

I'm not sure about what the late DGG saw. Just I know that one doesn't delete stubs created barely four hours earlier, as one assumes that the creator continues working to expand the article. Which hasn't really happened – you added a total of four sentences over the following fortnight, in November 2021,[1] and nothing since. So, today it's still a six-sentence stub.

If it gets deleted – which in its current form I expect it to be – you can always try WP:REFUND when you are able to edit. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

A very diplomatic answer indeed but given you PRODed the article on 7 May 20233 and it was dePRODed on 12 May 2023 I am somewhat surprised you waited until 9 June 2023 during my unblock request to trigger the AfD ... it does not really match well with the statement I did not realise that you can't edit at the moment but I accept there is so much to look at on a busy page and I AGF these things can be missed. Best wishes. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 10:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that you seem to believe that everyone's editing is centred on you. Actually, my nomination was triggered by SnowFire's edit[2] which brought the article to the top of my watchlist. But obviously you're free to believe in conspiracies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: There's a high probability SnowFire's edit due to tracking me .. which is fair enough. And you've given an excellent answer here which does you credit. I'm waiting for to vote Transwiki to Wikibooks or somewhere ... and then I shall laugh my socks off. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Lorcán Ó Treasaigh

@Liz: / @Explicit:: I'd be really grateful if you could place the references from that draft here to help me possibly create an article for Lorcán, a famed Gaeige speaker, on the :ga Wikipedia. I don't think I had that stub to a state sufficient for mainspace here but the references might make possible for the :ga wiki. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archiver set from 2400 to 800

I have always kept my talk page archiving to what I believed was a reasonably long length when I was able to contribute, which was over 3 months which was in the help of transparency. As a blocked user I was subject to content that remained in my face for a whole 3 months that I could do nothing about. I used to maintain a shedload of maybe 50 articles in draft. They were in draft to make them available for people to collaborate on. Some were a mere seed on an idea for a new article. Some were one RS short of mainspace, the odd one or two were sufficiently sourced but awaiting improved spelling and grammar checks prior to mainspace. The problem is the templated response of a speedy deletion which very loosely says: "I just deleted your contribution ... happy editing ...". I question if the template writers have any empathy or are they complete sadists? Victor Meldrew moment over. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 07:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

unblock request 28 May 2023

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).

Djm-leighpark/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing merited a block because I was incorrect to challenge an administrator as I did following block following the 16 April 2022 ANI; even if I felt convinced I had due cause. The fact this arose out of harassment by a block-evading sock is in many ways irrelevant - I accept I needed to maintain better control even in this and other difficult situations and I had overly-harassed the sock myself in that case before the sockpuppetry was known. I acknowledge with shame some of my earlier interactions with administrators (and others) in some pressure situations: most especially in some cases where I was totally wrong. I also need to avoid the use of slang, as identified in of one (or more) of my blocks. I will focus in the future to ensure problems are raised calmly through the proper channels and processes and avoid BATTLEGROUND and CIR. For constructive edits on the English Wikipedia I would expect to be improving a range of articles though I regard my particular areas of interest are Irish Railway History, some biographies (mostly non-blp e.g. engineers and whatever the BBC news website throws up), local/Irish settlement articles, and local/Irish river systems. In particular I am keen to improve article sourcing and have been accumulating books and and identifying books online for this purpose. I would resume doing anti-vandal work etc. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal I (as DeirgeDel) expect to continue activity on Wikidata, Commons, enWQ and gaWP but would likely avoid :simpleWP as too difficult! If possible I would like to request a Standard Offer please. Thankyou in anticipation and feel free to ask any specific questions. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC) : My alternate accounts :DeirgeDel, Bigdelboy, Djm-mobile, DeirgeBot

Decline reason:

As per this, your unblock request was unsuccessful. You are now considered banned by the community and furthermore, have lost access to your talk page. This is not appealable until six months have passed since your last appeal. Right now, that makes the earliest appeal date 2023-12-14, but note that other admins strongly indicated you wait until at least 2024. Yamla (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

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 can carry this over to AN, if you'd like. Is this unblock request what you'd like to be posted? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity:: That would be fantastic, I confess to being a little frustrated seeing it sitting here stalled and nothing happening and wondering what and when will something happen next, its been a little mentally stressing. I think carry over the request warts and all as it is to AN and hopefully I can address any questions asked of me to people's satisfaction. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_request_for_Djm-leighpark. Please ping me if you'd like anything else copied over. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I seen @SnowFire:'s comment at AN. To context the situation to my best good faith recollection, and I stand to be corrected, issues generally arose around the Overwriting (prose) AFD (A BOLD creation which really help bring the useful DAB into order in my opinion), Overwriting (computer science) AFD, and the Overwrite/Overwriting DAB (which needs improvement). I suspect I may have upset SnowFire at Talk:Overwriting (computer science) and have vague recollections (quite very possibly inaccurate) of a move discussion raised in parallel with the AfD. I certainly recall having a discussion with SnowFire that would have left them likely feeling very angry so an apology is probably in order for that. When making my unblock request I have already said "I acknowledge with shame some of my earlier interactions with administrators (and others) in some pressure situations"; there will be more than SnowFire in those others. However I am concerned with advice that I should avoid collaberation and anti-vandal work. I'll be open with the community that DeirgeDel is now my main non-enWP account and if you need to be giving that no collaberation advice here then it probably also to be supplied to sister project [Wikiquote] also. You'll find some frank discussions there but also some very excellent support for newbies in an environment beset with block-evading socks at times. A new article restriction would seem harsh and if that is what is required so be it: AfC is an alternative but I have had two very horrendous AfC experiences; albeit I am very supportive of the AfC and NPP system. I think my last new article on the English Wikipedia was Rolls-Royce SMR which really merged content from three others articles to upgrade a re-direct; SnowFire's requested restriction might prevent me from creating anything like that again. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire:: I see some good faith issues with your response at 15:07, 10 June 2023; especially about not collaberating. I think I'm correct in saying Overwriting (computer science) was an established article (not mine) and I believe some say PRODing long established articles is not best practice. I dePRODed it as I was considering a WP:HEY but ultimately decided there were too many issues. I think the setup of Overwriting/Overwriting as a DAB page which could also point to wikt worked really well. But a DAB page needs 3 articles to point to and my article Overwriting (prose) was a BOLD attempt to support the DAB with a third option. I was really frustrated at merge to Talk:Verbosity#Merger proposal 2022 with rational including That article was created in 2019 by an editor since banned for CIR. To be very clear I'd say any use of CIR likely puts mental stress on the target person and the CIR essay cautions very carefully on how it must be carefully used. Technically I'm not banned albeit I've got a pretty fair idea where you likely got that idea from, some :en admins might say banned/indef blocked what's the difference, a person of standing from another wiki has said getting banned is pretty difficult unless one is doing some serious socking. I read my rules of engagement here at #UTRS appeal #73102 meaning I cannot really discuss the admin you mentioned so I'm recusing from that. You mention the Monisha Shah article. It would take a while to fully appreciate its journey from November 2021 DRV to mainspace but I choose the AfC route per DRV closer guidance. It sat at AfC for 3 months with one challenge at the start which I felt I addressed. Not an AfC comment in the three months. Unfortunately the case was given high visibility in a Signpost Newsletter which may be how Sock Polycarp to it. Polycarp insisting to place a full data of birth D/M/Y led me to point them to BLPN where rather than presenting a generic question maid sure Shah's full DOB details were splattered all over BLPN. With some detailed research Shahs full DOB was determined to be widely enough published and could be left in the article. I recall someone then raising a "PROCEDURAL VFD" (avoiding obligation to BEFORE) and I don't think anyone bothered to ask the AFC reviewer. I recall Polycarp scoffing at me for helping expose 2 sockpuppets. The conduct and allegations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination) were in my opinion a disgrace, and allegations of subversion totally uncalled for. In the middle of this we had to go away to attend a funeral and there were difficult family circumstances. I had requested an admin for a self-block to ensure I could attend that funeral without my wikipedia rage, it was suggested I check admins who could block and I went an admin who has a clue and is not a jerk but the conditions were too hard and I was time crunched so I blanked an admin page to get the block for the benefit of my family. That actually went fairly well and the short story is I took unblock particularly to add India delsort to the AFD as I had become aware it was missing.I was dissappointed with the close but went away and editted something else. An admin welcomed me back on my talk page and I put a reply saying I was doing some gentle editing. Polycarp then began harrassing me about my relationship with Shah and that is where I lost it and used strong terms to get off my case. On the day before I was blocked Polycarp continued on the talk page of another user and that is when I decided enough was enough and took the matter to AN where bloodhounds enjoyed a BOOMERANG and Polycarp was allowed to scoff at me exposing sockpuppets and I was prevented from replying. IT completed a day where I had to pick up a relatives dirty clothes from a hospital, those clothes having been exposed to Norovirus and Covid-19. I have to be very careful about some points I'd like to make here due to OUTING and possible need to suppress information. I apologise for not draft reading this but it may explain some of the events around April 2022 a little better. Its late and I'm not draft reading this as I need to get this out of my head and to move on. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware some may need to see how well I have coping with some difficult conflicts. Please be aware I now use DeirgeDel as my main account. en.Wikiquote sees me in a lot of action amongst the socks and newbies. You'll find the odd thing I do there as not perfect but some fantastically good stuff as well. I do a fair bit on Wikidata and I suppose there's the "battle for P7859" ... which is not great but I'd like to think I am making a positive impact and not out of control. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Spicy: I appreciate your comment at Special:Diff/1159565956 and appreciate it was a ramble but I was not prepared to go through Sunday thinking of the best way of covering the background due to mental impact, and that was one way of setting a background scene. @SnowFire: has covered multiple points in their good faith lecture and has also made good faith mistakes and I am going tobring up the matter of what I am fully entitled to demand is a good faith but technically very serious erroneous allegation by SnowFire.

• SnowFire claimed I wrote the "Overwriting (computer science) or something" That "Something" was "Overwriting (prose)" and it is difficult to understand how SnowFire did not know that as they proposed and executed a merge to Sepcial:Diff/1105849887. The key point is the flase allegation "That article was created in 2019 by an editor since banned for CIR." These is great onus on using the CIR essay with care and here it was not as I was not banned but indef'd block'ed any I am very fully entitled to claim a difference. -- 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• The is also the statement in the SnowFire lecture to "trust an admin." I think a lot of people here would agree there are admins (andoversighters) we generally trust and some we do not "trust" quick so much. I'll give a specific example. The was an admin who did tremendous work as CSD deletions but he got fet some inappropriate CSD's by some enthusiastic newbies and didn't manage to sift geniunine and appropriate appeals from deluge of abuse and insults. I didn't "trust" his and took him to ANI for TROUTing, maybe a couple of times. Unforturnately he ended up at Arbcom and was desysoped. I only discovered after the event and would have liked to offered more in his defence if possible. But I'd also like to say do listen to admins and other experienced editors and I do learn a lot from them. I may choose not to act on advice. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• One key point in the the incident which mitigates in my favour is following the 2nd Shah AFD I had walked away from that and indicated I was editing elsewhere to an admin who had welcomed me back. eing dragged back into that incident by the sock demanding to know my relationships with people caused me to use "intercourse" (a somewhat out of use word for communication/connection) rather the word communication. There is a requirement to raise a COIN to determine if any COI's were involved. I should have simply said "Please Raise a coin and I'll be happy to answer there" -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Request: I respective request people make comments and suggests disclose any significant problematic interactions with me during if they comment at the weekend as it may influence the situation. This in particular relates to the Shat AFD/DRV and noticeboard discussions and linking or use of external sites such in particular Wikipediocracy. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 12:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• My connections (or not) with UK Mediawiki for COI purposes. (Briefly) I am not a UK Wikimedia member. I had attended two or three meetings UK Wikimedia virtual meetings prior to 25 November 2021 to discovered the Shah AfD under discussion which was soon to end. I enquired about it as it had a connection to another article I had created. I left shortly afterwards for an IRRS zoom presentation/meeting from an author from TCD. I was actually "on the road" with a non-optimal output and especially because of significant hacking of the article by a non-supporter made it almost impossible to follow so I choose to place a *keep vote with weak rationale to try to evoke a re-list; I couldn't get a WP:THREE together at that point. I found Shah too difficult to progress at that point and wrote Gillian Peele instead. I attended SparQL/Wikidata event in August 2022 ? and I've been to the Portsmouth/3 meeting. I consider my to have acted "lone wolf" in the Shah matter without incentivisation from anyone else. I've also had some contact over WLM and a little with Wikimedia Ireland primarily on same matter. There was another contact on 1 April 2022 and I'll detail that if needed. I had also gained consensus for the removal of the COI tag on Wikimedia UK which someone finally removed on 30 April 2023. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 13:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I had see from recent comments that repeated CIR comments have including the false allegation have led me into an argument situation for which I apologise but their needs to be I think some VERY careful consideration of the ADMINCOND and ADMINACCT which led to this situation. The rift and hostility between the English Wikipedia and WMF also need to be reviewed. The Blocking admins and cabal disruption to an ANI I seriously took to ANI, easily remembered by their warrior at the top of the talk page, was an incitement to BATTLEGROUND.

  I'll be dead before I'm back on the English Wikipedia. And its very difficult not to block evaders they are better off trying to get unblocked before trying to get through the unblock system. I may not be perfect but the English Wikipedia Community probably needs to look at itself very closely. Just to confirm for safety reasons I am not about to go and jump of the A3(m) bridge, I'll be back trying to talk nicely to newbies on Wikiquote. Thankyou.-- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 13:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The rules of engagement her made it with what I was permitted to place on my talk page, plus some matters which stray into OUTING and SUPPRESSION territory made any non-moderated discussion almost doomed from the start. But from once Shah is brought into the frame and people join the discussion with only vaguewave comments over a period without detail look into the event and with the INVOLVEMENTS not being properly declared. Unlike admins I not going to throw out the towel this way and there might be questions of the Shah AfD's closers recent currency before coming to this unblock request and what recent productive contributions they have been making to the Wikipedia? Albeit I have some sympathy to the that particular situation as was initiated by something unfortunate. But it may cause the asking of the question is there one rule for admins and one for other users on the English Wikipedia? -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Pragmatically this will likely end in a block. I'd like to thank @Ingenuity: for giving me the opportunity to present and AN and suggest no blame on this outcome should be placed on them. One fascinating fact is that was amazingly brought to his RFA was that he was the AfC reviewer heavily criticized at Shah Afd2 for bringing the Shah article to mainspace. A little less monkeying around at RFA's is perhaps called for. That is the sort of insightful question often asked at RFA's and the answer would have been interesting. A missed opportunity perhaps. I have been guilty of playing with votes and RFA's and I've pretty well scrapped the habit. I think I've done it once on Wikiquote. I did recuse on another one after the creator had harrassed me and in my opinion that lead to a delete rather than a no-consensus keep. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 15:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@@Star Mississippi:: I object to you shouting ZERO responsibility. I have obviously claimed at least some some responsibility. But this is all hot air discussions. I feel like I've had the goodness kicked out of me apologising. Are there admins here of the mentality that if we can turn a user into a block-evading sock we can have kudos every time we catch them socking? Is it actually better to work with someone on the inside than deal with other consequences. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@@Guerillero P:In terms of accounts its important to understand the reasons for having different accounts. It is my absolute intention to cease use of Djm-leighpark and switch to using DeirgeDel as soon as possible, but that is not possible why this block exists. DeirgeBot is for Bots (albeit I've lost the password and email used). Djm-mobile is for insecure sites like the public library. I was done no favours in the creation of the talk page of an alternate account so I could make an appeal onl to simply forget to declare all my alternate accounts. I was block for well over 6 months for that and slang use preventing request of a standard offer after 6 months while is the generally accepted norm. Plus fighting my way through BARFs and security issues in the UTRS system and working with the administrators of those systems to fix them. Bigdelboy is used for AWB as I prefer to keep that separate from by normal edits for batch works and in case I make a mistake. I'll consider some renames on these if it helps. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Outside observation

@Djm-leighpark: I happened to still have your talk page on my watch list so I became aware of your TPA restoration and subsequent request for an unblock (which I have been following). We only had minor interaction a year or so ago, so I don't know much around the background of your original block. If I can give you one bit of advice, it would be to calm down and pause. It seems the original issues centered around WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE and your responses here are only re-enforcing the view that you maintain the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Trey Maturin made a fair point on the AN thread - think before you post, even if you write a response and delete 90% of it. I think, ironically, you'd be in a slightly stronger position had you not written any of the above. If you can put your point across in a single sentence that is CONCISE and coherent, do it; if you can't, don't respond. You're digging a hole for yourself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle:: Thankyou for the consideration. I have actually been WikiGnoming at Wikiquote quite calmly as I've said all I really need to say here. I have something quite urgent to deal at this moment. I can switch from flying off the handle to being quite calm very rapidly. But thankyou for the kind words. It would be nice to have dealt with this all in a moderated independent former with a strong arbitor and I'd have been back editing here in no time. Thanks -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 17:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

SnowFire last word

@SnowFire:}: You still do not seem to understand I object to being labelled as banned when I was was indef blocked. I have reasonable certainty how you came to that mistake but it is a technically incorrect thing to do and upset me and I object to that. If you had correctly called by blocked I would have no objection. I realise the username situation is annoying but I am making it absolutely clear who I am/was and who I now operated under. I need to do that to avoid any risk of abusing multiple accounts. When I was indefinely blocked for over 7 months one reason for appeal being rejected was I had not declared multiple accounts and one reason I said fair enough to that complaint was I was about to say I'd declared the multiple accounts on Djm-mobile's user page ... and then discovered I hadn't. While that was a slip up and many admins would's have trouted me by the mistake it was part of the reason my original blocking admin imposed a 7 month+ UTRS ban. It is was very difficult to track that ban and afte r6 months I used the form to raise a UTRS appeal and it barf'd due to a technical error. 3 days later I again filled out the UTRS form only after taking the time to prepare an appeal to discover I was blocked after 6 months. After some digging around the block logs which I had a little familiarity with (and a lot of people wouldn;t) I discovered the block existed for another month or more. The sytem had put me through the stress of waste of time and energy or preparing 2 appeals only at the end to see them rejected. The continual hanging around the UTRS system waiting for something to happen, or not, is very poor. ADMINACCT indicates matters should be dealt with promptly. The general principle is set SLA's and try to stick to them. I appreciate there is a backlog but there is also sense in managing systems efficiently and in a way that lets everyone know where they are. UTRS appeals should not be left hanging for months on end. In terms of the misakes that can happen I used Bigdelboy to do some AWB stuff related to P7869/P1032 and {{authority control}} and was a bit horrified to notice the user page was not in proper order for account declarations. My wikiquote transition from Djm-leighpark to DeirgeDel actually went very well given the number of AN Village Pump, deletion discussions I was involved in and its now very rare I need to point out my earlier username. On the English Wikipedia the situation is much stricter and there could be traps I could easily fall into and that is one reason the Djm-leighpark is currently park of my signature and I think I've already set for DeirgeDel. DeirgeDel (or Deirge O'....) only got set up after an IP gravedanced after my block and I got ping'd 57 times and I thought I simply work on :ga on a new user and not get disturbed. I didn't think about turning of notafications from another Wiki in my preferences. Oh I've rambled on a lot but I feel the need to address a Talmud related page and related book(s) on Wikiquote and Wikidata. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Yesterday was not the day to miss my prescribed medication. I realise I have a severe problem with Shah AfD2 and likely will continue to do so under the conduct and the closure of that AfD is fully addressed, not least of which that I belied I have a strong case that the closer was INVOLVED. To think I followed advice to walk away for a bit and not raising a DRV immediately but think about it is a decisions I will rue for the rest of my life. I think admin blocked me knows I have grievances with him in terms of game playing. My issues relate in particular to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal_attack_by_Achezetthis ANI thread and the gun video played by a person with this gueriila image at the top of my talk page. There may be danger that video might cause me to have a psycotic event at some point I may probably have to seek counselling. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully accept I should have re-read and re-read again my own unlock appeal and contacted Arbcom or Oversight as one or two elements of concern could not have been made public. I was about to write a mitigating circumstance but I need to fully this comment. As such I am certainly not fit to operate on the english Wikipedia as the more even for instance with a non-BLP restriction and new/returning article AfC-only restriction. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: Thankyou for taking the time to make this consideration. As a contributor who collects book sources and is trying to keep sources out on library zone a block has a financial consideration. I have a consideration for me there is a percentage chance even a 6 month block is a lifelong block ... whether that is a double-digit percentage is a matter of conjecture. I also found even problems cateloging Wiki loves movement images last year either because they drew me back to articles I'd editing or because they pointed me at articles that desperately needed expansion or sourcing that I could contribute to. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pig and duck

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:: Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. While this was intended in humour @Hog Farm: felt concerned o contact me over this as it mentally disturbed them. I can't recall what answer I gave then but I fear it was inadequate. Ultimately from my current viewpoint I am less concerned about the gibberish than the fact it disturbed the candidate. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• In non-slang that vote would have read something like: (To be completed later as received good faith notification El C has claimed my TPA was again rescinded and I also note that message was rescinded). -- 05:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm now really rushing against time with this was the claim should have read ... Your AfD nomination for the Duck pannier tank Engine has resulted in that article being deleted. I am personality not happy about that and I am going to give you a (weak oppose) instead of a support vote (although you fully deserve to be an admin and I'm actually going to have to set serious should you fall towards 80% and likely have to switch to support). The reference to the pig-racing is merely intended as a humorous suggestion that perhaps someone with a username like "Hog Farm" (Hog=Pig) might have a useful input to. It's not inteneded as an insult. Actually I'm rather fond of and have a slight interest in pig animals (can make a great pet and are quite intelligent) and ducks. (And not from just a culinary point of view). -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In a more serious note I was concerned how piecemeal/mass deletions were carried out without giving the Thomas the Tank Engine project real chance to attempt a controlled consolidation. I also had a concern about the concept of pushing towards the advert-funded fandom site instead. But I must say the sourcing and verificability on the Thomas the Tank Engine articles was not at all good. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

To be very clear I have moved to a position of suggesting totally banning of humour and joking on RFA's as the issue can just escalate -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

El C

@El C:: I observe you have edited the AN thread, albeit in good faith. The atmosphere between us is toxic but an administrator I respect has suggested me need to talk. It is unlikely to be beneficial to the project unless that occurs in a moderated fashion possible in private because third party BLP. The video you jokingly presented me with in the earlier ANI thread has affected me. Blocking a person and refusing him the right to interact with a person who was mocking them might at least been worthy of an apology for that situation retrospectively might have gone at least a way to easing that from my account. But the totality of your actions may be read that you were desperate to keep me censored and shut up at any cost. You do great work especially in the area of managing things relating to sex offenders etc. You may have felt that I had used BLP/BLPTALK to prevent disclosure of sexual offenders. I am only prepared to discuss that in non public forum but it is just possible that may have influenced you thinking. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 07:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

unblock request 28 May 2023

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).

Djm-leighpark/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing merited a block because I was incorrect to challenge an administrator as I did following block following the 16 April 2022 ANI; even if I felt convinced I had due cause. The fact this arose out of harassment by a block-evading sock is in many ways irrelevant - I accept I needed to maintain better control even in this and other difficult situations and I had overly-harassed the sock myself in that case before the sockpuppetry was known. I acknowledge with shame some of my earlier interactions with administrators (and others) in some pressure situations: most especially in some cases where I was totally wrong. I also need to avoid the use of slang, as identified in of one (or more) of my blocks. I will focus in the future to ensure problems are raised calmly through the proper channels and processes and avoid BATTLEGROUND and CIR. For constructive edits on the English Wikipedia I would expect to be improving a range of articles though I regard my particular areas of interest are Irish Railway History, some biographies (mostly non-blp e.g. engineers and whatever the BBC news website throws up), local/Irish settlement articles, and local/Irish river systems. In particular I am keen to improve article sourcing and have been accumulating books and and identifying books online for this purpose. I would resume doing anti-vandal work etc. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal I (as DeirgeDel) expect to continue activity on Wikidata, Commons, enWQ and gaWP but would likely avoid :simpleWP as too difficult! If possible I would like to request a Standard Offer please. Thankyou in anticipation and feel free to ask any specific questions. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC) : My alternate accounts :DeirgeDel, Bigdelboy, Djm-mobile, DeirgeBot

Decline reason:

As per this, your unblock request was unsuccessful. You are now considered banned by the community and furthermore, have lost access to your talk page. This is not appealable until six months have passed since your last appeal. Right now, that makes the earliest appeal date 2023-12-14, but note that other admins strongly indicated you wait until at least 2024. Yamla (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

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 can carry this over to AN, if you'd like. Is this unblock request what you'd like to be posted? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity:: That would be fantastic, I confess to being a little frustrated seeing it sitting here stalled and nothing happening and wondering what and when will something happen next, its been a little mentally stressing. I think carry over the request warts and all as it is to AN and hopefully I can address any questions asked of me to people's satisfaction. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_request_for_Djm-leighpark. Please ping me if you'd like anything else copied over. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I seen @SnowFire:'s comment at AN. To context the situation to my best good faith recollection, and I stand to be corrected, issues generally arose around the Overwriting (prose) AFD (A BOLD creation which really help bring the useful DAB into order in my opinion), Overwriting (computer science) AFD, and the Overwrite/Overwriting DAB (which needs improvement). I suspect I may have upset SnowFire at Talk:Overwriting (computer science) and have vague recollections (quite very possibly inaccurate) of a move discussion raised in parallel with the AfD. I certainly recall having a discussion with SnowFire that would have left them likely feeling very angry so an apology is probably in order for that. When making my unblock request I have already said "I acknowledge with shame some of my earlier interactions with administrators (and others) in some pressure situations"; there will be more than SnowFire in those others. However I am concerned with advice that I should avoid collaberation and anti-vandal work. I'll be open with the community that DeirgeDel is now my main non-enWP account and if you need to be giving that no collaberation advice here then it probably also to be supplied to sister project [Wikiquote] also. You'll find some frank discussions there but also some very excellent support for newbies in an environment beset with block-evading socks at times. A new article restriction would seem harsh and if that is what is required so be it: AfC is an alternative but I have had two very horrendous AfC experiences; albeit I am very supportive of the AfC and NPP system. I think my last new article on the English Wikipedia was Rolls-Royce SMR which really merged content from three others articles to upgrade a re-direct; SnowFire's requested restriction might prevent me from creating anything like that again. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire:: I see some good faith issues with your response at 15:07, 10 June 2023; especially about not collaberating. I think I'm correct in saying Overwriting (computer science) was an established article (not mine) and I believe some say PRODing long established articles is not best practice. I dePRODed it as I was considering a WP:HEY but ultimately decided there were too many issues. I think the setup of Overwriting/Overwriting as a DAB page which could also point to wikt worked really well. But a DAB page needs 3 articles to point to and my article Overwriting (prose) was a BOLD attempt to support the DAB with a third option. I was really frustrated at merge to Talk:Verbosity#Merger proposal 2022 with rational including That article was created in 2019 by an editor since banned for CIR. To be very clear I'd say any use of CIR likely puts mental stress on the target person and the CIR essay cautions very carefully on how it must be carefully used. Technically I'm not banned albeit I've got a pretty fair idea where you likely got that idea from, some :en admins might say banned/indef blocked what's the difference, a person of standing from another wiki has said getting banned is pretty difficult unless one is doing some serious socking. I read my rules of engagement here at #UTRS appeal #73102 meaning I cannot really discuss the admin you mentioned so I'm recusing from that. You mention the Monisha Shah article. It would take a while to fully appreciate its journey from November 2021 DRV to mainspace but I choose the AfC route per DRV closer guidance. It sat at AfC for 3 months with one challenge at the start which I felt I addressed. Not an AfC comment in the three months. Unfortunately the case was given high visibility in a Signpost Newsletter which may be how Sock Polycarp to it. Polycarp insisting to place a full data of birth D/M/Y led me to point them to BLPN where rather than presenting a generic question maid sure Shah's full DOB details were splattered all over BLPN. With some detailed research Shahs full DOB was determined to be widely enough published and could be left in the article. I recall someone then raising a "PROCEDURAL VFD" (avoiding obligation to BEFORE) and I don't think anyone bothered to ask the AFC reviewer. I recall Polycarp scoffing at me for helping expose 2 sockpuppets. The conduct and allegations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination) were in my opinion a disgrace, and allegations of subversion totally uncalled for. In the middle of this we had to go away to attend a funeral and there were difficult family circumstances. I had requested an admin for a self-block to ensure I could attend that funeral without my wikipedia rage, it was suggested I check admins who could block and I went an admin who has a clue and is not a jerk but the conditions were too hard and I was time crunched so I blanked an admin page to get the block for the benefit of my family. That actually went fairly well and the short story is I took unblock particularly to add India delsort to the AFD as I had become aware it was missing.I was dissappointed with the close but went away and editted something else. An admin welcomed me back on my talk page and I put a reply saying I was doing some gentle editing. Polycarp then began harrassing me about my relationship with Shah and that is where I lost it and used strong terms to get off my case. On the day before I was blocked Polycarp continued on the talk page of another user and that is when I decided enough was enough and took the matter to AN where bloodhounds enjoyed a BOOMERANG and Polycarp was allowed to scoff at me exposing sockpuppets and I was prevented from replying. IT completed a day where I had to pick up a relatives dirty clothes from a hospital, those clothes having been exposed to Norovirus and Covid-19. I have to be very careful about some points I'd like to make here due to OUTING and possible need to suppress information. I apologise for not draft reading this but it may explain some of the events around April 2022 a little better. Its late and I'm not draft reading this as I need to get this out of my head and to move on. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware some may need to see how well I have coping with some difficult conflicts. Please be aware I now use DeirgeDel as my main account. en.Wikiquote sees me in a lot of action amongst the socks and newbies. You'll find the odd thing I do there as not perfect but some fantastically good stuff as well. I do a fair bit on Wikidata and I suppose there's the "battle for P7859" ... which is not great but I'd like to think I am making a positive impact and not out of control. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Spicy: I appreciate your comment at Special:Diff/1159565956 and appreciate it was a ramble but I was not prepared to go through Sunday thinking of the best way of covering the background due to mental impact, and that was one way of setting a background scene. @SnowFire: has covered multiple points in their good faith lecture and has also made good faith mistakes and I am going tobring up the matter of what I am fully entitled to demand is a good faith but technically very serious erroneous allegation by SnowFire.

• SnowFire claimed I wrote the "Overwriting (computer science) or something" That "Something" was "Overwriting (prose)" and it is difficult to understand how SnowFire did not know that as they proposed and executed a merge to Sepcial:Diff/1105849887. The key point is the flase allegation "That article was created in 2019 by an editor since banned for CIR." These is great onus on using the CIR essay with care and here it was not as I was not banned but indef'd block'ed any I am very fully entitled to claim a difference. -- 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• The is also the statement in the SnowFire lecture to "trust an admin." I think a lot of people here would agree there are admins (andoversighters) we generally trust and some we do not "trust" quick so much. I'll give a specific example. The was an admin who did tremendous work as CSD deletions but he got fet some inappropriate CSD's by some enthusiastic newbies and didn't manage to sift geniunine and appropriate appeals from deluge of abuse and insults. I didn't "trust" his and took him to ANI for TROUTing, maybe a couple of times. Unforturnately he ended up at Arbcom and was desysoped. I only discovered after the event and would have liked to offered more in his defence if possible. But I'd also like to say do listen to admins and other experienced editors and I do learn a lot from them. I may choose not to act on advice. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• One key point in the the incident which mitigates in my favour is following the 2nd Shah AFD I had walked away from that and indicated I was editing elsewhere to an admin who had welcomed me back. eing dragged back into that incident by the sock demanding to know my relationships with people caused me to use "intercourse" (a somewhat out of use word for communication/connection) rather the word communication. There is a requirement to raise a COIN to determine if any COI's were involved. I should have simply said "Please Raise a coin and I'll be happy to answer there" -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Request: I respective request people make comments and suggests disclose any significant problematic interactions with me during if they comment at the weekend as it may influence the situation. This in particular relates to the Shat AFD/DRV and noticeboard discussions and linking or use of external sites such in particular Wikipediocracy. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 12:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• My connections (or not) with UK Mediawiki for COI purposes. (Briefly) I am not a UK Wikimedia member. I had attended two or three meetings UK Wikimedia virtual meetings prior to 25 November 2021 to discovered the Shah AfD under discussion which was soon to end. I enquired about it as it had a connection to another article I had created. I left shortly afterwards for an IRRS zoom presentation/meeting from an author from TCD. I was actually "on the road" with a non-optimal output and especially because of significant hacking of the article by a non-supporter made it almost impossible to follow so I choose to place a *keep vote with weak rationale to try to evoke a re-list; I couldn't get a WP:THREE together at that point. I found Shah too difficult to progress at that point and wrote Gillian Peele instead. I attended SparQL/Wikidata event in August 2022 ? and I've been to the Portsmouth/3 meeting. I consider my to have acted "lone wolf" in the Shah matter without incentivisation from anyone else. I've also had some contact over WLM and a little with Wikimedia Ireland primarily on same matter. There was another contact on 1 April 2022 and I'll detail that if needed. I had also gained consensus for the removal of the COI tag on Wikimedia UK which someone finally removed on 30 April 2023. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 13:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I had see from recent comments that repeated CIR comments have including the false allegation have led me into an argument situation for which I apologise but their needs to be I think some VERY careful consideration of the ADMINCOND and ADMINACCT which led to this situation. The rift and hostility between the English Wikipedia and WMF also need to be reviewed. The Blocking admins and cabal disruption to an ANI I seriously took to ANI, easily remembered by their warrior at the top of the talk page, was an incitement to BATTLEGROUND.

  I'll be dead before I'm back on the English Wikipedia. And its very difficult not to block evaders they are better off trying to get unblocked before trying to get through the unblock system. I may not be perfect but the English Wikipedia Community probably needs to look at itself very closely. Just to confirm for safety reasons I am not about to go and jump of the A3(m) bridge, I'll be back trying to talk nicely to newbies on Wikiquote. Thankyou.-- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 13:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The rules of engagement her made it with what I was permitted to place on my talk page, plus some matters which stray into OUTING and SUPPRESSION territory made any non-moderated discussion almost doomed from the start. But from once Shah is brought into the frame and people join the discussion with only vaguewave comments over a period without detail look into the event and with the INVOLVEMENTS not being properly declared. Unlike admins I not going to throw out the towel this way and there might be questions of the Shah AfD's closers recent currency before coming to this unblock request and what recent productive contributions they have been making to the Wikipedia? Albeit I have some sympathy to the that particular situation as was initiated by something unfortunate. But it may cause the asking of the question is there one rule for admins and one for other users on the English Wikipedia? -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Pragmatically this will likely end in a block. I'd like to thank @Ingenuity: for giving me the opportunity to present and AN and suggest no blame on this outcome should be placed on them. One fascinating fact is that was amazingly brought to his RFA was that he was the AfC reviewer heavily criticized at Shah Afd2 for bringing the Shah article to mainspace. A little less monkeying around at RFA's is perhaps called for. That is the sort of insightful question often asked at RFA's and the answer would have been interesting. A missed opportunity perhaps. I have been guilty of playing with votes and RFA's and I've pretty well scrapped the habit. I think I've done it once on Wikiquote. I did recuse on another one after the creator had harrassed me and in my opinion that lead to a delete rather than a no-consensus keep. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 15:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@@Star Mississippi:: I object to you shouting ZERO responsibility. I have obviously claimed at least some some responsibility. But this is all hot air discussions. I feel like I've had the goodness kicked out of me apologising. Are there admins here of the mentality that if we can turn a user into a block-evading sock we can have kudos every time we catch them socking? Is it actually better to work with someone on the inside than deal with other consequences. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@@Guerillero P:In terms of accounts its important to understand the reasons for having different accounts. It is my absolute intention to cease use of Djm-leighpark and switch to using DeirgeDel as soon as possible, but that is not possible why this block exists. DeirgeBot is for Bots (albeit I've lost the password and email used). Djm-mobile is for insecure sites like the public library. I was done no favours in the creation of the talk page of an alternate account so I could make an appeal onl to simply forget to declare all my alternate accounts. I was block for well over 6 months for that and slang use preventing request of a standard offer after 6 months while is the generally accepted norm. Plus fighting my way through BARFs and security issues in the UTRS system and working with the administrators of those systems to fix them. Bigdelboy is used for AWB as I prefer to keep that separate from by normal edits for batch works and in case I make a mistake. I'll consider some renames on these if it helps. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Outside observation

@Djm-leighpark: I happened to still have your talk page on my watch list so I became aware of your TPA restoration and subsequent request for an unblock (which I have been following). We only had minor interaction a year or so ago, so I don't know much around the background of your original block. If I can give you one bit of advice, it would be to calm down and pause. It seems the original issues centered around WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE and your responses here are only re-enforcing the view that you maintain the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Trey Maturin made a fair point on the AN thread - think before you post, even if you write a response and delete 90% of it. I think, ironically, you'd be in a slightly stronger position had you not written any of the above. If you can put your point across in a single sentence that is CONCISE and coherent, do it; if you can't, don't respond. You're digging a hole for yourself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle:: Thankyou for the consideration. I have actually been WikiGnoming at Wikiquote quite calmly as I've said all I really need to say here. I have something quite urgent to deal at this moment. I can switch from flying off the handle to being quite calm very rapidly. But thankyou for the kind words. It would be nice to have dealt with this all in a moderated independent former with a strong arbitor and I'd have been back editing here in no time. Thanks -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 17:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

SnowFire last word

@SnowFire:}: You still do not seem to understand I object to being labelled as banned when I was was indef blocked. I have reasonable certainty how you came to that mistake but it is a technically incorrect thing to do and upset me and I object to that. If you had correctly called by blocked I would have no objection. I realise the username situation is annoying but I am making it absolutely clear who I am/was and who I now operated under. I need to do that to avoid any risk of abusing multiple accounts. When I was indefinely blocked for over 7 months one reason for appeal being rejected was I had not declared multiple accounts and one reason I said fair enough to that complaint was I was about to say I'd declared the multiple accounts on Djm-mobile's user page ... and then discovered I hadn't. While that was a slip up and many admins would's have trouted me by the mistake it was part of the reason my original blocking admin imposed a 7 month+ UTRS ban. It is was very difficult to track that ban and afte r6 months I used the form to raise a UTRS appeal and it barf'd due to a technical error. 3 days later I again filled out the UTRS form only after taking the time to prepare an appeal to discover I was blocked after 6 months. After some digging around the block logs which I had a little familiarity with (and a lot of people wouldn;t) I discovered the block existed for another month or more. The sytem had put me through the stress of waste of time and energy or preparing 2 appeals only at the end to see them rejected. The continual hanging around the UTRS system waiting for something to happen, or not, is very poor. ADMINACCT indicates matters should be dealt with promptly. The general principle is set SLA's and try to stick to them. I appreciate there is a backlog but there is also sense in managing systems efficiently and in a way that lets everyone know where they are. UTRS appeals should not be left hanging for months on end. In terms of the misakes that can happen I used Bigdelboy to do some AWB stuff related to P7869/P1032 and {{authority control}} and was a bit horrified to notice the user page was not in proper order for account declarations. My wikiquote transition from Djm-leighpark to DeirgeDel actually went very well given the number of AN Village Pump, deletion discussions I was involved in and its now very rare I need to point out my earlier username. On the English Wikipedia the situation is much stricter and there could be traps I could easily fall into and that is one reason the Djm-leighpark is currently park of my signature and I think I've already set for DeirgeDel. DeirgeDel (or Deirge O'....) only got set up after an IP gravedanced after my block and I got ping'd 57 times and I thought I simply work on :ga on a new user and not get disturbed. I didn't think about turning of notafications from another Wiki in my preferences. Oh I've rambled on a lot but I feel the need to address a Talmud related page and related book(s) on Wikiquote and Wikidata. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Yesterday was not the day to miss my prescribed medication. I realise I have a severe problem with Shah AfD2 and likely will continue to do so under the conduct and the closure of that AfD is fully addressed, not least of which that I belied I have a strong case that the closer was INVOLVED. To think I followed advice to walk away for a bit and not raising a DRV immediately but think about it is a decisions I will rue for the rest of my life. I think admin blocked me knows I have grievances with him in terms of game playing. My issues relate in particular to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal_attack_by_Achezetthis ANI thread and the gun video played by a person with this gueriila image at the top of my talk page. There may be danger that video might cause me to have a psycotic event at some point I may probably have to seek counselling. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully accept I should have re-read and re-read again my own unlock appeal and contacted Arbcom or Oversight as one or two elements of concern could not have been made public. I was about to write a mitigating circumstance but I need to fully this comment. As such I am certainly not fit to operate on the english Wikipedia as the more even for instance with a non-BLP restriction and new/returning article AfC-only restriction. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: Thankyou for taking the time to make this consideration. As a contributor who collects book sources and is trying to keep sources out on library zone a block has a financial consideration. I have a consideration for me there is a percentage chance even a 6 month block is a lifelong block ... whether that is a double-digit percentage is a matter of conjecture. I also found even problems cateloging Wiki loves movement images last year either because they drew me back to articles I'd editing or because they pointed me at articles that desperately needed expansion or sourcing that I could contribute to. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pig and duck

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:: Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. While this was intended in humour @Hog Farm: felt concerned o contact me over this as it mentally disturbed them. I can't recall what answer I gave then but I fear it was inadequate. Ultimately from my current viewpoint I am less concerned about the gibberish than the fact it disturbed the candidate. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• In non-slang that vote would have read something like: (To be completed later as received good faith notification El C has claimed my TPA was again rescinded and I also note that message was rescinded). -- 05:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm now really rushing against time with this was the claim should have read ... Your AfD nomination for the Duck pannier tank Engine has resulted in that article being deleted. I am personality not happy about that and I am going to give you a (weak oppose) instead of a support vote (although you fully deserve to be an admin and I'm actually going to have to set serious should you fall towards 80% and likely have to switch to support). The reference to the pig-racing is merely intended as a humorous suggestion that perhaps someone with a username like "Hog Farm" (Hog=Pig) might have a useful input to. It's not inteneded as an insult. Actually I'm rather fond of and have a slight interest in pig animals (can make a great pet and are quite intelligent) and ducks. (And not from just a culinary point of view). -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In a more serious note I was concerned how piecemeal/mass deletions were carried out without giving the Thomas the Tank Engine project real chance to attempt a controlled consolidation. I also had a concern about the concept of pushing towards the advert-funded fandom site instead. But I must say the sourcing and verificability on the Thomas the Tank Engine articles was not at all good. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

To be very clear I have moved to a position of suggesting totally banning of humour and joking on RFA's as the issue can just escalate -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

El C

@El C:: I observe you have edited the AN thread, albeit in good faith. The atmosphere between us is toxic but an administrator I respect has suggested me need to talk. It is unlikely to be beneficial to the project unless that occurs in a moderated fashion possible in private because third party BLP. The video you jokingly presented me with in the earlier ANI thread has affected me. Blocking a person and refusing him the right to interact with a person who was mocking them might at least been worthy of an apology for that situation retrospectively might have gone at least a way to easing that from my account. But the totality of your actions may be read that you were desperate to keep me censored and shut up at any cost. You do great work especially in the area of managing things relating to sex offenders etc. You may have felt that I had used BLP/BLPTALK to prevent disclosure of sexual offenders. I am only prepared to discuss that in non public forum but it is just possible that may have influenced you thinking. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 06:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 07:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Downsizing (property) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Downsizing (property) 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/Downsizing (property) 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.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: I AGF you did not mean it but and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. is simply not true and mentally stressing for me. I can neither contribute to that discussion not attempt to improve the article. As a blocked user I am unable to contribute to that discussion. I will confess that that I have failed to expand that article as I would like, and that the late DGG seemed to see some potential in it and I somewhat feel I have let him down. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 04:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not realise that you can't edit at the moment. The above notice has been placed automatically by Twinkle, hope you will forgive me for not editing it. That said, I still don't see how an article about a common term (moving to a smaller/larger house) could meaningfully stand there as an independent entry in an encyclopaedia, and it seems a few editors agree with me.

I'm not sure about what the late DGG saw. Just I know that one doesn't delete stubs created barely four hours earlier, as one assumes that the creator continues working to expand the article. Which hasn't really happened – you added a total of four sentences over the following fortnight, in November 2021,[3] and nothing since. So, today it's still a six-sentence stub.

If it gets deleted – which in its current form I expect it to be – you can always try WP:REFUND when you are able to edit. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

A very diplomatic answer indeed but given you PRODed the article on 7 May 20233 and it was dePRODed on 12 May 2023 I am somewhat surprised you waited until 9 June 2023 during my unblock request to trigger the AfD ... it does not really match well with the statement I did not realise that you can't edit at the moment but I accept there is so much to look at on a busy page and I AGF these things can be missed. Best wishes. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 10:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that you seem to believe that everyone's editing is centred on you. Actually, my nomination was triggered by SnowFire's edit[4] which brought the article to the top of my watchlist. But obviously you're free to believe in conspiracies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: There's a high probability SnowFire's edit due to tracking me .. which is fair enough. And you've given an excellent answer here which does you credit. I'm waiting for to vote Transwiki to Wikibooks or somewhere ... and then I shall laugh my socks off. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Lorcán Ó Treasaigh

@Liz: / @Explicit:: I'd be really grateful if you could place the references from that draft here to help me possibly create an article for Lorcán, a famed Gaeige speaker, on the :ga Wikipedia. I don't think I had that stub to a state sufficient for mainspace here but the references might make possible for the :ga wiki. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archiver set from 2400 to 800

I have always kept my talk page archiving to what I believed was a reasonably long length when I was able to contribute, which was over 3 months which was in the help of transparency. As a blocked user I was subject to content that remained in my face for a whole 3 months that I could do nothing about. I used to maintain a shedload of maybe 50 articles in draft. They were in draft to make them available for people to collaborate on. Some were a mere seed on an idea for a new article. Some were one RS short of mainspace, the odd one or two were sufficiently sourced but awaiting improved spelling and grammar checks prior to mainspace. The problem is the templated response of a speedy deletion which very loosely says: "I just deleted your contribution ... happy editing ...". I question if the template writers have any empathy or are they complete sadists? Victor Meldrew moment over. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 07:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Downsizing (property)

The article Downsizing (property) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia should not be turned into a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from these two, this article contains no encyclopaedic information of any value to the reader.

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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: I find the fact the the Downsizing (property) reason is embolded and shouting at me offensive and beaches protocol. While you are responsible for anything you template it is simply not practically possible to use anything other than the standard template. Although not intended it felt like an emblazoned personal attack and like pressing my face down into the dirt. While I'd disagree with your working you are perfectly entitled to put it. However under the rules of my unblock I was strongly cautioned not to change pre-existing content on my talk page. I was aware this prod was immediately and strongly contested and quite frankly initially assumed you were responsible for the shouting but on investigation there was a template change that caused this. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 09:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it. This was more than a month ago and you weren't blocked then.

Feel free to discuss the template wording and formatting at Template talk:Proposed_deletion_notify.

By the way, shouting is not bold; shouting is CAPITALS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:: Appreciate your comments, especially about shouting and bold, and appreciate my mistake being pointed out to me (obviously I will go away and double-check - that's just how I am - but I am sure you are right with 99%+ probability and won't hold it against you if you weren't - maybe laugh and give you a small trout!). I was under very specific advice not adjust my talk page whatsoever while my unblock was outstanding so I didn't want to upset that boat. It had taken a massive amount of effort to get talk page access back and in particular I had one specific section I wished to archive. I haven't had and do not have access to Template talk:Proposed_deletion_notify since April 2022. I think that's a reasonable debate to be had. I believe I once passed over a researcher interested in user retention at meta and maybe I'll raise this issue with them if I can locate them. I'm not a UI specialist and not great at UI design but sometimes I like to think I sometime have a small feel about how a UI may be problematic. I am also color defective so what seems a disaster for me may be fine for someone who is not color defective. But grateful for you pointing out my bold/shout mistake! -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 23:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon:: If I have analysed correctly, and there is a risk I have not, you were responsible for Special:Diff/964432323 which caused the bolding of the raitionale in {{Proposed deletion notify}}. I believe this was an undiscussed change. This is a high-impact template and is one I would suggest relatively often encountered by new users albeit it probably should not happen to articles that have been submitted via AfC. It is in my opinion a touch point where users may be driven from contributing to Wikipedia, and in my opinion shouting boldness may ram a message down a users throat. So this may be a user retention impact area. The AFD notification by contrast is not bolded. Can I suggest you raise a discussion do determine if your change to make the blockquote bold should remain or be reverted. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 09:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:: That edit re-inserted the bolding that the template had for a long time before that, but was removed for some reason. I did it to make the rationale stand out from the rest of the template and improve readability, not to "shout" at users. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dell laptops

The article Dell laptops has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Serves little purpose beyond advertisement, and a category for this already exists.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)