User talk:LateNightCoffee

"Lone wolf (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

For the correct link to the discussion about this redirect, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20 § Lone wolf (disambiguation).

The redirect Lone wolf (disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20 § There's no need to redirect from a disambiguation like this. People don't tend to stumble into NAME (disambiguation), usually they stumble into NAME and need help navigating until a consensus is reached.

^SMason_Garrison 21:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Here even: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20#Lone wolf (disambiguation). CNC (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, thank you for the correct discussion link. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi LNC, I'm honoured to hear from you. It seems other editors have not been so lucky. Were you going to engage in the discussion about your conduct? Regards, CNC (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, yes, but I need to read it first. This got escalated while I was away, before I had time to respond to the original messages. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! ^SMason_Garrison 12:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, I have told you about 4 times that your links in these are wrong. It's not difficult to get right. Your own time spent giving feedback, to me and others, would be more productive if you gave a smaller number of shorter and more carefully written messages.

I'm very frustrated that you keep telling everyone that I should be blocked based on WP:CIR, and that you spent "so much time" explaining, when so many of the messages you wrote contained broken links, or the wrong links, or completely irrelevant auto-generated text, etc.

You wouldn't need to spend so much time sending so many messages if you put a little bit more time into making sure your first message was clear and accurate. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

How is this at all relevant to the redirect for discussion? Again, I recommend your focus on the conduct issues being raised about you.^SMason_Garrison 12:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

26 June 2026

For the current request needing review, see User talk:LateNightCoffee § Request.

Previous

Link to original version from 06:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

For the request below with line breaks, see 11:33, 16 August 2026 in the page history.

For the original draft before I made some revisions, see 06:09, 15 June 2026 in the page history.

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Background I was blocked from category namespace in March. This request is not appealing the category namespace block. I know that I need to wait a long time before I can edit in category space. I am appealing the other parts of the block from 10 June 2026. During the partial block I made edit requests and other suggestions related to categories, because I was told by multiple editors that this was permitted. A large proportion of my edit requests were implemented and almost all of the categories that I suggested were created. I made a large number of requests because the requests being accepted indicated that other editors saw them as constructive. ; I was blocked from all namespaces because I made an error while attempting to follow an instruction in a reply to one of my {{edit partially-blocked}} requests that said, "I would like to see a discussion with other editors first... Please read WP:Canvassing before sending invitations... holding constructive discussions with others on talk pages may go a long way in justifying a future unblock". When I found a similar problem on a set of 4 related categories I attempted to start a discussion. WP:Canvassing said it is important to invite people in an unbiased way. I used {{RfC}} because this seemed like the least biased way to invite people. I should have balanced the need for unbiased invites better against the other parts of what they said, "There's no need to invite a ton of people – just enough to get some feedback". I now know that I misinterpreted their instructions. The first thing I saw to indicate that I had used an inappropriate process was a message from a different editor about the ANI thread. I was blocked from all namespaces a few hours after the ANI thread was opened. The blocking admin acknowledged that, "it's entirely possible to make the case I was too harsh with the block". ; If unblocked * I will contribute mostly in article space. * I will follow any instructions or conditions about category-related editing and discussions, e.g. I will stop requesting new categories if that is a condition of being able to return to editing articles sooner. * I will use the help desk and other discussion spaces to check if I'm using the correct method when I'm trying to do something new. * I have read the pages that GeogSage linked in the ANI and I will improve my conduct and communication based on those. * I will make sure that I fully understand what I was doing wrong in category space before making an {{unblock}} request for category namespace. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07

24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think I have ever seen a discussion like this after an unblock request has been made. Here is what I will suggest: Take the standard offer. No more posting for 6 months, no more comments, no more pleas, nothing. Show us you are willing to let this drop for six months, come back with an unblock request, and I assure you it will be considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2026 (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.

My comment from under the {{unblock}} request box, that got lost when it was changed to the {{unblock reviewed}} box.

I added the link from below and made some other small revisions. I left the original signature from 15 June 2026 crossed out to show there have been updates. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 12:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee, my understanding the standard offer is contingent upon you making NO edits on English Wikipedia. That includes edits to your talk page, such as messing with "Do Not Archive Until" tags like this and this. Every time you make an edit, you reset the time on the standard offer. If you still hope to be unblocked one day, I suggest letting your account on enwiki gather dust until six months have passed, as measured from the last edit on your account here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Detailed specific plan

If I am unblocked I will…

• focus on bread-and-butter mainspace editing
• stop obsessing about categories
• not do anything to directly or indirectly change the structure of the category tree for any type of category
• make only the edits that I would make if categories did not exist
  • not populate or depopulate any "content categories"
  • only populate or depopulate hidden categories when this occurs indirectly as part of normal editing, e.g. correcting an error in a {{cite web}} citation
  • only populate or depopulate talk page categories when this occurs indirectly via correct use of information banners and discussion headers
• not create any new categories
• stop requesting new categories
• not edit anything in category namespace
• stop editing in category talk space
• stop making category-related edit requests
• avoid projects related to article sorting
• use the help desk and {{help me}} requests to check if I'm using the correct method when I'm trying to do something new
• ask much less frequent questions about the conditions of my restrictions, because I have asked most of them already below

Based on the plan add discussion below. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

(For context, the quotes are from Category talk:People from al-Andalus#Edit request.)

Sorry if my previous comment came off a bit harsh. I can understand how you saw RfCs as a good way to gather neutral opinions. Although, WP:RFC does say if you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page, which I tried to steer you toward in the linked discussion. It seems you understand now, so thank you for that. And I am sorry my suggestion inadvertently lead you to getting indef'd. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kodning: It's not your fault. I made an error following the instruction. I thought that listing it as an RfC was less intrusive than pinging too many people who might not want that, or putting messages on multiple WikiProject talk pages. I think I got it the wrong way around? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this unblock request is reasonable if unblocked with a restriction on categories overall (not just the namespace, just don't do anything related to categories at all). The user's suggestion of I will stop requesting new categories if that is a condition of being able to return to editing articles sooner. sounds like a good idea. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, thank you. What is the next step in the process of getting unblocked? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The next step would be an admin reviewing your unblock request. That may take a while, considering there are a lot of unblock requests in the queue. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, Rsjaffe, and Voorts: Could you please provide your input on this unblock request? Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The only input I have right now is to suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#LateNightCoffee and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1225#LateNightCoffee continuing to disrupt categories after block. If you think the unblock request is sufficient, I have no objection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a conditional unblock with an indefinite topic ban from categorization, appellable in six months, would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree that this would have to be an unblock condition. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And, I think it would have to be a broadly construed topic ban from categorization (so no category for creation requests etc).^SMason_Garrison 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee, could you clarify whether you find these terms agreeable? If so, it seems that all involved admins (and then some) have agreed that this is a viable path forward and that you can be unblocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee ^ aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, Thank you. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I replied below. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@aesurias: you don't need to ping someone on their own talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought it may send them an email notification as they haven't edited in a while. Unsure if this will work but no harm trying? :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

They edited their talk page after this ping, but did not respond. Raskuly 🐰 23:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw the new messages yesterday, but I didn't have time to reply until very late at night, so I decided to sleep first. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, I often find pings helpful, even on my own talk page, particularly if there are multiple people in the conversation. @Aesurias, I don't usually check email notifications for Wikipedia, but pings do help me find things in group discussions. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, @Newyorkbrad, @Rsjaffe, @Voorts, thank you. I'll follow whatever limits are needed if it means I can return to working on articles. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

During a category topic ban, am I allowed to contribute to the Vital articles project that @GeogSage suggested above? It doesn't seem to be connected to any of the things I was blocked for, but it looks like it might be off limits based on a cautious interpretation of what a category topic ban would include. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If I have other questions about topic bans after I am unblocked, is Wikipedia: Help desk the right place to ask? I will read the relevant guidelines and avoid things that I think are definitely or probably not allowed, but I am worried about making a mistake, so I want to know the correct way to double check the things I think are allowed. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Both of those courses of action sound fine to me--you'd want to stay away from adding Categories to Vital Articles, but this wouldn't prohibit you from making any other sort of edit to said articles. voorts, anything you wanted to add, as the one who proposed the conditional sanction? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That I think LMC should focus on bread-and-butter mainspace editing rather than Vital Articles, which is just another, more obscure way of categorizing articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, main space articles are what I am most interested in returning to, so I will avoid that project if my edits there would be unwelcome. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, @Newyorkbrad, @Rosguill, @Rsjaffe, @Voorts, Could the topic ban please be specific to "content categories"? I'm not sure if that is the correct terminology for the distinction, but as far as I can tell, all of the problems discussed in ANI were about "content categories". I think I would be able to do six months or more of productive good quality "bread-and-butter mainspace editing" without ever needing to add or remove a "content category".

Whereas, I think it might be difficult to do 6 months of good quality editing without any of those edits adding or removing an "administrative category", e.g. replacing a "citation needed" with a properly formatted citation usually removes the page from a maintenance category and sometimes adds the page to tracking categories related to the type of citation added. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No. It needs to be categorization, broadly construed, with an exception for adding or removing maintenace tags. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you trying to exclude something in particular that I would be able to do with the version I suggested? Or does it just need to be specific? If you have time, can you please look at the list of § Hidden categories below? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Plan

Updated plan based on the discussion:

If unblocked I will...

• focus on bread-and-butter mainspace editing
• avoid projects related to article sorting
• not create any new categories
• stop requesting new categories
• not edit anything in category namespace
• stop editing in category talk space
• stop making category-related edit requests
• avoid anything else related to "content categories"
• use the help desk and help requests to check if I'm using the correct method when I'm trying to do something new

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 18:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• not populate or depopulate any "content categories"
• not do anything to change the structure of the category tree for any type of category

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Good plan. I suggest you get back to editing by participating in WP:AUG26.

@Newyorkbrad: If LNC agrees with a topic ban from categorization, broadly construed, with an exception for adding or removing maintenance tags, narrowly construed, then I have no objections to a conditional unblock. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, thank you for the starting suggestion. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, @Newyorkbrad, my original plan was to ask about ambiguous cases as I found them, but it might be a better idea to get some more clearly defined boundaries from the start. If I avoid everything I'm currently worried about that's pretty much zero editing anyway, so I'll find an example page and list some examples of ways to improve it that I worry might not be allowed. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that you're not understanding the scope of this topic ban. It should be easy to avoid adding articles to categories. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

"Scared to start" is probably a better way to describe it than what I said there.

I think I mostly understand, but I don't have enough things I'm 100% sure are ok to edit constructively indefinitely, I'll eventually get stuck. So I wanted an opportunity to ask about some of the unsure things in advance, because I'm not 100% sure if I'm even allowed to ask for help during an "extremely broad" topic ban.

Sorry, I'm very tired now, so can I press pause on this and ask some questions after sleep? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts: I agree. Are there any other admins watching this page who wish to comment? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that the topic ban on categorization needs to be extremely broad, in the way that voorts has described. I'm a little concerned that LNC just included a suggestion to work with non-content categories. I won't oppose a conditional unblock. Nevertheless, that request gives me pause... as it doesn't reflect an understanding of the fundamental problems. ^SMason_Garrison 23:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I read LNC as being concerned about adding or removing something like a {{cn}} tag, not as trying to find a back-door way around the TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope you're right. I really do. ^SMason_Garrison 00:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

All of the "I will stop" and "I will not" apply to all categories, only one of the points was restricted to content categories. I've tried to improve it.

You don't edit articles much? So you might not be aware how difficult it would be to indefinitely edit them well without ever adding or removing any administrative categories? I'll find you an example of what I mean. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I am familiar with how article editing works. ^SMason_Garrison 20:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, then can you please show examples of a few paragraphs you've added to articles that I would be allowed to add during a "topic ban on categorization (that) needs to be extremely broad"? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through my edits for an example of content editing that is ok for you. I already agreed with voorts that tags are ok. ^SMason_Garrison 12:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll do some practice examples below. If you object to anything please tell me clearly here before you report me for doing it on an article. I'm not trying to do anything at all in categories, I just want to work on articles and I'm very worried that you have an "extreme" definition of "broad", so I'm giving you a chance to clarify in advance to avoid conflict later. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be showing me any practice edits. I think as long as you focus on content, which it sounds like that's your intention. Like start with the stuff that you think is clearly not category-related, and start from there. ^SMason_Garrison 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. EducatedRedneck said there is some room for unintentional errors, so I'm a bit less worried now.

If I get it wrong, please just tell me as soon as you see it, or at least before you tell someone else to do something about it.

My test will be "would I still save this edit if categories didn't exist?" as a guide to constructive edits vs whatever you might be worried about me doing in categories in creative indirect ways.

If my editing matches that try to remember to assume good faith, and let me know if I've done something that I might not have realised would cause a problem. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Using templates that happen to already use categories is fine. ^SMason_Garrison 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Reply to: 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC) in the other thread. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that solves most of it. Could the exception be worded in a way where the literal meaning doesn't prohibit doing that? Some others wouldn't fit in a narrow interpretation of "adding or removing maintenance tags". There are a few I'm aware of that connect to language formatting used in the local names of people and places, and the most common citation formatting set. Editing those can add or remove a category by correcting an error, or adding details to the reference, or formatting foreign-language titles. An approach that would work to stop me doing anything that will make extra work for you in categories would be to try not to look at the categories, and if I do see them I ask myself "would I still save this edit if I hadn't seen that?" Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think there are any administrators who would consider fixing an issue and removing the tag to be category-related. Yes, it does ultimately change how a page is categorized, but it's a very distal effect. Consider if a popular figure revealed they had ALS. You add that mention into their article, sourced properly. Good! Now another editor adds the category "People with ALS" to it. A category has changed, yes, but that wasn't the purpose of your edit, nor did you do it yourself.

At the end of the day, we're all here to improve the encyclopedia. If what you're doing is doing that, and doesn't cause any issues, that's what we want to happen. Your approach of "pretend categories don't exist" is exactly what the topic ban aims to do; you don't try to manipulate categories in any way, you don't talk about them, and you just go about editing. If someone else or an automated process changes a category because of what you've done, that doesn't matter to you because for you, categories don't exist. You're just improving the encyclopedia.

One more example, if it helps: Suppose someone was topic banned from Manchester United. If they made an edit noting that football stimulates the economy, it's okay. Yes, that includes the impact of MU on the economy, but even if MU ceased to exist, the edit would remain true and productive, and nothing about MU (implicit or explicit) was said. To contrast this, if they tried to talk about the impact of Old Trafford on the economy, this likely would be a violation, because without MU, Old Trafford would have a very different impact. Does that make sense? If not, my apologies. Also, if anyone wants to affirm or object to anything I've said, feel free. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, I'm not exactly sure what counts as a tag? If you are knowledgeable about the terminology then can you look at the hidden categories list below? Is that all allowed already? @Voorts said it needed to be "a topic ban from categorization, broadly construed, with an exception for adding or removing maintenance tags, narrowly construed, then I have no objections to a conditional unblock", above 7 August 2026. The problem is probably that I am a bit obsessed with sorting things, so everything seems related to that. If I follow that strictly all I am able to do is copyedit and maintenance tags, and maybe add bare URL refs. I don't think that's what he means, I think I know what he does mean, but trying to follow his instructions pragmatically when that doesn't match what they seem to say by my category-obsessed reading of it, seems likely to go wrong. I'm likely to either over-correct or under-correct. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 17:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

When Voorts says that, I interpret it to mean that you can add or remove any of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Maintenance. I would NOT deal with any of the below directly. That's what I'm talking about above. Suppose you come across an article without a short description, and it could use one. Go ahead and make a short description. That's okay. But DON'T then add it to Category:Articles with short description. If another editor comes along and does, that's their choice, but that's not your business.

The sort of work the topic ban is meant to make you focus on is more along the lines of finding and adding citations, writing prose, and so on. If you're just trying to find a new way to categorize things, Wikipedia may not be the best hobby for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, I don't think it's possible to add a short description without adding a category? The category appears automatically on every page that has a short description. If it is possible to add it without a category, that would be a non-standard edit, and doing that would be more disruptive to categories than if I just added it normally? If the difficult-to-avoid addition of the category means I can't add short descriptions then I could just not add any short descriptions, but there are a lot of other normal edits that change categories. If I hadn't pointed this out, possibly nobody would have noticed, but if I'm doing it for months / indefinitely then "hope nobody notices" is a bad plan? I wanted to clear it up from the start because I really didn't know what the right answer was out of avoiding all of these things vs doing them normally. I think Mason, the person I was annoying most in categories, isn't bothered by me doing any of these things (see below).

Using templates that happen to already use categories is fine. ^SMason_Garrison 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

agree w/ SMG aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It is tirival to add a short description without adding a category. You just add {{short description| $whatever this the article is about}}. YOU are not adding it to the category. The point of the edit isn't to do anything with categories. If categories didn't exist, you would perform the edit in the exact same way. That's what I'm saying: this isn't a "hope nobody notices", this is a "that's not actually a problem".

It's really looking like you're having trouble understanding what is and isn't category edits. As mentioned below, this is making it look like you won't be able to understand. The thing is, that's okay; if you take the advice that has been given and go forward, even not understanding why it applies, you can work it out as you go. If you keep asking ad nauseum, it gives the appearance that you won't be able to abide by the terms of your topic ban, which I don't think is the case. I understand from below that it's easier on your mental health to do things this way, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY; if it harms you to continue in the way the project needs you to continue, we all would be better off with you finding a new hobby. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it will be less stressful to clarify in advance instead of waiting till I find a problem later, but my "mental health" comment was a reply to what that editor said in the other thread. They were saying the in advance approach was bad for my mental health (using a more offensive term), and several of their messages in the other thread seemed to be metal health and lifestyle advice more than wiki help. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, Thanks for the ALS example. That's exactly the sort of thing I was worried people would get creative about, because that sort of indirect addition could be used to dispute pretty much anything. I thought it maybe came within "broadly" but I seem to have a more extreme definition of broad than anyone else. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The goal of asking questions in advance was that I won't need to ask later. I've worked out almost everything that was unclear before, so I will be able to find enough to work on without needing further help any time soon. I understand "If categories didn't exist, you would perform the edit in the exact same way" and I can follow that. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is why I needed examples, and I'm very glad I asked. The only reason I would change any of those hidden categories would be the normal ways. I would define "add a category" as a category being on the page after my edit that was not there before, it didn't occur to me that there was another interpretation. Making sure there was no category on the page after that wasn't there before would have taken up half my editing time, or cause some weird lazy looking edits to avoid the need for that. But if y'all / yous mean something more direct than that, then voorts saying "It should be easy to avoid adding articles to categories" makes much more sense now. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Mathglot feedback on plan

Excerpt from archive

This section is an excerpt from User talk:LateNightCoffee/Archive 35 § Mathglot feedback on plan.[edit]

Connected parts are quoted or linked elsewhere. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee, may I suggest a possible addition to your plan? Consider opting in to the Mentorship program, and requesting a mentor. As you edit, stay a million miles away from anything that smells remotely like categorization, and then when you're not sure whether something is within the scope of your p-block or not, just ask your mentor. (Note: you should have been assigned a mentor when you started, but {{#mentor:LateNightCoffee}} returns empty so either you never got one, or you opted out. See request a mentor.) Alternatively, you can work out an informal relationship with any editor who is willing to fill that role, without going through the mentorship program. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I've tried that informally a couple of times with mixed results. The first time I felt very guilty asking one person too many questions, so I started trying to work it out for myself, and then I got a bit over confident and got a partial block. The second time was even less formal, so I tried to avoid too many questions from the start. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a very anxious and very curious person, so I think I have far too many questions to assign to one person. It would be good if there's a way to ask a collective of experienced editors, then I can confidently ask whenever I'm even slightly unsure, and it can be answered by whoever has time and patience to spare. That's why I had the help desk in my plan. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be better to ask on my talk page, because then there's a clear record of what I've been told? But I don't know if I'm allowed to use {{help me}} during a topic ban, because that puts my user talk page in a category and I don't know if {{help me}} counts as a "tag"? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Using templates that happen to already use categories is fine. ^SMason_Garrison 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to mention categories to ask for help? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to ask questions about the terms of your block. In theory, that means asking admins, in particular, the one(s) that blocked you, because no one else can read their mind. On the other hand, when they say, categories, broadly construed, then just stay as far away as possible, and when you are not sure, that means hard no. There are still 7.2M articles to work on.

As far as mentors, if you ask too many questions, then maybe sign up half a dozen mentors and rotate them. I didn't offer to be your mentor myself, because I am rather busy, but if you find five others who agree to be co-mentors for you, then I can be one of six. You can always try the WP:Help desk, too. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

But almost all of the 7.2 million categories are in categories... or could potentially be put in to categories. I'm going to write out all the hypotheticals I'm worried about. It sounds like I'm supposed to be allowed to edit? but when I think about what is broadly related to categories, the only thing left is copy-editing. If it was a two week ban I would do two weeks of copy-editing to be extra safe, but I'm not very good at copy-editing so I don't think I could usefully do it indefinitely. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

On reflection, the way I'm sorting "category edits" and "non-category edits" so differently to everyone else is probably a big part of why I annoy people when I sort pages in the ways that make sense to me. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot That's very helpful, "when you are not sure, that means hard no" but probably not in the way you intended. It doesn't answer any of my questions, but it tells me exactly what's been causing the misunderstanding. I've never in my life ever been sure about anything. I've been frustrated and confused by the conversation above because they seem to keep contradicting each other and even themselves. To me, "if you're unsure, hard no" means hard no to everything, but from the context you're not saying I can't edit? So you, and probably many people in these confusing conversations, seem to be talking, thinking, and feeling very differently to me about uncertaintyuncertainty. I've been getting mildly paranoid thinking it is some soor of trap it trick question because they sometimes seem to be saying "you can be unblocked but you are still not allowed to edit", but they probably don't mean that, so I'll write what I think would work to stop me causing trouble for Mason, hopefully it matches what they mean, even though what they say seems impossible from my literal interpretation and my own feelings about uncertainty in general. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Stop; you're making yourself crazy. Here's another idea for you: take a break from here for a while, and go edit whatever you want at Simple Wikipedia, except stay away from categories there also, and ask a mentor or two to just monitor your edits there. Make as many edits as you can, but edit there as if you were category-blocked. Now here's the thing: you are *not* blocked at simple Wikipedia, so if you make a mistake there, it won't matter; and if you don't, it will give you confidence to come back here after a month or two all refreshed. You can find it here: simple:. Just another idea, in case. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think that works. I want to make sure that everyone here has the same definition of "broadly". The thing that made me panic is "extremely broadly" in the conversation above. If I'm not blocked on that other project then "but the other project said I could do it" wouldn't help if I get re-blocked here? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, a modified version of your plan might help, but it depends on why you included the "stay away from categories there also" step? Am I able to edit there somewhat normally and then link the diffs here? People here, particularly those whose feedback I most need to help me avoid getting blocked again, are very averse to (sick of) searching through my edits. So it could be useful if I edit a few articles there and then and link diffs here as "allowed here" / "not allowed here" / "please clarify"? It's easier than trying to do it on my talk page, and it means I'm doing something constructive instead of just a throw away sample. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: If it's not too impolite, am I able to borrow the sandbox there? I've been trying to draft messages and things in open tabs and Google docs, because I can't even use my user sandbox here. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "borrow the sandbox there". Simple Wikipedia is a real Wikipedia written in simple English, with encyclopedic articles on thousands of topics. You have a sandbox there, and you can use the one there just like here, but I don't see the point. I was suggesting you get your feet wet by making edits to real articles at Simple. Think of your edits at simple wikipedia as a training ground and confidence booster that you can edit without transgressing a no-categories partial block. That said, I hope it goes without saying that your edits there must be legitimate edits intended to improve Simple Wikipedia and its articles. They should be real, constructive edits, and no throw-away samples. If I were you, I wouldn't ask questions after every edit to see if it was okay, that will never fly. Just go off for a while, and then ask a mentor to spot-check some of them for you.

Yes, you can link diffs back and forth (but you probably won't need to). Here's a diff to one of mine there:

• [[:simple:Special:Diff/10617621]] ⟶ simple:Special:Diff/10617621
• [[:simple:Special:Diff/10617621|diff]] ⟶ diff

To link an edit here from Simple Wikipedia, just use the prefix :en: instead. You won't have to write any links, though, because any editor can find all of your edits there from a single link: simple:Special:Contributions/LateNightCoffee.

Regarding this:

If I'm not blocked on that other project then "but the other project said I could do it" wouldn't help if I get re-blocked here?

Absolutely not. All Wikipedias (over 300 of them) have their own set of rules. Anything Simple says you can do, applies only to Simple Wikipedia, not here. When they say "You can do it", that means you can do it at Simple, and doesn't apply anywhere else. But you are kind of missing the point of why I mentioned Simple Wikipedia to you; you asked:

why you included the "stay away from categories there also" step?

You are not blocked on Simple Wikpedia, and you can spend the next year there writing all about categories or anything else. But that won't help you get unblocked here, and I presume that is still your goal. The reason I said "stay away from categories there also" is that editing there is still an option open to you, and if you exercise that option along with that self-imposed restriction of avoiding categories, even though you are not obligated to, that will give you practice editing under the restriction, and most of all, *demonstrating* both to yourself and to others that you are capable of editing under that restriction. Then, down the road a bit, you come back here to appeal your block, and say:

"Hey, admins, I've been editing for the last two months successfully at Simple, under a self-imposed no-cats restraint; have a look at my edits and you'll see. This is proof that if I am unblocked here, I will be able to successfully stay away from categories here as well, just as I have done there."

That offers hard evidence in support of your appeal. Whereas if you ask to be unblocked with no evidence, just a promise to avoid cats, you have to persuade them you are a good risk. Much easier to persuade if you have evidence of a clean record at Simple in your pocket. Make sense, now?

Simple Wikipedia is a real Wikipedia with its own policies and guidelines]] (just called, simple:Wikipedia:Rules there, because Rules is a simpler term), so you should spend some time reading up a bit first. These links may help: simple:WP:How to write Simple English articles, simple:Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist, and simple:WP:Manual of Style. In addition, these external tools may help: Online utility for checking Basic English text and How to use Microsoft Word to check a document for Basic English.

Using Simple Wikipedia is just one possible approach to prepare you for an unblock appeal, but given your uncertainty about the limits of your block, even "paranoia" in your words, I thought it was one that might work for you. P.S. I sent you a welcome message at your Simple Wikipedia User talk page. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant would it be unwelcome if I used the shard sandbox space there, briefly (borrow), drafting things for here. It seemed like it might be rude? My personal sandbox there is maybe slightly better? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Nothing you do there should be about drafting things for here at all; that's not what it's about. If you take the Simple Wikipedia approach, everything you do there should be about making simple Wikipedia articles better, nothing more or less. After having done so for a while, you will have a track record to point to here for your appeal. Mathglot (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I would not use my personal sandbox there for tests intended for here, either. It's not about rudeness, exactly, though I get what you mean. It's more about thwarting the main goal of Simple Wikipedia to create an encyclopedia using simple language for children and adults who are learning English. You can either use simple:Wikipedia:Sandbox to create test edits, or you could create your own sandbox there at simple:Special:Mypage/Sandbox. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Excerpt from archive. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Improving reference

Closed discussion

Another user had a notification about errors on the example page. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

CS1 errors on Assaf Shelleg

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Assaf Shelleg, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Two errors are still on the page:

• Category:CS1 errors: missing title
• Category:CS1 errors: bare URL

These are marked automatically by {{Cite web}} and I don't know if that counts as a "tag"?

• global.oup.com https://global.oup.com/academic/product/jewish-contiguities-and-the-soundtrack-of-israeli-history-9780199354948?cc=us&lang=en. Retrieved 2026-03-17. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• cherrick.huji.ac.il https://cherrick.huji.ac.il. Retrieved 2026-03-17. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

fixing those removes the red warning

• "Jewish Contiguities and the Soundtrack of Israeli History". global.oup.com. Retrieved 2026-03-17.
• "Cherik Center for the History of Zionism, the Yishuv, and the State of Israel (מרכז צ'ריק לתולדות הציונות, היישוב, ומדינת ישראל)". cherrick.huji.ac.il. Retrieved 2026-03-17.

and if there are not any others on the page, it will probably remove

• Category:CS1 errors: missing title

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Reference formatting tracking categories

Some automated categories are not "maintenance" categories

• Category:CS1 properties

if I add the language to the non-English source

• "Cherik Center for the History of Zionism, the Yishuv, and the State of Israel (מרכז צ'ריק לתולדות הציונות, היישוב, ומדינת ישראל)". cherrick.huji.ac.il (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2026-03-17.

that will probably add the language categories that I've seen in the pages I have been working on. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Mary Fillis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mary Fillis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor made an error 22:53, 11 March 2026

• "BLACK TUDORS...A peek into the lives of ten people of the African Diaspora who lived in Tudor Britain". blackhistorymonth.org.uk. 2019 May 16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

automatically added a category

• Category:CS1 errors: dates

Changes within the template {{Cite web}} add and remove these categories. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Alternative to avoid changing categories

If I do the referencing project someone suggested, then the only way to be sure I avoid categories is to use only bare URLs, but if I do that I'll get complaints (originally at 18:10, 10 August 2026, UTC). Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page: Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet. which displays inline in the running text of the article as: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. and displays under References as: ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02. If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: try the Citer tool, or in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. |}}

If I ignore complaints indefinitely, to keep category editors happy, then I'll get blocked for disruption in articles? This is probably the wrong answer. So I think either the edits I think are not allowed are actually fine, or there is a better alternative. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 18:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC) I think a bot substituted the template. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand how bare urls intersect with categories. However, please feel free to use bare urls. Others can use a tool to fill them out properly. I use this tool reasonably often. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Bare URLs annoy a few editors who work on the same pages as me. I am hoping these types of categories are allowed because I don't the a wide margin I put around avoiding things that annoy Mason leading to me annoying other editors. For a short term thing I'd put a wide margin around things that annoy Mason, but if done indefinitely I'm likely to end up leaving a lot of unfinished things that I probably don't really need to avoid. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussion. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about what I think is allowed

Closed discussion

See also: User talk:LateNightCoffee § Summary of what I think is allowed, and User talk:LateNightCoffee/Archive 35 § Summary of what I think is allowed

A firm suggestion. Please avoid Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories even if it appears to be sensible to use it.

This is covered under "Broadly" because requesting a category appears to be within the terms of your block and will get you re-blocked once the current block is appealed successfully. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have an idea that may help simplify things for you.

1. Do not add or remove categories to articles
2. Do not create, modify, or delete new categories
3. Do not participate at Wikipedia:AfC/Categories
4. Do not discuss any of the above except as part of an unblock request to remove the topic ban.
5. If the topic of categories comes up anywhere else, disengage immediately except to leave a post along the lines of, "I don't believe I'm permitted to talk about this due to a topic ban."
6. While doing the above, keep a banner on the top of this talk page stating your topic ban from categories. Invite users to point out if they feel an edit you made violates or comes close to violating your topic ban, please let you know here on your talk page, and you'll self-revert.
7. If an editor says an edit of yours is problematic, revert it immediately, thank the editor, and move on. You can ask them why once, but self-revert first, ask second, and even if their answer doesn't make sense to you, move on.

This is Wikipedia, not brain surgery. Mistakes will happen, and that's okay. What the community wants to know is that it won't be a regular pattern. If every couple months, an edit of yours toes the line by accident, just take the feedback and don't make the same mistake twice.

I'd appreciate any admin feedback on this idea; it makes sense to me, but I don't have experience crafting and enforcing T-bans. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @EducatedRedneck, 7 is useful. I thought the plan was I have an indefinite time until I inevitably make one mistake eventually and I'm gone. I actually wrote something saying "give me a chance to self revert" before my battery died. If it was Mason I think I'd just revert whatever it was, I am trying to stay out of her way and not getting much detail about how to do that, but if I get a chance to self revert then I'm less stressed about guessing wrong. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

But there are a few other editors who don't do anything with categories, and often disagree with me about articles. I pessimistically expect that they will get imaginative about anything they want reverted being somehow connected to categories? They once worked their way through about 5 different guidelines till they got their way. Revert first and ask later doesn't work well when I'm also not supposed to discuss it. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to ask whether something violates your topic ban - although obviously not for every edit! But if someone says you've edited something connected to categories, and you genuinely can't see how it possibly connects, you can ask about that. You can ask them, or if it's someone you're not comfortable asking you can always post a help request or admin help request on your talk page. WP:BANEX point 2 applies here.

I'm not an admin, but EducatedRedneck's list looks reasonable to me. The topic ban doesn't seem like it would stop you from using maintenance tags on articles, and you have to be able to ask for help. Just stay away from adding/removing categories directly, and all the other things EducatedRedneck said.

If you feel like you need a sanity check on certain edits after getting unblocked, please feel free to ping me - I'd be happy to come try to puzzle it out with you. I think you genuinely want to improve Wikipedia and I would like to see you unblocked and contributing peacefully and happily. Good luck. Meadowlark (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I worry that people I disagree with will use imaginative interpretations of the ban to revert edits they dislike for other reasons, or to get me blocked. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that. It's a difficult situation to be in. But I think that the administrators here are smart enough to see when someone is doing that, and if you're not touching categories then you can't be blocked for violating your topic ban. People can try to twist it, but categories are pretty clear. If you're willing to revert quickly if you make a mistake, and most importantly don't make the same mistake again, you're going to show that you're trustworthy and doing your best to do what you've promised. And remember that if someone reverts an edit of yours citing the ban when it has nothing to do with the ban, everyone's going to start looking at their actions instead of yours.

Are there things you particularly like to do that don't include categories? Maybe we could brainstorm edits you'd enjoy making that wouldn't come anywhere close to the topic ban, and then you could happily edit away on those with no worries. Meadowlark (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There are articles I want to get back to, but I want to resolve the ambiguities first to reduce the risk of conflict. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you look at § Article content above, please? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 17:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think most of that makes sense - definitely you could add things like birth years, and then let other editors deal with categories (ie you would not add '2025 births', but someone else likely will do so). My only suggestion is that if someone directly asks you to talk about categories, you would simply say something like 'sorry, that falls under my topic ban' and leave it at that. Any reasonable editor will understand that you can't continue the discussion. Of course you could archive discussions if having them on your talk page would be annoying or upsetting, but I don't think you are required to archive them just because they have the C-word (category!) in them.

A lot of the hidden categories seem like the ones that bots wander past and add/remove. They just happen as an ordinary part of editing - you are not the one doing anything about them. As long as you didn't touch the hidden categories, and you weren't making edits for the sole purpose of summoning a bot, I can't see how that would be a problem. You're an experienced editor, not allowing you to use maintenance tags seems foolish and like it would harm Wikipedia more than help it. Meadowlark (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark, The problem I have is that I can see how everything is related to categories, so "you genuinely can't see how it possibly connects" is unlikely to happen, but I'll be anxious that every edit will get a revert notice. I think everything is connected, so people will tell me to revert pretty much anything they disagree with. I worry I'll end up doing some weird editing to avoid it. I want a clearly defined restriction that I can follow, without my editing getting disruptive in strange new ways. I know roughly what they want me to avoid, but the literal interpretation of what they suggest is much broader. I don't feel right agreeing to conditions that they seem to want me to break. I tend to take things a bit literally. I'm hoping that they come back with a rephrased version that puts my literal reading of it closer to what they seem to actually want. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 15:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark, thank you. I think I mostly understand what they want now. I think it's what I was trying to describe, but we were phrasing it all differently, because I'm a bit obsessed with categories, so everything seems related, and I can think of extra exceptions that probably don't really even count as category edits. So, when V said "Categorization broadly constructed with a narrow exception for maintenance tags narrowly defined" he meant what I'd call "categorisation very narrowly constructed with an exception for maintenance tags loosely defined". Maybe I should just follow the rule "edits I would make if categories did not exist" and not stress about phrasing? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The answers about year of birth solve one of the biggest things I was worried about. If year of birth is ok, then most of the other situations I had in mind won't be a problem either. Some people are imaginative, e.g. "This was likely created to have some interaction with a similar newly made category... There’s no way to know what the ultimate plan was..." (actual quote) the other editors called the thing he was talking about "normal" and "useful". So possibly people speculating about a category-related "ultimate plan" I might have, or demanding I remove a word they don't like because it matches a category, can be (mostly) ignored? The limit on "mostly" being some things that would be disingenuous, but these all fail the test of "would I save this edit if Wikipedia didn't have a category namespace". Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

End outdent

From top. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

A firm suggestion. Please avoid Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories even if it appears to be sensible to use it.
This is covered under "Broadly" because requesting a category appears to be within the terms of your block and will get you re-blocked once the current block is appealed successfully. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Yes, I hoped I wouldn't have to, but I offered in my request and agreed to it in my § Plan. If Mason wanted me to not use that it would have been better to just ask me not to. She told me to not re-add things to categories she had emptied and marked "db-catempty", so I stopped doing that. She never actually said that I shouldn't make requests, she told you to check for errors, and she just told me to tidy up the sort keys with edit requests, those both imply it's allowed? But when someone asked about my partial block on her talk page she told them my use of requests was "circumventing the block", then I got blocked from everything in Wikipedia. Then it took nearly two months for admins reply to my offer to stop using the request page. That is the reason I asked to pause for a while. I want to make sure there's not a mismatch in where we think the line is this time. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you do not make errors intentionally. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not sure if I understand you? Do you mean in the creation requests where we both missed something obscure? Yes, I usually used hot cat, which automatically converts redirects, but that doesn't work on the request page. Category redirects also don't show up in the normal link adding things. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate fact-finding exercise, or taking the piss? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No hostility intended. The comment I was replying to seemed supportive. The reply was intended to be friendly. Hopefully it reads that way to them. I didn't know what they meant, but I maybe described my guess in too much detail. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano, could reassurance seeking get misread as sealioning? It's a thing I should do less, but it's a bad habit I know I have, whereas I'm confused by people saying I do sealioning. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussion. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am very willing to "drop the stick" in relation to categories for 6 months. During this time I believe I am capable of constructively contributing to other areas of Wikipedia without causing disruption in or about Wikipedia's category system. The problem was specific to categories, so it's not necessary to block me from all of Wikipedia, the original blocking admin said "it's entirely possible to make the case I was too harsh with the block". During the next six months I would like to edit articles and participate in discussions about improving articles, while pretending that the categories do not exist. ; What I did wrong I was obsessively editing in category space and that volume of changes from a novice editor made too much extra work for more experienced editors and admins. I also went somewhat overboard last week trying to make sure I knew exactly what would be allowed under a topic ban intended to fix this. The quantity of messages I wrote seems to have caused my intent to be misunderstood, so I have learnt the lesson that this is an ineffective way to communicate. I apologise for taking so much of other people's time and I now know how to improve. ; Summary of the discussion above The blocking admin and other admins agreed that I could be unblocked if I agreed to follow a topic ban, one of them offered to unblock me and recommended I start by working on WP:AUG26. Following the topic ban obsessively strictly would make it difficult to add and improve references, due to the hidden categories for citation errors and citation properties. I could have added unformatted citations, but taking this extreme approach seemed to not match the "spirit of" the restriction. My own understanding of "extremely broadly construed" seemed to be much broader more extreme than theirs. Addressing this and other potential misunderstandings in advance seemed more likely to go smoothly than asking for clarification after being unblocked. The discussion was helpful and I am now confident that I can contribute to articles without disrupting category space. Thank you to the editors who helped me understand. ; What I will do if I am unblocked My plan is to make only the edits that I would make if the category namespace did not exist. This could be enforced by a topic ban on category namespace, with an exception for the category changes that are difficult to avoid during normal article editing and discussion. In my own words the only category-related edits I would be allowed are "tools that use hidden categories, administrative categories, or talk page categories", such as citation formatting, infoboxes, and help requests. One admin said the topic ban "needs to be extremely broad" and phrased the allowed edits as "Using templates that happen to already use categories is fine". I wrote more about my plan above in § Plan above. With this restriction and exception clearly defined, the only reasons I will need to talk about or think about categories are notifying other editors that the topic ban exists or seeking advice if another editor's actions make it difficult for me to follow the topic ban. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 12:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the below, LNC has talked their way into having their talk page access revoked. This is an endorsement of that action. In six months, LNC can contact WP:UTRS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 23 August 2026 (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 added a missing word above. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee, please, stop editing your talk page. You've made 60 edits to your talk page in the last 8 hours, including 12 in the last hour, all without any other editing your page. It makes it very difficult to reply at length without an edit conflict. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I encourage you to remove the above unblock request. I understand that you're trying to show that you can edit productively, but it's leaving the opposite impression. Too many declined unblock requests, or too much of a time sink, can result in loss of talk page access, which makes it much harder to get unblocked.

If my memory serves, your blocks have been for disruptive editing of your talk page (vis a vis archiving), and WP:ICHY using up volunteer time (category space edits, rules-lawyering). The original reasons Many editors have told you to step away from Wikipedia for a while. When you ignore them, it looks like you're still ignoring other editors' advice and requests. When you keep asking for clarification and ever more finely parsed wording, it looks like rules-lawyering. When you edit your talk page so extensively that it's very hard for a talk page watcher to figure out what changed, it looks like disruptive editing of your talk page. Your words say you can edit productively, but your actions strongly suggest the opposite.

I very much believe you intend to help the encyclopedia, and want to do so. The path forward must be on the community's terms, not yours. You need to show the community that you can 1) take advice even if you don't like it, and 2) participate without requiring other editors to translate from common understanding (e.g., "broadly construed") into your understanding (c.f., your proposed unblock conditions). You won't do either by picking and choosing other editors' advice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, thank you for the feedback. The above was trying to say that I did understand. Maybe I worded it poorly?

@GeogSage suggested rephrasing things in my own words. Communication is often something I find a bit challenging, but I really haven't had this much trouble communicating about other parts of Wikipedia, other things were resolved in one or two messages or constructive group discussions on article talk pages. It's just the category dispute that's been such a big problem. I would very much like to pretend categories don't exist for a while. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Please heed @EducatedRedneck's advice. Your talk page edits have pinged me 4 or 5 times today. I'm sure that other editors are likely experiencing the same.^SMason_Garrison 13:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, it was probably the {{excerpt}} I was using to show something from the archive. I didn't think pings would come from that.

I really do want to work on the other things. You don't need me locked out of the whole encyclopedia. I will pretend categories don't exist, and you won't notice I exist. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem was the concept of "extremely". I added that above more clearly. But I really don't want to restart that all again. That's why I closed the threads above. I just want to work on the other parts of Wikipedia and pretend that categories don't exist. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Your problem was with the concept of "extremely". The community's problems have been outlined above. This will be my last post until you are eligible for the standard offer, or an unblock, whichever happens first. I have told you that the above unblock request, and now your response, suggest that an unblock would continue the disruption. You may disregard this advice at your own peril. Take it or not; I've said what I can say. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice about the number of edits. I'll focus on something offline while I wait for a response. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

LNC, please stop now. I have supported you throughout this because I believe you have been and can continue to be productive when categories are not involved. I have been notified of changes made to this talk page over 150 times since voicing my support for you. You are not helping yourself here. Please just take the standard offer and stay off this site for six months. Block Wikipedia with a web extension if thats what it takes. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. Talk page access has been turned off. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:ISIS and Islam

Hello, LateNightCoffee. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ISIS and Islam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)