User talk:Jpgordon#Question regarding a block

"Admins here cannot help you on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. You'll have to work it out there." Then what am I supposed to do now? I can neither edit my talk page to insert that unblock form nor contact that admin.

Tell me what to do please. I just can't stand being blocked for no reason and then having the permission to appeal revoked. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why are you blocked there? I don't read Vietnamese, and the automated translation of your block notice -- "Frustrated" -- is not helpful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Well I was blocked because I was mistaken as a sockpuppet. Though that admin hasn't got any evidence. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Now that I've provided the context, tell me what to do please. Nhatquangdinh (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I really have no idea. Maybe put your question of what to do on your talk page with {{tl|Help me}} and someone who knows will answer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I do not know if this is the appropriate spot, or whether one exists. If this is inappropriate please feel free to remove this text. I reverted an edit by the user on Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen (due to deadnaming) without leaving an edit summary, which I regret in hindsight. The user reverted my revert since I didn't specify a reason -- for all they knew I was just being disruptive for disruption's sake. I reverted again, but this time mentioned the manual of style entry for gender identity. After a few minutes, the user made another change to the article -- this time they weren't deadnaming anyone, they just changed "birth name" to "legal name" -- which, assuming good faith, is just them being pedantic (I don't know if there's some political baggage with "legal name," so maybe I'm missing that bit of context?). They used a descriptive edit summary that acknowledged my revert and the manual of style entry, and they said were going to abide by and respect that manual of style entry -- and they did. I just wanted to throw in my two cents here. Take care. —tony^{st (talk)} 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello jpgordon. Back in December 2024 you indefinitely semi-protected User talk:2A02:A46A:194C:0:3535:788:EFF2:8E65 after it was found that they had been using another IP to continue editing the page after TPA had been revoked. Isn't indefinite protection overkill, given that this is the talk page of an IP address talk page and not an indef-blocked account? Similar to how we almost never hand out indefinite blocks for IP addresses?

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2A02%3AA46A%3A194C%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64 block] on the /64 range of that IP address had expired in just a day or so after the semi-protection you placed, so I'm not sure that the protection needed to be that long. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, good catch, I must have been pretty pissed off! I've unprotected it. Thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svgTemplate:Unsigned2Fix has been nominated for merging with Template:Unsigned. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, if you have time for a question, I tried Teahouse but didn’t really get anywhere. Are non-ec users allowed to participate in RMs for contentious topic pages? I know that ecr says "can use talk pages only to make edit requests", but RM:COMMENT says "all editors are welcome to contribute".

I’m not sure if I should strike non-ec comments in ecr RMs. Mikewem (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I really don't have any better answer than what you got. An RM is essentially an edit request; I'm not sure what precedent is in this regard. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpw}}: I'd say non-EC users are not permitted to participate in RMs for pages covered by WP:ARBECR. The old standard, which is still present in community-authorized ECR regimes, is that "internal project discussions" were disallowed for non-EC users, and this explicitly included RMs. When ArbCom upgraded from that standard to the current ARBECR, it would be unusual to construe the language change as an decrease in restriction with regard to RMs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::So it’s probably true that non-ec can initiate a ctop RM, but cannot vote/comment on one? Mikewem (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think a non-ec can initiate or comment in an RM. It's not unreasonable to consider an RM opening to be akin to an edit request, but edit requests are only for non-controversial changes or ones that have prior consensus. If we're going the RM route, it's expected that the move is potentially controversial. BTW, I'm assuming when you say ctop, you mean specifically topics that have ECR. Not all do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, explicitly ecr covered topics. Good point about presumptively controversial move requests being akin to a (disallowed) controversial change request. Thanks so much for shedding some clarity on this, I was struggling with this one. Mikewem (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}