User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2023/February

Found some pages to fix
The 1996 tornado season page doesn't get much traction, and due to that i found some articles to fix. There's just 2 of them here and here but i thought i should remind you. Poodle23 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Cool. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 26–31, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellaire, Kansas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 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 Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 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. Fram (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ponyo bons mots 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Link: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw it. Thank you. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Girth Summit  (blether) 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA. You may not call people morons. You may not threaten them with violence, whether seriously or not. This is a short block; do not repeat that kind of behaviour when it expires, or the next one will likely be lengthier. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten him with physical violence. I did it because I have evidence of him intimidating other editors and going after articles he knows nothing about. I won't fight this, though. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You said 'I'll skin him alive'. I don't seriously interpret that as a threat of violence, but you phrased it as such; not cool. I don't actually know what you meant by it - were you threatening to harass him to take revenge? I really don't know - don't make threats like that. If you have evidence that they have been intimidating people, you should report that via the proper channels. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Revenge? I don't go after editors for revenge. As far as evidence:
 * You can work in Draft:Maldives women's national under-20 football team for as long as you need, then you can show me what you actually think you can achieve with it. Fram (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, after spending frustrating hours trying to explain to you the most basic aspects of sport, would I want to spend any time on giving my thoughts to you unrelated articles about teams (not individuals) in the NPP queue? The worrying thing to me is that you are doing NPP, not these articles. I just checked some other previous interactions, and your completely misguided edit warring at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) yesterday, on a topic you don't know enough about. Fram (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'ld much prefer if you didn't "fix" anything further and stopped editing completely, as I just again said at the ANI discussion.
 * That is intimidation. That is someone who's goal is to piss people off and get them blocked.
 * Also, I don't think its fair to not ping others in the projects about AfDs. There have been multiple instances of weather articles being deleted that I didn't know about and the project has been working on other list pages. I created the page in question just days ago and was the only person of the project to edit this. I forgot to ping one of the people, so I left a message on their talk page. My wording has nothing to do with their decision either. The editor is also clearly freighted by the idea of interacting with the editor and voiced his concerned with me, which made me upset because I don't like editors who hide behind policies and rules to get what they want done done. The comment was as follows:
 * Just checked the banning policy, and it looks like this topic ban was lifted outside policy. I would urge Elijahandskip to proceed gor the moment as if the topic ban is still in place, and ask for it to be lifted through accepted means (best at wp:ani). However, as an admin told them that the topic ban was lifted, any and all edits made since then should not be considered topic ban violations and should not lead to sanctions. It would be highly unfair to blame Elijahandskip for an incorrect remomal of the ban and the consequences of it. Fram (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * Again, this is intimidation. It is not right to tell an editor that they shouldn't edit on a platform that they like to edit on. Just because said editor decided to do a self-impose ban doesn't make it right. Why should an editor have to listen to someone bad mouthing them? In my opinion, THAT'S skinning someone alive because its an attack on the knowledge and research they have done on a topic. Please consider this next time. Again, I won't fight the block. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this is clearly a sign of him not caring about being civil on Wikipedia. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, has been repeatedly and unfairly attacking this project for over a year. I just caught him again a few days ago. I'm not saying Fram in Andrew5, but how many times is the project going to have to deal with Andrew5? We're all tired of him coming in with his various IP addresses and the only remedy we get is temporary IP blocks. THAT'S why I pinged everyone else because without them, these IP addresses would run wild and I'm tired of him putting ANI's on us. This project isn't perfect, but we are a tight knit group that knows what we are talking about and we continue to find new ways of improving articles and getting along with each other. We welcome new members and help them to learn the ropes (I was one of them). For one editor who has nothing to do with the project to come in and try to impose their will without at least checking what the project is about is unfair to the rest of us that work so hard to improve it everyday. We have an average of over 1000s tornadoes in the United States alone each year and many other tornadoes occur in other countries as well; they are all unique and while some are necessary notable, they all play a role in the research being done to find out more about them. It is not easy to document them all, but we try are best to everyday, so for Fram to come and say what we do is "trivial" is insulting to say the least. I give a lot of people passes, but this editor has been around since 2005 and should know better about doing something like this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , if the next comment on here does not relate to appealing your block (not blaming others. talking about what YOU have done), you will lose access to your talk page for the remainder of your block. And consider yourself lucky that GirthSummit is the one who blocked you...if I'd seen what you said, I would have gone straight to an indef. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot here, and I'm going to ask you to put yourself into 'listen mode' here: this is about you, not Fram.
 * Your first three bullet points, all of them presumably Fram (better to provide diffs in future), are indeed sub-optimal; I would not have phrased my points like that myself. However, none of them contain any direct insults towards the recipient; none of them call anyone a moron; some of them imply that Fram thinks the recipient is not competent to edit in certain areas, but none of them flat-out assert that. Compare that to the things you have said about Fram: your comments about him are far worse than anything you have presented as evidence of his 'intimidation'.
 * To reply to your second point, Also, I don't think its fair to not ping others in the projects about AfDs: I'm sorry that you think it's unfair, but frankly, them's the rules. You must not behave like that. I know that you think you're right about the content question; I expect you know a dozen-or-so like minded editors who agree with you. But here's the thing: you might all be out of step with the wider community consensus. I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that it could happen. If any group of like-minded editors ping each other to discussion, they risk overwhelming it and essentially forcing their LOCALCONSENSUS on the community - which is not OK. So, let me make this as clear as I can: do not ping people to deletion discussions. If you are pinged to them, ask people not to do that again. I'm serious - people who ignore this rule get indef blocked.
 * Finally - Fram is not Andrew5. As a checkuser, most of my (volunteer) time is spent identifying and mopping up after sockpupppetry. If you suspect an account or IP of being used abusively, file a report at WP:SPI - I recommend filing using Twinkle, it makes it much easier. But don't waste our time on frivolous connections like this. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm cool headed now and therefore ask that I be forgiven for my behavior earlier. My intention was never to bring about chaos, but I let my emotions get the better of me. I'll ask that my block be removed with me promising to not allow this type of behavior to continue. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As a side note, me pinging other editors into a discussion was not something that I knew was banned. I was doing something that I've seen people do for years and had no idea it was wrong because no one had truly called me out for it. Again, I'll commit to being better in the future. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wasn't entirely clear of when it crosses over into canvassing territory. While, I can say some of the comments were not appropriate. At the same time, people are often notified if an article they've contributed to has been AfD'd. While the editors pinged hadn't necessarily contributed to that list, I know I hadn't. But many of those pinged had been major contributors to monthly tornado lists. Especially following the ArbCom case last year I get nervous any time I ping an editor if they might agree with me. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The primary author/a of an article are generally notified when it is nominated at AfD. Other editors can find out about it by watching article alert lists at the the Wikiprojects that are members of (or just interested in). It should almost never be necessary to ping anyone else to such a discussion,or to RfCs, or similar consensus-building discussions.
 * There is, in my experience, slightly more latitude given to regular talk page discussions, but you should still be careful to ensure that you you have a clear, articulable and policy-compliant reason for doing it. That might be because they have specific knowledge of a particular subject area, access to particular offline sources, or whatever. Pinging someone in hopes of getting another voice that agrees with you is never OK. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've pinged folks most often because the page isn't heavily watched or there was little or no response one way or the other (heck, I've pinged people I expected to disagree with me). I also appreciate being pinged from time to time since some things get buried under other watchlist notifications. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I will try to do better in the future. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Apology
I just wanted to reach out to you guys after the events that transpired on February 8. I had no idea the mess I would cause when I made the May 2008 list article. I never intended to put anyone in harm's way, but my actions jeopardized the entire project. I had mixed emotions after I got blocked that day; I went back and forth between wanting to give someone a piece of my mind to leaving forever. However, I've decided instead to take a step back from editing until this whole thing blows over. We all work hard to do the things we do, but none of us are above the rules; I, unfortunately, learned that the hard way. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be banned for anything I did on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I thought I could do anything I wanted on this platform, but I didn't think that I would ever do anything that would put me in such a position. However, in one day, I went from a prominent editor to nearly being kicked off the site forever. My biggest regret, however, is dragging you guys into my mess. It wasn't right to you guys, and it wasn't fair as well. I still feel like we somewhat got the short end of the stick, but none of this would've happened if I had just kept my cool and knew the rules. So, as I said earlier, I'm taking a step back from at least frequent editing for the time being. I wish you all the best and hope I can edit with you guys again soon. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey man, zero worries. Wikipedia can feel pretty labyrinthine when it gets down to AFDs, RFCs, WPs, etc. and dispassionate dismissals (even reasonable ones!) of work you're passionate about can be hard to take. That said, it's minor in the grand scheme of things; everyone has a bad day online at some point and yours is over! Thanks for all you do—take your break, catch some real-world weather, and head back in whenever you feel like it. Penitentes (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine man. Besides, everyone needs to go out and get some fresh air every now and then. Plus, the list isn't gonna get deleted. Most of the votes there are keep, so I wouldn't worry about it. Poodle23 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ChessEric, no worries. I understand how your actions jeopardized the project and all the frustration was fumed over this, but don't worry about it too much. During your break, spend as much time as you need, then come back once you're ready! Gather some weather data while you're on vacation as well :) Tails   Wx  05:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pent up frustration is something I've been struggling with a lot, even outside Wikipedia and in my personal life. Wikipedia is a tricky environment and there are many rules, many of which I'm still learning. Learning through experiences is just what many of us need, and this situation certainly made me realize a lot of things, and hopefully become a better editor. However, deep down, we are all human beings who make mistakes, and you should feel proud to be able to recognize and own yourself to them. I hope to see your name pop back from time to time in the severe weather articles we enjoy editing so much. Mjeims (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about it. Everyone has a bad day. I'm taking care of a lot of things myself, thus is not on Wikipedia as much. Wishing you the best, take care.--Halls4521 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Lately, I've been doing intermittent small edits, mostly to grammar (its hard to just totally leave something you contributed to constantly everyday. LOL!), but not big ones that require research or could cause conflicts due to conflicting viewpoints with others. It has not been easy for me for these past 9 days as I've been just testing the waters and thinking extensively about what to edit (not to mention life problems), but this has allowed me to see where I can improve and how to better help and improve the project. It has also allowed me to see how our flaws with abiding by certain rules made us vulnerable to severe criticism and penalties, something that finally came to a head with the conflict on February 9 (suddenly the WP:SQS makes sense). This is not a slight on us, but it is something that I think we should work on improving. I plan to share my findings with you guys soon. As a final note, I had originally planned to fully return on March 1, but I've now changed it to February 20. Thanks for all of your support you've given me during this time and I look forward to fully contributing again soon! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This is great! I love that this event had such a lasting effect on you, and don't doubt that it definetely did for a few of us. We've all matured at least a bit, but you have made a massive stride in that sense. I feel like February 9 will live as a date for this Project as a wake-up call for all of us, as we were indeed pulling of stunts that unbeknownst to us, were wrong/arbitrary. You are a greatly infleuntial member to this Project, so seeing your edits come back slowly but surely is assuring. Congrats! Mjeims (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! I’m glad you’re coming back, I see you’ve removed the semi-retired tag on your userpage, and it’s February 20th! Welcome back! Tails   Wx  17:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)