User talk:NatroneDay

I am not related to Pat Day nor do I have any business interests or personal associations with Pat Day.

I chose my name because I started my account to defend Pat Day and provide a factual accounting of his career in order to counter the one-sided slanderous and malicious attacks against Pat Day by user JIJJRG.

March 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
Since you have been indeffed and your opponent CU-blocked, the request is moot, and I formally closed it .--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, edit warring is disruptive, even if you are right. In Special:Diff/948771035, a now replaced wording of your second request, you have described yourself as the "victim of an editing war". However, you have been an active participant of the edit war, and the encyclopedia was the actual victim of the dispute.

Whether you have a close connection to the topic or not: You have strong feelings about it and would probably continue pushing your preferred version if you were unblocked now. Instead of helping you to continue the disupte, I would like to help you with this appeal: I decline what is essentially a request for being allowed to continue the disruption. Other users' behavior is not at discussion here; you have been individually blocked because your edits have been disruptive. Your appeal currently denies this.

There are essentially two types of unblock appeals: Those that deny the initial block reason, and those that explain why it is no longer applicable. Your appeal is of the former sort, and can easily be declined: No, your edits have indeed been disruptive, and the block is necessary to prevent disruption. That's simple.

I recommend to make a different type of appeal: Explicitly agree not to edit about the topic again. At least not for six months or so, during which you make constructive edits that are completely unconnected to Pat Day. I recommend agreeing to a voluntary topic ban about Pat Day, and using the time while topic-banned to show the community that you are a productive volunteer who actually wants to improve this encyclopedia, instead of pushing personal projects. A conditional unblock could be a reasonable decision, perhaps even a partial block from editing Pat Day for the next six months. This timespan is in line with a common proposal, our "Standard Offer".

Ideas for contributions unrelated to Pat Day can be found at the community portal and the Task Center.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * the now-blocked editor reached out to an administrator to block me. This administrator has since lost blocking rights. The admin who has blocked you has not lost his blocking rights that is an outright lie. If you lie like this when trying to get unblocked how can we be sure you won't lie if you do get unblocked.Tknifton (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to Bbb23 taking a sabbatical after he was criticised by ArbCom for misuse of CheckUser, but I note that no actual userrights have been revoked as of yet. And even if they had, that doesn't make the block any less valid. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Onward to 2020 19:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The above request in a nutshell: "I created my account to edit war. I have then been blocked for edit warring. Please unblock me."
 * Alternative proposal: Decline; in case of one more such appeal, revoke talk page access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let all know that NatroneDay is using numerous different sockpuppet ip addresses to continue pushing his preferred version [both removing reliably sourced content, and adding content without citing any reliable sources] with disruptive edit warring in the Pat Day article, including 2601:6C3:4081:A10:880F:BE7D:110A:5D64, 2601:6C3:4081:A10:FDF6:F268:862F:3E64, 2601:6C3:4081:A10:382C:1DB0:F90D:B67,  71.215.212.25,  and  71.215.18.168.72.227.160.141 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.