SportsOlympic

Welcome

Welcome, SportsOlympic!

Hello, SportsOlympic, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. You may want to begin by reading these pages: Help Rules Links to useful pages How to write Simple English pages How to copy from another Wikipedia For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages. At Wikipedia, remember to be bold! This means that you should not be afraid to change any articles. This is because, if you make any mistakes, you can always fix it later! If you have any questions, you can always ask them at Simple Talk. If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question. I hope you have a fun time here. If you need any help, be sure to visit Simple Talk or contact an administrator. See you around! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Nixon

hi, thanks for the thanks. however if you want to "translate" to english you should credit by making a note in edit summary or use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Translated_page on the talk page. i have been known to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice as a footnote, since the other ways are inscrutable to the non wikimedians. you should be aware that recreating these articles that have been speedy deleted will get you accused of being me. and they might delete them as an unchanged recreation. there are a thousand of these articles. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, SportsOlympic! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Nelly van Balen Blanken". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! MathXplore (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• @MathXplore:, Ahh, thanks for letting me know. I will change it directly. Let me know if you have more comments. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I see the two pages in main space have already been changed. I have already changed the pages I’m still working on. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Jan Koster

An editor has requested deletion of Jan Koster, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Jan Koster and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. MathXplore (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that the Simple English Wikipedia does not use short descriptions at the moment. As such, the template {{short description}} shouldn't be used in articles. It creates an unnecessary whitespace at the top of the page. Thanks! — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• @*Fehufangą:, Ahh! Okay! Good to know. Thanks. I will remove them from the articles I created. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Stubs about people

For stubs about people, please use {{bio-stub}}. For sportspeople, you can use {{sports-bio-stub}}. MathXplore (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@MathXplore: yes I see your changes, I will do that for upcoming articles. I didn’t see the Category of football referee before. Good one! SportsOlympic (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Football match officials

Articles about football match officials should be categorized as category:Football referees, not category:Football. MathXplore (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @MathXplore: Ahh, I actually remember why I didn’t add the articles to this category. I created articles on people who became notable of being an “assistant referee”; and I was not sure those people were notable “referees”. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick deletion of 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon

The page you wrote, 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 01:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know we already have an article for this exact same thing 1930 Women's World Games and that one is linked properly throughout all of wikipedia. That is the only reason I nominated, nothing against you. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: I saw the page is already deleted, but I don’t understand why. It’s not about the exact same thing and “copied and pasted from another Wikipedia“ . I will explain: The 1930 Women's World Games consisted of several sports (like the Olympics). So see Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games, Basketball at the 1930 Women's World Games, Fencing at the 1930 Women's World Games and Handball at the 1930 Women's World Games. There were 12 athletics events. One being the triathlon (that is now deleted). See all events at template:

SportsOlympic (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add them to the actual page of 1930 Women's World Games where you can list all of the events. This also allows it to be linked to wikidata and medals and other parts of wikipedia. It will also take it out of a stub and allow it to be worked into a good article or even a featured article. With the individual pages about the events they cannot be linked to wikidata, as the data item is already consumed as the main event (1930 Women's World Games). PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 17:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I did ask for it to be restored Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Restore_1930_Women's_World_Games_–_triathlon PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 17:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you mean, but after having done research into this event I came to the conclusion to have more sub-pages. On the English Wikipedia there are the medalists as en:1930 Women's World Games. But at that page you can read the editors didn’t have more information. I digged into newspapers and was able to find the missing results and the other sports. As there are now 16-subpages of [[[1930 Women's World Games]] I don’t think it’s a good idea merging everything into 1 page. I created them as the structure of the Olympic pages at the English Wikipedia. But we can have a discussion about it to find the best way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsOlympic (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If you can, please remember to sign the post so I can reply. So I understand where you are coming from. Can you point me to the Olympic pages you are talking about on enWP please? Also, remember to ping me. I do not watch most users talk pages. Thanks! PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 04:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb:, yes of course. And yes good point about pinging you. At the English Wikipedia (and even all of the other main Wikipedia’s) have for the Olympics the same structure. For all the Olympics the same. There is a main page for the year edition

• en:1932 Summer Olympics
• en:2020 Summer Olympics

And a sub-page per sport for instance:

• • en:Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics
  • en:Fencing at the 1932 Summer Olympics
  • en:Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics
  • en:Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Each sporting event has its own page. A few examples

• • • en:Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres
    • en:Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Women's high jump
    • en:Fencing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's épée
    • en:Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres
    • en:Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's high jump
    • en:Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's épée

Next to the Olympics, this structure is also at all other multi-sport Games. For instance en:Pan American Games, en:Commonwealth Games and even continental/ world championships, see for instance en: 2022 World Aquatics Championships, en:2022 World Athletics Indoor Championships and for instance all other championships at en:Template:World championships in 2022. Thanks, SportsOlympic (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha - The one problem I see here is the way you named the articles. For instance, 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon instead of Triathlon at the 1930 Women's World Games and I think there were a few others as well. The structure looks good to me and if you want my help, I am more than happy to assist. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 16:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb:, ahh, yes good point. I did that because I initially thought there were only notable athletcs events at the 1930 Women's World Games (as the English article assumes). I now moved the pages to like Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon. Thanks SportsOlympic (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool. It seems that enWP has two different standards Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres and Fencing at the 1932 Summer Olympics. Are you creating any subpages under Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon? like each separate event under a triathlon? Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: I understand your question. As there was only 1 fencing event (while there were 12 atletic events) I won't create an additional subpage. Everything is covered at Fencing at the 1932 Summer Olympics. The Athletics at the 1930 Women's World Games – triathlon is not about the sport triathlon (swimming, cycling, running) but about the athletic triathlon event (3 different athletics events). Nowadays for women the event doesn't consist of 3 events (triathlon) but 7 events (heptahlon); see for instance the yesterday finished en:2022 World Athletics Championships – Women's heptathlon. I started digging into newspapers to find articles about the 1934 Women's World Games. See for instance Athletics at the 1934 Women's World Games – 80 metres hurdles. More to come :) SportsOlympic (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:1923 in sports. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• @MathXplore:, I wasn't aware of that policy. I just continued with the structure that was already there. If that is a policy most of the sports categories before 1950 should be deleted.

Category:1924 in sports only had two pages before I created 1924 Westphalia–Twente athletics competition

Category:1925 in sports only has 1 subcategory with only 1 page in that subcategory

Category:1926 in sports only has 1 subcategory with only 2 pages in that subcategory

Category:1927 in sports only has 1 subcategory with only 2 pages in that subcategory

Category:1929 in sports only has 1 subcategory with only 2 pages in that subcategory before I created 1929 Netherlands–Belgium women's athletics competition and 1929 Netherlands–Germany women's athletics competition

I can continue the same way for Category:1933 in sports, Category:1935 in sports, Category:1937 in sports, Category:1938 in sports, Category:1938 in sports, etc for the 1940s....

And your other question, yes I will ad many more pages of the 1920s and 1930s, so probably also of 1923. However, because these are page with content that is not available via Google, it costs a lot of time finding the content in off-line sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just added some venues and clubs established in 1923, so there is no need to delete Category:1923 in sports. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Since you seem to be new to categorization work, I came here for a general reminder. In general, categories without anything or just a single entry can be challenged or removed at any project, so please keep this lesson in your mind. Although, chronology categories or administration-related categories are possible exceptions at here, so the sports history categories mentioned above can avoid deletion. Anyway, when making categories, try to populate them as much as possible. MathXplore (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Choshun Ryu

I have a question about this page, can you answer it at Talk:Choshun Ryu ? MathXplore (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, SportsOlympic. I noticed that people have left you a few messages about things that are different on this Wikipedia. I thought you might like to look at this list I maintain of some things that are different here. The list itself is not policy of guideline, but it does link to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about anything on the list, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

category:navigational boxes

I've seen you used this category at special:diff/8487942. This is an extremely wide category, so please try to use their subcategories instead this one. MathXplore (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@MathXplore:, haha you are fast! Yes, I just created the template and was still working on it. I improved the category and added some more see here. Thanks SportsOlympic (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Frans B. Van Zaelen

An editor has requested deletion of Frans B. Van Zaelen, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Frans B. Van Zaelen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Pure Evil (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Het Laatste Nieuws...

Hello, I just wrote/translated some of the enwp article of Het Laatste Nieuws. If you have time, do you want to have a look at it? - Remember, I don't speak Dutch, am not from Belgium, and don't know the history of newspapers there. Thank you Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon:, ah nice you created the page! Yes of course I will. In a first quick read I don’t see strange things, but later I will have a better look. Let me know if you translate Dutch content if you struggle with specific wordings, or phrases. Regards SportsOlympic (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will; I am a native German speaker. So without translation software, knowing what written words mean often takes a lot of imagination. As to the Category, I took one French and (presumably: the) German newspaper in Belgium. I know how language-sensitive they are. Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon: yes indeed, you can’t rely entirely on translating software. There are often “funny” translations. So let me know if I can help out (I can also speak moderately German and French). SportsOlympic (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

English will do fine, that you; and my idea was just to create a very basic and short article. I don't know the Belgian media landscape, and I also don't know how important it is that the readers of SEWP know the company history. I don't claim ownership, so if you think that adding something else to the article is necessary/helpful, or removing a bit, please do. Eptalon (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen

Just wanted to let you know that I also created that page. As you can see, my Dutch is very limited. Eptalon (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Eptalon: thanks for creating. I improved some sentences :) SportsOlympic (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

SportsOlympic (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

After stating at the User talk:Auntof6 that I didn't agree with removing categories from articles with a reasoning I undid the changes. Seeing now, I agree it was too-bold to undid the changes, and it would have been better to start a longer (centralized) discussion to solve the issue. But however, in my opinion an indefinite-ban via WP:1STRIKE was not needed here.

• 1) 1STRIKE: (literally copied from policy) "It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project."

  I'm for over half-a-year active at Simple Wiki. I made many edits (8.591) and I created many articles (901), including pages via historic research from old newspapers (see examples here; just indicating I'm not making speedy-stubs or just copy content from another website/wiki). I have been in interaction with many users, and have not been disruptive. I don't think 1STRIKE is there to block an account after making a "random annoying" edit.

• 2) WP:1STRIKE states "a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia"

  2a) I was blocked on en.wiki for using multiple accounts. That is not the case here.

  2b) I don't see I broke a policy-rule here. Wikipedia:Edit war is most close, but "keep changing the article back and forth" is not the case here.

  2c) The blocking admin stated "Reverted another editor without gaining consensus". But in my opinion on the talk page it was not yet a main discussion to reach a consensus. (However, what I said before, it would have been better to not undid the changes directly, and going for a consensus-discussion; sorry for that).

• 3) The last thing I would like to state is Wikipedia:Assume good faith assume good faith is an important part of Wikipedia. It means to think that people on Wikipedia have good intentions when they do something (like editing, commenting, etc.), even if they end up making a mistake. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After a thorough discussion both here and privately between the sysops, this is where we land:

1. The block will remain in force as is.
2. SportsOlympic is welcome to make a new appeal via a modified standard offer in 1 month. During this time, SportsOlympic should observe the block and refrain from evading it, socking, or any other breach of policy on this local project. After 1 month (on 02/27), SportsOlympic may create a new unblock request for consideration. It will be required for SportsOlympic to express both understanding the issue that resulted in the block and how they'd respond to a future situation similar to this one
3. SportsOlympic is reminded WP:ONESTRIKE applies to any rule on this project and not only the issue they had trouble with on other projects.

I encourage SportsOlympic to continue their efforts in being a Wikipedian. We have several valued editors here that are or were indef'd on other projects. I'd like to see you join the list. Please indicate if you understand the terms we offer. And thank you. Operator873 ^connect 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just pointing out:

  Disruptive changing is when many of a user's changes put together stop other users from improving pages, or causes other effects that stop people from achieving our purpose of building an encyclopedia.

If a users edits cause another user to have to revert that edit, a group of those edits put together stop the other user from improving pages during the time they must revert the edits. Also, creating content that requires others to spend time correcting issues with would also fall into this category. Given the amount of time I have put into corrections in form and content of articles created by this user, I would have to say these edits have prevented me, at times, from improving other pages. Extensive violations of a major guideline would seem to be akin to violating policy. Pure Evil (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pure Evil: Yes, disruptive editing is a bad thing; however I’m not seeing myself as a “distributive editor”. If people see me as so; I would like to hear it, I will apologize and improve. I’m sad to hear you that I have disturbed you. And even more sad you say my edits are “Extensive violations of a major guideline”!?!? I’ve seen on my watchlist you improved several al articles I created; and I thank you for almost all of them. I can’t help I’m not native English. But if you saw repeatedly the same errors why didn’t you came to my talkpage to tell me? As you can see above; I’m willing to improve the articles I created and I could have solved errors myself! I like to correct my mistakes; and it could have saved your annoyances. (side note: how it feels actually to me, it feels for me somewhat pure evil and sad you raise the issue here.) SportsOlympic (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic I also don't see you as a disruptive editor, but by definition, you are.

Disruptive changing is when many of a user's changes put together stop other users from improving pages, or causes other effects that stop people from achieving our purpose of building an encyclopedia.

Your reverts of AuntOf6's edits caused users to have to waste their time reverting your edits. This is disruptive. Technically, you did violate WP:ONESTRIKE and should be blocked. This, with your sockpuppetry on ENwiki is why you deserve to be blocked. I would consider the Standard offer if an administrator lets you. As you have constructively contributed to the project in the past, I hope you are unblocked AND edit responsibility in the future. Friendly Human (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's disappointing when someone reverts your edits, but is it necessarily disruptive? I don't see that anyone was forced to revert SportsOlympic's edits. I made some changes. SO asked me why I made them and I explained. SO disagreed and reverted them. That's a normal process here, and would eventually be followed by en:WP:BRD.

I hope no one is thinking that my edits shouldn't be touched just because I'm an admin. When I make the kind of edits that were reverted, I am acting as a regular user, not as an admin, and those edits shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else's. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. In that case I Support the unblock of @SportsOlympicif he/she promises to seek resolution before reverting a users edits. Friendly Human (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that unblock requests are not votes, and also that you do not have to seek resolution before reverting someone's edits just once... --Ferien (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Auntof6 If you don't think it is disruptive, are you going to unblock SportsOlympic? Friendly Human (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators have to consult with the blocking administrator before unblocking. --Ferien (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Friendly Human: I wasn't going to, since I was involved in the incident. I just wanted the other admins to see that I didn't feel the reversions themselves were disruptive. (I haven't looked at anything else SO has done that might be seen as disruptive.) In any case, as Ferien said this is not a vote, nor is it a general discussion; the resolution is between SO and the admins. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Enfcer, please could you clarify here on why SportsOlympic was blocked. --Ferien (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
In my opinion, Enfcer's block is justified, because you started an edit war while subject to ONESTRIKE. You added something to numerous articles, Auntof6 reverted you, and you reverted back (thus starting an edit war). You have recognised this was a mistake, so an unblock may be possible, with further clarification from Enfcer. --IWI (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Auntof6: It's not a case of your edits having priority; you reverted them, and then they reverted back, which is starting an edit war (if you look in the page histories, they had initially added the categories; this is not simple BRD). This is why I believe Enfcer blocked the account. --IWI (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

However, Enfcer rollbacked these edits, which makes him involved in the edit war himself and he also appears to violate the rollback guideline by using rollback on simple category changes, something that is not obvious vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: You state: “You added something to numerous articles, Auntof6 reverted you, and you reverted back”. This is not the case: I created all the articles, Auntof6 removed (so not reverted my edits) a category from each page, and I reverted it because I didn't agree with the removal and stated it on the talk page. Is reverting an edit including giving an explanation already starting an edit war? (not in my opinion). SportsOlympic (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because the edits were an article creation, does not mean they weren’t still your edits. So your reversions were beginning an edit war. In any case, I agree with Ferien that Enfcer was probably at fault for reverting the edits (and doing so with rollback) and then going on to block while then being involved. --IWI (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Just to summarize what you say: an edit I revert on an article I created is starting an edit war. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view this is starting an edit war, yes. Although like I said, you admitted this was a mistake in the unblock request, and I would be inclined to unblock. --IWI (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, SportsOlympic should understand that WP:ONESTRIKE doesn't require the same rule be broken or even a similar pattern of behavior. Excerpt: They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. It clearly says, break the rules... as in any of them on this project. Not the same rules that got them blocked on another project. We have a large number of constructive contributors who've found their way to Simple English Wikipedia and demonstrated their intent to be good editors. We've also had editors come to this project after being blocked on another to attempt to wikilawyer their way into being allowed to continue the behavior or waste the community's time. Additionally, I feel like SportsOlympic is taking personal ownership of the articles created and is offended when they are changed by other users. If such is the case, they need to be aware all Wikipedia projects are collaborative, belong to no one, and anyone can edit. If SportsOlympic disagrees with the change another editor makes to the page, regardless of that editors permissions or status, instead of reverting, they should go to the talk page and discuss. Getting POINTY about categories on a page or other trivial content is fully and completely inappropriate.

The timeline of actions here is telling.

• 15:19 UTC 22 Jan - Auntof6 (correctly) removes Category:Women from a page about a woman. It's counterintuitive, but if you look at the category members, it will become clear what the category is meant for.
• 15:37 UTC 22 Jan - SportsOlympic appears at AO6's talkpage and asks why the category was removed and AO6 answers immediately at 15:38 UTC with an appropriate and valid response.
• 16:36 UTC 22 Jan - SportsOlympic response to AO6's message on her talk page, continuing to disagree. It should be noted here that SportsOlympic was advised by a sysop their changes were incorrect and a discussion was began. In the wrong, place granted... but a discussion nonetheless.
• 16:41 UTC 22 Jan - Despite the disagreement and dialogue opened on AO6's talk page, SportsOlympic reverted AO6's edit to several pages.
• 16:50 UTC 22 Jan - Enfcer blocks SportsOlympic per WP:ONESTRIKE
• 16:51 UTC 22 Jan - After block complete, Enfcer rollsback SportsOlympic's mass revert of AO6's edits.

With the above in mind, and after having reviewed appropriate edits, talk pages messages, and block logs, I've arrived at my conclusions:

1. SportsOlympic has received prior warnings about Category policy as well as been encouraged to review Auntof6's guide
2. Auntof6, an editor, made appropriate changes to a page that SportsOlympic disagreed with. SportsOlympic started down the right path by engaging Auntof6 on her talk page (should have been one of the article pages talk page but, it works) but deviated by mass reverting all of the changes made by AO6.
3. Enfcer, a sysop, observed the behavior and made a correct decision to protect the integrity of the project by blocking SportsOlympic's ability to edit. Sometimes we use blocks to force a conversation with a problem editor and that is (still) valid. I'm not sure if that was the intent in this case or not, but that's beside the point.
4. Sysops are not required to leave bad changes (vandalism or otherwise) in place after blocking an editor. In fact, we're held by the community to clean up the messes. Hence... we're given a mop.
5. The use of rollback to quickly revert bad changes was appropriate, albeit borderline.
6. There is no magic time frame or number of edits for WP:ONESTRIKE to no longer be in effect and, as I've said, it does NOT require the same rules be broken or similar pattern of behavior be observed.
7. Finally, wikilawyering continues to be one of my most disliked aspects of problem editors.

Thereforce, pending Enfcer's message about the reasons for the block, I'm inclined to leave the block as is and SportsOlympic can take a 6 month time out and ask for a Simple English Wikipedia version of a standard offer. I'm also inclined to offer just enough WP:ROPE if we, as a sysop group, decide to give it to them. This is conditional on SportsOlympic understanding where they went wrong and why the sysop action (block) was applied.

Make no mistake SportsOlympic, you were not in the right here. You must collaborate with your fellow editors and the pages you create are not yours to control. Operator873 ^connect 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response.

When I was looking through recent changes, I saw where SportsOlympic had reverted changes. I did observe where they attempted to start a conversation, but only giving one hour before reverting, in my opinion was not enough time for AO6 to respond. I then looked at SportsOlympic’s account where I observed blocks on 2 separate wiki’s for being a Sockpuppet. I took this action of checking their account in an attempt to determine the best course of action. Seeing they had previous bans, and regardless the reason for those bans, our Onestrike rule applies. I concluded SportsOlympic was taking ownership of the articles, and making sure their way was the only way the pages were displayed by inappropriately reverting AO6’s edits .

My actions were in the interest to protect the wiki, and the reverts of those edits were to preserve the status quo until a consensus through the incorrectly started discussion could have time to be held. As far as the continuation of the block, I defer to the sysops to review. -- Enfcer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right, as the person who authored the ONE STRIKE rule it's intent is certainly ANY rule broken gets you blocked. fr33kman 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote the ONE STRIKE rule I did not intended it to hang over an editors head forever. I think if the person is constructive for 6 months then I think they should no longer be under the rule. Perhaps I should have made that explicit. I will start an RFC on it. fr33kman 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

• SportsOlympic (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock • check user)
• Reason for unblocking:

I made a mistake. A user changed some content that I created, (categories). I thought that these changes were unconstructive, so I went to the talk page of the user and started a discussion with my opinion. Afterwards, I admit, I reverted some of his edits (with good faith intention) too soon. That was wrong of me, I should have waited for his reply. I’m familiar with most of the rules here. I’m fully aware what WP:ONESTRIKE is. It is a strong tool with the most importantly “It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project.” and “They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user.” So I’m fully aware that I can be blocked for every mistake I make.

While I am familiar with most of the rules, I have learned that if someone changes the content I added to Wikipedia; I’m not allowed to revert that, because that is starting an edit war (as to me explained and repeated by user:ImprovedWikiImprovment [1] ) -- while, stated by another administrator, changing simple categories is not obvious vandalism). I didn’t know at the time, that my reversions were ‘official’ starts of an edit war. That has been a hard lesson. I’m sorry that I was unfriendly to Auntof6 by reverting his edits before waiting to his reply. It reassures me that the involved administrator didn’t see my reversions as disruptive and called it even ‘a normal process’.

I fully understand that the blocking user had a valid reason to block me and that the block is justified. When the blocking user saw my edits he concluded I was taking ownership of articles and saw I was blocked at two other wiki’s. The blocking user didn't have to look at anything else per WP:Onestrike and for protecting this wiki he blocked me. I fully understand the blocking user had the rights to block me per WP:Onestrike and it was justified. From the history at this Wiki I understand that users who are blocked at other wiki’s are quickly seen as disruptive and seen as a danger for this wiki. The blocking user had the best intention for this wiki to block me and to protect this wiki.

So if someone changes content I added to Wikipedia, I will never revert that anymore. I have learned my lesson. If it happens, I will go to the talk page to discuss that, in a friendly way (or I will simply ignore the reversion if I don’t have the time). I have proven (before making this error) that I was an editor making constructive edits (as mentioned by others in the discussion). And I know, I’m in time not that long here but I made almost 9000 edits and created over 900 articles and interacted with several users about the content I made. I was one of the most active users before being blocked. I learned from every mistake I made in the past, and will learn from this. I can’t promise I won’t make mistakes anymore, but I will do my utterly best not to make mistakes anymore and I will contribute to Wikipedia making constructive edits and be friendly. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Administrators: If you decline this request, replace this template with:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I made a mistake. A user changed some content that I created, (categories). I thought that these changes were unconstructive, so I went to the talk page of the user and started a discussion with my opinion. Afterwards, I admit, I reverted some of his edits (with good faith intention) too soon. That was wrong of me, I should have waited for his reply.

I’m familiar with most of the rules here. I’m fully aware what WP:ONESTRIKE is. It is a strong tool with the most importantly “It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project.” and “They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user.” So I’m fully aware that I can be blocked for every mistake I make.

While I am familiar with most of the rules, I have learned that if someone changes the content I added to Wikipedia; I’m not allowed to revert that, because that is starting an edit war (as to me explained and repeated by user:ImprovedWikiImprovment [2] ) -- while, stated by another administrator, changing simple categories is not obvious vandalism). I didn’t know at the time, that my reversions were ‘official’ starts of an edit war. That has been a hard lesson. I’m sorry that I was unfriendly to Auntof6 by reverting his edits before waiting to his reply. It reassures me that the involved administrator didn’t see my reversions as disruptive and called it even ‘a normal process’.

I fully understand that the blocking user had a valid reason to block me and that the block is justified. When the blocking user saw my edits he concluded I was taking ownership of articles and saw I was blocked at two other wiki’s. The blocking user didn't have to look at anything else per WP:Onestrike and for protecting this wiki he blocked me. I fully understand the blocking user had the rights to block me per WP:Onestrike and it was justified. From the history at this Wiki I understand that users who are blocked at other wiki’s are quickly seen as disruptive and seen as a danger for this wiki. The blocking user had the best intention for this wiki to block me and to protect this wiki.

So if someone changes content I added to Wikipedia, I will never revert that anymore. I have learned my lesson. If it happens, I will go to the talk page to discuss that, in a friendly way (or I will simply ignore the reversion if I don’t have the time). I have proven (before making this error) that I was an editor making constructive edits (as mentioned by others in the discussion). And I know, I’m in time not that long here but I made almost 9000 edits and created over 900 articles and interacted with several users about the content I made. I was one of the most active users before being blocked. I learned from every mistake I made in the past, and will learn from this. I can’t promise I won’t make mistakes anymore, but I will do my utterly best not to make mistakes anymore and I will contribute to Wikipedia making constructive edits and be friendly. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|decline=reason -- ~~~~}}

If you accept this request, replace this template with:

{{subst:unblocked|1=I made a mistake. A user changed some content that I created, (categories). I thought that these changes were unconstructive, so I went to the talk page of the user and started a discussion with my opinion. Afterwards, I admit, I reverted some of his edits (with good faith intention) too soon. That was wrong of me, I should have waited for his reply.

I’m familiar with most of the rules here. I’m fully aware what WP:ONESTRIKE is. It is a strong tool with the most importantly “It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project.” and “They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user.” So I’m fully aware that I can be blocked for every mistake I make.

While I am familiar with most of the rules, I have learned that if someone changes the content I added to Wikipedia; I’m not allowed to revert that, because that is starting an edit war (as to me explained and repeated by user:ImprovedWikiImprovment [3] ) -- while, stated by another administrator, changing simple categories is not obvious vandalism). I didn’t know at the time, that my reversions were ‘official’ starts of an edit war. That has been a hard lesson. I’m sorry that I was unfriendly to Auntof6 by reverting his edits before waiting to his reply. It reassures me that the involved administrator didn’t see my reversions as disruptive and called it even ‘a normal process’.

I fully understand that the blocking user had a valid reason to block me and that the block is justified. When the blocking user saw my edits he concluded I was taking ownership of articles and saw I was blocked at two other wiki’s. The blocking user didn't have to look at anything else per WP:Onestrike and for protecting this wiki he blocked me. I fully understand the blocking user had the rights to block me per WP:Onestrike and it was justified. From the history at this Wiki I understand that users who are blocked at other wiki’s are quickly seen as disruptive and seen as a danger for this wiki. The blocking user had the best intention for this wiki to block me and to protect this wiki.

So if someone changes content I added to Wikipedia, I will never revert that anymore. I have learned my lesson. If it happens, I will go to the talk page to discuss that, in a friendly way (or I will simply ignore the reversion if I don’t have the time). I have proven (before making this error) that I was an editor making constructive edits (as mentioned by others in the discussion). And I know, I’m in time not that long here but I made almost 9000 edits and created over 900 articles and interacted with several users about the content I made. I was one of the most active users before being blocked. I learned from every mistake I made in the past, and will learn from this. I can’t promise I won’t make mistakes anymore, but I will do my utterly best not to make mistakes anymore and I will contribute to Wikipedia making constructive edits and be friendly. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|2=reason}}