User talk:Flanker235

Hi Flanker235, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:West 1024.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:West 1024.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flanker235. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military figures by nickname, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maquis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

==F-35 article Talk page comment under "Criticism as a separate article" I thought your comment on the Talk page there under "Criticism as a separate article?" to be valid and very timely. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on this topic. Though I'm new to editing the F-35 article I'm concerned there may be an ongoing effort by the people who've edited it most recently to obscure criticism of this weapons system, as I believe I've experienced with my attempts to include commentary on the recent engine explosion.BLZebubba (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Flanker235. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Flanker235. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Flanker235. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Porsche 962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franz Konrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Kleck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCVS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your recent edits to Talk:John Boyd (military strategist) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Please immediately strike your suggestion that I or any other editors should face legal action. Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed. Posted in error.Flanker235 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Hey I thought I would give you a heads up, you jumped the gun on an ARBCOM request as you issue is still technically a content dispute and you have only tried a level 1 dispute resolution on the article talk page. Your better step would be to try to follow WP:DISPUTE before jumping to level 5 (ARBCOM) expecting anything to happen there. ArbCom only deals with the most grievous issue that the community is unable to handle, this situation is no where near that level. I would recommend removing your request if no one has already replied or asking for it to be withdrawn while you seek other solutions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion so, yes, I'm aware. Thank you. Flanker235 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined as premature

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your advice. Your colleague above has already indicated that I should do something else. It is not my intention to waste anyone else's time. I had already suggested dropping it and investigating another avenue so I will do that. Wikipedia is a difficult thing to navigate for those not in the know. Flanker235 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dreamy Jazz:,

In response to your suggestion that I contact you directly, this is good faith advice only. There is no threat from me. I am contacting you because you offered to help with a link to your User Talk page at the time this happened.

My intention is entirely in good faith. No less. I suggest that the previous mentions by others of "instaban" or "cut it out" "or a block will be needed" are a bit premature.

All I want is a calm and reasonable discussion and your response sounded more conciliatory.

I have more than 35 years of professional experience in broadcast media in Australia, having worked as a cameraman, editor, producer, journalist, public relations practitioner, and university lecturer at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. I also hold a Master’s degree in Communication (Journalism and PR). I am not a lawyer and I make no representations on behalf of anyone else.

Almost two years ago I raised a number of issues relating to the page on John Boyd (military strategist), with particular reference to content that was potentially dangerous to Wikipedia. Because the original article contained some allegations that bordered on character assassination, I placed an NPOV tag on it. I am not a coding expert and the first problem I encountered was that someone reverted it. It eventually emerged that the person doing this was an editor called @Pbritti:. If he expected me to know every trick on Wikipedia, he was mistaken. I didn't know which tag to use so I left it after the second reversion but it seemed to me that it was matter of opinion. So be it.

However, what concerned me most was the heading that shouted "Incest". I am not a lawyer but I spent my career interfacing with publishing law every day. I am very cognisant of what can and cannot be published. It should be pretty clear to anyone in the publishing business that any imputation of serious sexual crimes cannot be made unless that person has been convicted. I have seen no evidence that he ever was. In other words, Boyd must be presumed innocent and that comment cannot normally exist on a page that is specific to that person. There are different laws in different jurisdictions about whether it is possible to defame the dead. I am not in the United States and I don't know whether it applies in Wikipedia's jurisdiction.

However, because of the implications of this heading, it directly identifies Boyd's surviving family members. In some jurisdictions the law prohibits the identification of victims of sex crimes. This is potentially incredibly messy. No amount of documentary evidence - like comments from his biographer - can change this. Without a criminal conviction, Boyd must be presumed innocent.

I stress again that I am making no legal threat here.

The editor Pbritti did not read it that way, despite my attempts to persuade him otherwise. He refused to comment until the "threat" was lifted and placed a warning on my User Talk page.

I was completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's labyrinthine dispute resolution system so I selected what seemed the most appropriate. This was a much more serious situation than a simple matter of opinion so I thought a higher authority was necessary. My application was dismissed as "premature". So be it. But it doesn't end there. Those who commented seemed uninterested in the potential legal consequences and more concerned that I had committed a few procedural errors. For his part Pbritti offered (to someone called Tamzin) to collaborate with me on the problem - having said he would not on the Talk page - and since the ball was in his court, I waited to hear from him. There was no response.

I do not accept that my original concerns were badly worded or expressed and I was surprised - as you can see from my remarks at the time - at Pbritti's reading of what I said. I stress again that there was never a legal threat from me.

I am not threatening legal action. My sole purpose is to highlight this risk so Wikipedia can take steps to protect itself and its subjects. Specifically:

1. Remove the “Incest” heading and associated material from the Talk page.

2. Suggest you review moderator training to ensure that publishing law risks are recognised and taken seriously.

3. Consider whether remarks made by moderators to management (e.g., willingness to collaborate) match their actual actions.

4. I ask that the offending material be removed without delay. Given the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Foundation to acknowledge that my concerns were misunderstood and that the handling of the matter caused unnecessary reputational harm to me as a contributor.

Relevant Talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

Discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flanker235#c-Pbritti-20230907162800-September_2023 Flanker235 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently inactive from Arbitration Committee clerking, so won't be able to address your comments.

I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you want to take this further. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Flanker235 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what the issue you are raising is. You seem to be under the impression you were one subject to a ban. I do not see any evidence this was the case, nor do I see any evidence you were ever blocked. I noticed one of your other recent comments claims that you have been unable to edit my talk page. You absolutely may, and there is no technical or policy prohibition against doing so. I recall the content of your previous posts and recall you insisting that a very old comment to a talk page somehow opened Wikipedia to possible legal repercussions, though this claim was not supported nor reasonable. I also recall you trying to take this to the Arbitration Committee, though that action resulted in you being told not to do that unless other mechanisms had failed. If you wish to detail problems with one or more pages on Wikipedia, I encourage you do so on the relevant pages with more succinct commentary. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to contact me you may do so through Dreamy Jazz. Flanker235 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker235 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Characterizing your statements as legal warnings pushes the limits of what is permitted on the project. You have spent multiple years suggesting there is a legal concern despite numerous editors telling you otherwise. Please understand we are here to make an encyclopedia. If you are not here to help, please do not disrupt it by reopening resolved discussions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flanker235,

I'm an editor and administrator on Wikipedia. You say (above) that the subject you are concerned about is "under administrative review" but I'm not sure where you believe that is happening. Pbritti has opened a discussion about this matter on the Administrators' Noticeboard and this is where you can go to discuss these matters. Even though you have said repeatedly that you are not considering taking legal action where you live, some of your comments sure sound like you are weighing this possibility. If you do make that claim, unfortunately under our policy, WP:NLT, you'll need to be blocked from editing until you retract your assertion that you will be taking any legal action.

I'm not really sure what your interest is in this article talk page mistake and why you seem to have been focusing on it for several years now. There are so many other ways we could use your help as an editor. But, for the moment, please come, check in at WP:ANI and dispell the impression that you might be considering suing the project. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to echo Pbritti's point, I've looked over the records for this account and it has never been blocked, not for an hour, not for a day. So, you might want to change that claim in your personal narrative story. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz (talk · contribs), thank you for your more conciliatory tone. I appreciate it even if it’s not what I want to hear. I assure you there was never any threat from me and never will be. Frankly, there’s nothing in it for me anyway. I would be happy for you to email me as I’m extremely reluctant to respond to anything specific here. But you’ll have to be quick. Best regards Flanker235 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already applied for WP:VANISH so your block is premature. I will not be appealing and I will never return. Flanker235 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your bid to vanish that's premature. Vanishing is a courtesy available only to editors in good standing. Since you have a habit of returning after long absences, the community is best served by keeping the history of your activities visible. E Eng 01:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy for you to keep those records, including my mistakes. It would be inappropriate to remove them. This could have been easily resolved. I'm like anyone else: I'm reasonable when treated reasonably. Except for @Liz:, I found little WP:AGF and in the end I felt too intimidated to even respond. It was clear that I could do nothing to change anyone's mind about what I was trying to achieve. I would have been perfectly happy to collaborate but nobody ever approached me, despite saying they would. Flanker235 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Flanker235 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but a blocked user on even one project is not qualified for vanish. -Lemonaka 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You came in on your high horse proclaiming how you were going to protect Wikipedia from the imminent legal peril it faced from your fellow editors' ignorance. No thanks. E Eng 13:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker235, as myself and others have said (but perhaps not on this page where it would be more appropriate, and for my part in that I apologize) if you have legal concerns about Wikipedia's content, you are welcome to reach out to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department. Their intake email is legalwikimedia.org. I did forward your concerns, but they and I agree that it would be more productive for you to contact them yourself. For one thing they do not have your email - Wikipedia considers account emails to be private and very strictly limits who is able to access this information, but if you email then they can respond through their support ticket system. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ivanvector, thank you for your post and I gratefully acknowledge your input. I saw today that the material I was concerned about has been archived and is now out of plain sight. This is an excellent solution and one which, when I was trying to imagine what could be done, I didn't even think of. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed and there is no need for me to contact Wikimedia Legal. Thanks for considering it anyway. My concern was always for Boyd's family. By taking this action, anyone who wanted to find it would have to really look for it. At the same time, Wikipedia hasn't attempted to erase anything. That's all I ever wanted. This is a good outcome for all. A hearty "well done" to whoever thought of it.

There remains the question of cleaning up the contentious parts of my User page and my Talk page. I realise that I am currently restricted by a block that makes things a bit tricky when it comes to me fulfilling my side of the bargain. If you can suggest a way forward with this, I’d appreciate it. I am perfectly happy to collaborate in removing any material Wikipedia admins deem inappropriate or otherwise concerning. I want to stress again that this is not about erasing history. I simply want to clear away what isn’t constructive, both the things that concern you and the things that concern me. I would need some supervision from an admin. If Liz could do it, I would be very comfortable with that. This is not because I feel any threat; I just want to make sure it’s done right, since wiki code is still a bit of a mystery to me. Then I can make my exit and we can all raise a glass. Flanker235 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, your user page can be deleted under our speedy deletion policy (criterion WP:U1). If you say here that you'd like to do that, any administrator can process that request, and there are already a few watching this page.

You are free to edit your talk page (this page) to remove anything you think should be removed (see WP:OWNTALK), or if you prefer it can be archived in the same way that the discussions on John Boyd's talk page have been archived. We presume that if you remove a comment from your own talk page, that is an indication that you have read it. You are only not permitted to remove a declined appeal for a current block, but there is not one here anyway, and you should not edit any comments (you can remove them entirely, but not edit them to change their meaning).

I am away until late next week for a funeral, but one of the other administrators watching this can help once you're ready to proceed. Thanks. (and courtesy ping Liz and The Bushranger) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ivanvector:, @Liz: and @The Bushranger:. Sorry for the delay getting back to you. I have been unable to post on my Talk page from my PC and I have not been able to figure out why (no VPN, no other changes). I have also spent the last week just taking a breather now that the matter is resolved. I have to admit to feeling a sense of relief about it. I would like to check with you as to the best thing to do next. I have considered appealing the block, as it seems to be the easiest way forward and allows me to close everything out and leave quietly.

If any of you has a point of view on this, I’d be open to it. Best regards, Flanker235 (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: this page is your talk page. Its title begins with "User talk:". If you were trying to edit your user page (which has a title beginning with "User:"), you would not be able to. Blocked users by default can edit their own talk pages, but no other page. I don't see any technical restrictions which would be preventing you from editing your talk page, and you did edit it to leave the comment above. If you were not able to edit it from a different device, for the time being let's chalk that up to some kind of unknown glitch, we don't need to figure it out to move forward.

@The Bushranger: I think it's clear from the post-block discussion here that Flanker235 is not intending to take any legal action, and they've been provided with contact info for WMF Legal in case they want to discuss any legal concerns in the future. Would you be okay with unblocking? They only want to be unblocked so that they can vanish, so I think it's probably okay to bypass the usual rigamarole of the unblock process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: If they truly solely wish to vanish, I have no objections to unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: @Liz: Can I leave it to you to decide between you?

@Ivanvector: yes, confirmed that I was using my user talk page. I am currently responding from my phone, since everything else seems to be blocked. Not ideal. I have logged out of all other sessions on other devices.

One question before I decide whether to take up your earlier offer of user delete: what happens to the two warnings and the block notice? I mean, I'm happy to get rid of the stuff you don't like. I'll take your advice. Flanker235 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Flanker235 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bushranger, can you please advise if any progress has been made on this or whether you would prefer me to just go through a regular appeal process? Cheers, Flanker235 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ivanvector:. I don't want to be a pain about this but I was wondering how far we've got. I don't want to have to go through the appeal process if there's a simpler way. Now that the matter is resolved, I just want this over and done. Would you mind a bit of an update when you've got time please? Thanks, Flanker235 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my delay responding. I was away for an unexpected funeral for a bit, then busy catching up at the office before leaving again on vacation, and have had very spotty internet access. I have unblocked your account, but I do not have the access required to process a courtesy vanishing request, so you will need to make a new request.

Regarding your questions: the vanishing process involves renaming your account to a random string of characters, so that this page and all of your contributions will be associated with that random string rather than your account's current name. Your user page will be deleted, and your account will be locked so that it can no longer be used on any WMF wiki. Your talk page will be renamed but will not be deleted, so if there is anything on this page you want to remove, you're free to do so but do it before requesting to vanish.

Vanishing is meant for wanting to leave Wikipedia permanently. If you create a new account after vanishing, the vanishing can be reversed and your new account connected to your former identity. I don't think you will (if I did I would not have unblocked you) but need to explain because this has been abused in the past.

If you have any other questions before making your request, please see the instructions for using the {{admin help}} template, to draw attention from another administrator since I likely won't be available for a week or two.

If you do see any material of legal concern in the future, please do feel free to contact the WMF's legal department. Otherwise, best wishes for your future endeavours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]