User talk:Thehistorianisaac

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amigao (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
Admins arrested in Belarus.
Pardon our alliteration!
A get-out-of-jail card!
And other new research publications.
Holy men and not-as-holy movies.
Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!
After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.
With some sweet-and-sour sauce!
Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?
Egad!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reverting of subtle vandalism(and WP:HOUNDING edits). User I reverted has refused to explain their edits even after multiple attempts to explain so, and is quite openly a WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor. My reverts were purely to enforce policies against an editor who has ignored policies and consensus.

Decline reason:

You violated WP:3RR. It doesn't matter that you only did repeated reverts out of desperation, you still chose to violate a bright-line rule. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • I'm not going to decline your request, but by the same token, I'm not convinced that the other user was editing in bad faith, which means it's not vandalism. Further, you might want to consider some of your own recent conduct before you continue down the path of WP:HOUNDING being a good reason for administrators to sanction an account. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred
I would suggest reading [1].
Even assuming good faith, the user has often ignored policies or consensus and has been involved in multiple prior edit wars. They have also been doing WP:PA against me, and have done borderline harassment [2]. I do believe WP:HOUNDING is involved, since all the articles where said user removed properly sourced info had said info added by me. I again, recommend you and other admins to at least review the ANI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I understand edit warring is a bad idea, though I already tried to explain policies, when they decided to ignore my policies. I only did repeated reverts out of desperation, as they have a history of not willing to discuss and ignoring consensus even after discussion. Their edit summary showed a lack of AGF and also was sort of "I'm edit warring just to edit war", which is why i reverted them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Could you please revert the Ford Super Duty and Commando articles back to their original state, as the edits are controversial, and as for the Ford Super Duty article the reasons for removing content is simply invalid(The info removed was properly sourced from reliable sources).
As for @The Bushranger (Sorry for pinging, I think this is quite important)
I understand the line of 3RR and will not contest this any further. However, I would like to hear your opinion on what I could have done. The user I have reverted the edits of has a history of edit warring, ignoring consensus and policies and lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is. Could I ask if there is anything I could have done differently, as not only did the edit remove sourced info from RS without a proper explanation(meaning the first revert had no problems), the user chose to WP:ICANTHEARYOU and has a history of only discussing after the 3 revert rule is violated. In fact, they have even made controversial changes [3] while a discussion [4] was ongoing, completely ignoring a discussion(where they also harassed me by the way). I would like to hear if there is anything I could have done differently.
Additionally, could you explain It's entirely possible that no admin intervention has been done because no admin has considered intervention necessary.? [5] I would suppose repeated edit warring, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, personal attacks, ignorance of consensus, harassment, and general incivility would require some intervention, as multiple other editors have pointed out [6] [7]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025 ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nghtcmdr (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are now under sanctions

[edit]

Please note that you are now interaction banned with Nghtcmdr and topic banned from chinese military, broadly construed. I advise you to read the banning policy, specifically the exceptions and appealing sections. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster
I won't appeal the Iban, but may I ask if I can appeal the TBAN(or ask for it to be a shorter ban) without also appealing the IBAN? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, how do I report Iban violations? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sanctions need to be appealed at WP:AN as they were placed by community consensus. Violations can reported in a similar way, although nothing more than a simple mention of a violation with a diff is needed. You can also report IBAN violations to me, since I placed the IBAN. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thank you.
Additionally, since I am Ibanned(and Tbanned), if I genuinely find an edit from the user i am Ibanned as disruptive, what I am allowed to do? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Do not comment on the other user unless you are directly called to (like via dispute resolution at AN/ANI, arbcom, or appeals) or they have violated the iban and you are mentioning the violation for the purpose of enforcement. The entire point of an interaction ban is to make you two find entirely new places away from each other to edit. And as for your edits relating to People's Armed Police, I would count them as falling under your topic ban. Like RovingPersonalityConstruct said, it is always better to be safe rather than sorry. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: you should seek clarification concerning whether People's Armed Police topics fall under "chinese military, broadly construed". Better safe than sorry. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will. I edited that article without realizing it. Most foreign sources consider it a "paramilitary" though they are active service members Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster
This edit [8] is an IBAN violationThehistorianisaac (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Nghtcmdr's edit was at 00:37, 17 July 2025. It wasn't until 00:43, 17 July 2025 that Sennecaster informed the editor that they were under sanctions. Melbguy05 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair most of us were aware that we should avoid each other's edits(Even though I made edits to the Jiaolong Commandos page I was unaware of their edit there at the time; the original draft for the article was made by me and published by Buckshot06 later on, so I typically say we both made it together), especially later on in the dispute; another thing is, this involves invalid content removal.(though I've been told not to discuss this aspect too much per WP:BRIE) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasé for Mr. Blasé and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Military History task force International involvement in the Battle of Yangxia

[edit]

Hi .User:Thehistorianisaac

I noticed you are a part of the Chinese Military History task force.

I am doing research on October 9th 1911 in Hankou during the the Battle of Yangxia. Some Chinese rebels were going to bomb the Russian concession there, but were caught and ran away. When they realized they were caught they started the 1911 Revolution. But this first battle was the Battle of Yangxia. The Russians, Americans, Japanese, British, Austro-Hungarians, Italians, French, and Germans all supported each other in defending the concessions. Mainly the rebels seemed to fight the Qing dynasty forces though.

It seems to me almost a mini Boxer Rebellion as far as the allies were concerned.

I want to know about European, Russian, and especially American involvement in the battle. I have a book that in 2 pages briefly goes over the battle and the foreign involvement in it, but not in much details.

I am wondering if you know of any books or articles that go over the international involvement in this battle. Also if you know of any good books on the War Lord period of China I would appreciate that too.

Thanks (:

~~~~ Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not the best with that era, but I will try to find sources to help(I have chinese history books, but most are pre-1911);
Keep in mind I have been Tbanned from "chinese military, broadly speaking"; I don't know if this includes pre-1949 chinese military history, though I will attempt to appeal it/request it to be shortened/request better specifications are reduction of scope in the near future
I will keep in touch if I find any of my books mentioning it though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would refrain from discussing this further. WP:TBAN explicitly gives discussions or suggestions about [TBAN topics] anywhere on Wikipedia as an example of things TBANNED editors are forbidden from doing. - ZLEA T\C 16:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for this edit in which you violated your topic ban from the Chinese military after a previous warning that the People's Armed Police fall into that topic area. Additionally, please note that the edit came very, very close to also being a violation of your IBAN; some other admins might even say it crossed the line. So while the block is only for the TBAN violation, please be more careful on the IBAN front as well. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was aware of the Tban and the extent, but I was not aware I was banned from mentioning the People's Armed Police or adding links at all. I thought a TBAN usually means being banned from editing articles/sections relating to said topic, not being banned from adding a link to a relevant article on a disambiguation page. Ultimately, I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, as I think simply mentioning it on a disambiguation page doesn't constitute a 72 hour block.

Decline reason:

I don't think 72 hours for a topic ban violation (although an edge case) is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilknightI think I would agree under typical circumstances, but 72 hours for simply mentioning "People's Armed Police" seems to much. I think at the very least, it should be reduced to 48 hours;Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! To clarify, topic bans are usually worded as "broadly construed" (which is the case for yours), meaning that borderline cases are considered to fall under the topic ban. In the future, if you aren't sure about whether an edit falls under it or not, it is better to ask an admin familiar with the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but 72 hours for simply adding a link seems to be very extreme at best Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may arguably have been too severe after months of rigorously following the topic ban, but certainly not among the very first edits after the topic ban was in place. There's no "simply" adding a link; you shouldn't be involved in anything to do with the topic or related topics anywhere on English Wikipedia. WP:TBAN does a lot of work to make it as clear as possible that there is no "but it's just a small thing" exception to a topic ban. I think it would serve you best to spend the time you're using to attempt to argue a short 72-hour block into a short 48-hour block to instead review how topic bans are treated on English Wikipedia. The community is really no-nonsense about pushing on the edges of topic bans. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs
I was planning to appeal the TBAN(or request it's duration have a set date on not be indefinite), would this block affect a potential appeal? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even remotely involved here so know nothing of the underlying dispute, but I would recommend that you do the following:
  • Rigorously avoid editing the topic you're banned from or anything related for several months, instead editing in areas completely unrelated to Chinese military history. Build up a track record of constructive editing.
  • Once enough time has passed and you feel like an appeal has a chance of passing, contact an experienced editor about your chances for an appeal, explaining why you were banned and how you will edit differently in the future. This should likely not be less than about a year in the future.
But honestly you should not even be thinking of appealing the ban right now. You should be building up a track record of constructive, uncontroversial content creation in areas not even remotely related to China. I was topic-banned once and believe me, it was incredibly frustrating every time I saw something I wanted to change and couldn't change it. But believe me, if you are truly ready to appeal the ban, you must know why it was imposed, why it was justified and believe it. Note that excessive question-asking about the limits of your ban will probably be considered gaming the system. hope my advice helps. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks;
My tban mostly came from more of a conduct dispute(IMO it was me enforcing policy way too harshly, but that's just how I see things) and was a side product of the IBAN(The IBAN got near universal approval, even from me and said editor, the TBAN did not recieve as much support); I actually had a rather good record prior to the dispute(excluding early edits;) and have continued to make proper edits since. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The level of support does not affect enforcement of the topic ban, and it would be a giant mistake to treat it lightly because of that belief. Nor would immediately appealing a topic ban be a good idea, and yes, failing to follow the topic ban can make it harder to have the topic ban lifted later, and in many cases, repeated violations of topic bans have lead to indefinite blocks. I hate seeing what starts out as a minor issue for an editor snowball into a more serious one, so while you're topic banned, I urge you to approach Wikipedia as if there wasn't any content about the Chinese military or anything related to it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I already actively tried to avoid editing anything related, but kept bookmarking websites to use for later and kept in mind articles that need improving; I will be going to mainland china on saturday for a while(ironically for a military related summer camp sort of thing) so I will likely not try to appeal it before I come back(as I hate having ongoing discussions while on holiday).
In the meantime though I will continue to not touch any articles, but record down all articles that may need improving in the future(and gathering sources; won't touch anything though) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second block and final warning

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating your IBAN (flagging issues with Nghtcmdr's work) and also your TBAN (the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the military). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered making this block indefinite, because you're not showing any indication of being prepared to comply with your bans. You know that the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the military. You know—or at least really should know—that tagging an article as having issues when your are IBANned from its sole author is interacting with them. You are trying to run right up to the boundaries of your bans and you are misjudging where they are.
What I'm about to say isn't a requirement like the ban, but it's some advice I really hope you take: Stay far away from these things. Act like you're banned from way more than you are. Don't edit about China at all. Don't edit about military topics at all. Don't edit about police topics at all. Don't edit any article Nghtcmdr has ever touched. If you cannot judge the boundaries of your bans, this is the only way to avoid violating them. In time you may get a better sense of what's appropriate and be able to move back into these spaces, carefully.
I decided against indeffing because I wanted to give you this advice and see if you take it. I will be clear, though, if I have to block you again it will likely be indefinite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Tamzin: I have been working with Thehistorianisaac on a draft Chinese civilian police article Draft:SWAT (China) not military related. Does Thehistorianisaac's TBAN now include this? The TBAN imposed by administrator Sennecaster was for "Chinese vehicles and military technology, broadly construed". Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not strictly fall under the TBAN, although any parts of it relating to the Chinese military do fall under it. (Also, the binding wording of the TBAN, as logged at WP:EDR, is Chinese military, broadly construed; Senne reworded her close.) That said, I would reiterate my suggestion above that Isaac stay far away from the bounds of his topic ban, and thus strongly discourage him from working on an article that is only a hair's breadth away from the Chinese military. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not asking for immediate unblock, but asking for possible reduction of date(and also for some help on my user page):
Sorry for the CCG edit, I made it almost split second around 40 min before I went on summer camp and wasn't really thinking clearly. I planned to revert it, though I was already on the high speed rail at the time and couldn't. I sincerely apologize for that edit(though if I wasn't TBANNED the edit would still be acceptable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and consensus that deprecated chinese gov affiliatted sources can still be used for non controversial purposes in regards to stuff about the chinese gov(e.g. ship names which is what I did)). However I will have better self control and avoid touching(I will still record down articles that need help and will edit them when i am allowed to) related articles until I successfully appeal the TBAN.
However, I believe the part about the IBAN violation is unfair. WP:IBAN states edit Foo's user and talk pages; reply to Foo in discussions; mention @Foo by linking to their user page; make reference to or comment on Foo anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly; undo Foo's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; use the thanks extension to respond to Foo's edits." none of which I have violated, as I stumbled across an article(which so happened to be made by said editor; You aren't giving enough plausible deniability considering the fact that me and said editor have extremely similar interests, and that we are likely to end up editing similar articles) with bad sourcing and tagged it as such.

Additionally, may I ask if somebody could remove the wikibreak template from my talk page? I'm back from summer camp and the template is outdatted

Decline reason:

Userpage has been edited per their request. Like PhilKnight, I see no grounds for lessening the block especially considering you were very close to an INDEF. Please use the balance of the block to gain a more full understanding of the issues with your edits so that you can edit more productively down the road. Further misconduct will likely be an INDEF so tread carefully before and after the block expires. Star Mississippi 15:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • I have removed the wikibreak template from your user page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you only have a week left on your block. Not requesting an immediate unblock doesn't make a lot of sense to me. PhilKnight (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, whether or not the edit that violated your topic ban would have been OK if you were not topic-banned isn't really directly relevant here: the fact is that you are topic-banned.
As for the iban, that's definitely commenting/referencing someone else's work. By adding a tag to an article created by Nightcmdr very recently, with the content all or mostly created by Nightcmdr, you were telling the community something about Nightcmdr's work. It's perfectly fair; an IBAN isn't something you're suffering from or something that happened to you, it's the consequence stemming from you and the other editor conducting yourselves poorly. So yes, due to overlapping interests, you may have to stay out of articles and conversations you'd be allowed to edit otherwise, as will Nightcmdr. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs@PhilKnight @Tamzin
Would like some advice on something;
I am planning to appeal both the TBAN and IBAN for reasons I will disclose when I do make the appeal
I would like to have some advice for whether the IBAN(I will definitely try to appeal it first) covers an edit I plan to do in the future;
The user I am IBANNED with has recently created tonnes of redirects(Such as Beijing Fire and Rescue, Shanghai Fire and Rescue) on the National Fire and Rescue Administration page; all of them are self redirects; Now originally they were red links or interlanguage links, and I had previously planned to create those articles in the near future;
May i ask if converting those redirects into proper articles would violate the IBAN? I had previously already planned to create said articles prior to the dispute, but the fact that said editor has turned them into self redirects concerns me on whether turning them into articles would violate the IBAN.
I would also like to ask whether said editor has also violated their IBAN, as many of those redirects made(On both the NFRA and CMSA pages) are from interlanguage links that I added; I would also like to add that the subject of the redirects they made on the NFRA page were formerly part of the China Fire Services or People's Armed Police Forestry Corps prior to 2018(if you don't believe me, just check the NFRA article) who were part of the People's Armed Police and were legally speaking active service military personnel, which means that those could be interpreted as TBAN violations. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you're concerned, anything that Nightcmdr says or does should be treated by you as if it doesn't exist (and vice versa). The only exceptions are obvious vandalism (none of this applies) and the minimum of what is needed for constructive dispute processes. See WP:BANEX. Whatever sanctions they may receive ought not be your concern. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to report suspected IBAN violations; And my question is whether the fact they have made a self redirect means I am completely banned from making the proper article on stuff like the beijing fire and rescue etc Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm gonna answer your question with a question, Isaac: If you're monitoring Nghtcmdr closely enough that you know they created all these redirects four days after they created List of FBI employees killed in the line of duty—an unreviewed page with 3 non-template-based backlinks and 0 watchersadmin link—but two days before you made your edit to that article, why should I believe you that you stumbled on that page without having any idea that they created it? Should I not conclude that you are stalking the contributions of an editor you are interaction-banned from? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs@Tamzin
  1. The pages linked to said article are very often visited by me, so I stumbled across them there.
  2. I am literally the person who made the interlanguage links on the NFRA article and the CMSA article, those links suddenly turning blue would definitely be noticed by me
(I'm just gonna add this cause why not)
Why my Iban should be lifted and what I think is the ideal end of the situation
At the end of the day, I have nothing personal against said editor. I believe just like all editors, they will have the capability to make good edits. I think just like how I often cooperate with the editor that, 1 year ago, monitored my edits, I believe I have the capability to collaberate with the editor I am Ibanned with if we are both more civil to each other.
If the IBAN and TBAN is successfully lifted, what I'll do is I will personally apologize for being to harsh and incivil towards said editor and also try to explain why said editor's edits were disruptive(the invalid content removal in particular).
I will also repair/ask editors to repair articles whose content was incorrectly removed, or ask for third opinion on some other articles.
Even so, I still advise that somebody take their time to make sure said editor understands policy. As other editors have pointed out
I'm willing to cooperate and be civil(I will choose to do so unconditionally) to said editor, though I also hope they are willing to acknowledge they have frequently misinterpreted policy(claiming sources need to be "verified" before they are used(basically saying sources are unreliable until proven reliable), making self redirects) and some of their previous edits be fixed. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in your best interests to not push the edges of your topic ban/interaction ban. You've been doing that since the moment they were put in place, already earning two blocks in a week on barely a dozen edits.
As far as you're concerned, Nightcmdr shouldn't even exist. My impression of the situation is that you're much closer to an indefinite block than you are to a successful appeal of either sanction.
I would urge you to think deeply on the question of what you value more: your ability to participate on English Wikipedia or winning a feud you have with another editor. That's a question only you can answer, and it's one that will be answered with actions rather than words. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to state I'm not here to win a feud. I have no problem with said editor, I have problems with their edits going against policy, and the fact they have done so repeatedly. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say this once, and I really hope you listen: WP:BANEX does not include complaining about your co-IBANnee as part of discussing why your IBAN should be lifted, unless your complaint is that they've violated the IBAN, and even then that allegation needs to be made concisely and without editorialization.
If you say anything, and I mean anything, about Nghtmcdr again, by name or not, and it is not part of an IBAN appeal at AN or a violation report at AN/I, I am going to block you indefinitely. And if I were you I'd be really careful on that second exception, because if you're wrong about what you report there's a good chance you'll get blocked for gaming the system.
Go edit about something else. Anything else. Anyone else. As CoffeeCrumbs has been saying, as far as you are concerned, from this moment forward, Nghtcmdr is a person who does not exist. The only degree to which you're aware of them should be knowing that, if you see their name somewhere, you walk the other way. Even in situations where you technically don't have to walk the other way, because you've shown three times over (counting the violations in your most recent messages) that you do not know how to walk the line safely. If that means you cannot edit about articles you want to edit about, then okay. There are 7,034,038 articles. Pick one. You want to edit about military topics without running into Nghtcmdr? Okay. Here's the article on the Burkina Faso Armed Forces. It could be five times the size that it is. Here's the article on the Ministry of Defence and National Service (Tanzania). It only lists the current officeholder (who doesn't have an article) and someone who was in office at an unclear point in the 1970s.
Or you can appeal this ban when this block expires. The block threat above still stands there, for what it's worth: If you file an IBAN appeal and it contains complaints about Nghtcmdr, requests that others monitor their edits, etc., I am just going to block you, and I really doubt anyone's going to object to that. That's the middle-case scenario. The best-case scenario is that the appeal is just declined; there is no scenario where it's granted, none. The worst-case scenario is that the community tires of your antics and sitebans you. And then you turn what could be an easy ban appeal after six months of good edits into something much harder to come back from.
I've given this speech to a lot of people over the years. Almost no one listens. Then they're shocked when they get indeffed or sitebanned after doing the thing I said would get them indeffed or sitebanned. I'd love if you could be in the minority who don't go down that path. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; For the part regarding my concerns I probably will do that in my apology/explanation.
Though thanks for reminding be about the burkina faso armed forces, reminded me that tonnes of african articles still need improving just as much as chinese articles(though since I know chinese and there are tonnes of chinese resources online it's far easier.).
May I also ask if I should do the TBAN and IBAN appeals separately, or should I do one first(personally I have much more faith in the TBAN getting lifted over the IBAN)? May I also see some examples of prior successful appeals? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only advice I can give you on appealing is not to do it. Not at least for 6 months after the expiry of this block. Whether you appeal nonetheless is only a decision you can make. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I realize my edits were in violation of the tban and Iban, and will actively avoid editing said topics and also check article history to make sure there is no IBAN violation until both are appealed(which per advice I likely will not do within the next month). I will mostly focus on editing my current drafts or participating in constructive conversation on noticeboards and discussion areas.

Decline reason:

This is not a reason for shortening the block, which was already lenient. You're being disruptive. Please stop or you'll likely lose access to edit your talk page for the duration of the block. Star Mississippi 12:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT article

[edit]

@Melbguy05

Currently for the Chinese SWAT draft, photos outside of SWAT vehicles(which are very easy to find anyways) are kinda lacking(To be honest when I came back from summer camp I saw a Guangzhou Railway public security office SWAT outpost at guangzhou south station but did not photograph it since I was too busy);

Now nearly every single Chinese news agency and government agency copyrights their photos outside of the China News Service youtube channel which sometimes has a Creative Commons Attribution license.(There have already been people uploading screenshots of said videos onto wikimedia commons)

Now, I found this video from the CNS which includes some training footage of the Beijing Railway Public Security Office SWAT division("Iron Eagle Commando Unit") though I could not see any license; May I ask if this means it is copyrighted?(Also beware, not all their videos are free from copyright, this one of a Shaanxi SWAT competition explicitly says(in chinese) at the end that it is copyrighted)


The only real video I could find with a attribution license is this one of 24 members of the Garze SWAT being found alive after the 2022 Luding earthquake, though I think that would be more useful on the earthquake article itself than on the SWAT article.


Keep in mind, the 2022 Luding earthquake article claims "24 people are missing"(aka the SWAT members) which is outdated; On September 10 all 24 SWAT members were found alive and evacuated via 2 helicopters.

(Sources: [9](China news service) [10] (Hunan Daily))

Apparently they were part of a group of 240 SWAT officers deployed to perform disaster relief after the earthquake, and those 24 SWAT officers were deployed to Hailuogou(where the only road was heavily damaged), though on September 8 their connections failed, leading to people believing they went missing.

(Source: [11](PRC central government), and the same CNS source from above)

I'm blocked so I can't update the article myself, but may I ask if you could help update said article, and maybe also add it to the list of events on the Chinese SWAT draft? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thehistoricanisaac, as you're currently blocked, you should not be discussing or suggesting edits. Your talk page is only open for the limited purpose of discussing issues related to your block or other Wikipedia processes. It could result in your talk page access being removed for the duration of your block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thehistorianisaac, once you are unblocked you can edit Draft:SWAT (China) yourself. WP:BLOCKEVASION states if I edited the article with information provided by you it would be considered "proxy editing". By you giving suggestions to another editor that they edit an article on your behalf might be considered an attempt to evade a block. WP:USERTALKBLOG states that "Users who are site-blocked or site-banned should rarely use their talk pages for anything other than unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request." Melbguy05 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Will edit the earthquake article myself.
How about the copyright of the videos? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your TBAN and IBAN after a final warning.
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 ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In regards to both violations: 1. I was told to report what I suspected to be IBAN violations, and WP:BANEX states asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation). I wanted to ask if said redirects would be an IBAN violation, which I have been instructed to report when I received the message that I had been Ibanned; I also wanted to know whether making said redirects into articles would also be an IBAN violation on my end; BANEX also states I am allowed to ask about the extent of the ban. 2. For the TBAN, I was not discussing the chinese military, but asking if making potential articles on Chinese fire departments would be making a TBAN violations as they were previously manned by active service personnel prior to 2018. My comment there was only an attempt to add context and was not a discussion; I apologize for any discussion caused by said comment at the end; I understand I was previously given a final warning, though I have actively avoided even touching any articles relevant to the TBAN along with interaction with said editor; However asking about the extent of the TBAN and IBAN(along with reporting suspected IBAN violations) is not a violation of either; I think if I am to ever gain the trust of the community again, I should be able to know what I am allowed to edit. If I am ever unblocked: 1. For the first week i will stick to edits related to geography or avoid stuff like police or firefighting; I will stick to things such as grammar, adding citation needed tags etc. 2. I will continue to adhere to my IBAN and TBAN for their duration(with the only exceptions being the ones on WP:BANEX), though I will even try to avoid those whenever possible.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla I explained why the block is not necessary, as both violations cited fall under WP:BANEX; I also explained that I understood why I got blocked since even though they fell under WP:BANEX it still was getting too close; I also explained that I will avoid getting to close to violation either ban, and also that I would make useful contributions in the future; Could I ask what was wrong in my unblock request? Thehistorianisaac (Talk) 0:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reason I am blocked is since I violated the IBAN and TBAN, and I apologize sincerely for my actions. I will try to avoid violating the IBAN and TBAN as much as possible, even in cases where I believe it falls under WP:BANEX. I will attempt to stay away from anything even remotely related to the TBAN topic. Additionally, I will check every page's history to make sure I am not violating the IBAN.

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you on a WP:ROPE basis. You are given a final warning not to violate your IBAN or TBAN. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging in @Tamzin, who issued the final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a WP:ROPE unblock, with the understanding that it would be much harder to come back from a second indef for this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: - are you okay with a WP:ROPE unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Given that the last "final" warning didn't work, I think this final warning should be logged at WP:ER/UC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna try to dispute the last warning, but I was under the impression the commnet that got me banned fell under WP:BANEX; What i've learnt is to basically just completely avoid getting too close even if I believe it would fall under WP:BANEX Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight Thank you. I again apologize for my previous actions, and will try to stay away from topics which would fall under the tban/iban while it is active. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

[edit]
UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.
Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
And other new research findings.
Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.
With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.
It's an easy one.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port of Tianjin governance, traffic management and law enforcement

[edit]

You might want to move your signature closer to the text that you wrote here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks; This is the first time I ever used Afd so I'm kinda new Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely again

[edit]

In your successful unblock request a few weeks ago, you said I will attempt to stay away from anything even remotely related to the TBAN topic. That is plainly false. Almost every edit you've made since being unblocked was only a step removed from the Chinese military: Chinese civilian or paramilitary law enforcement [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], Chinese foreign relations [20], Chinese human rights issues [21], Chinese civilian governance [22][23], other countries' militaries [24][25], a ship in a navy that was at war with China [26]. I actually only count three mainspace edits that aren't a step removed from your TBAN area [27][28][29].

Nonetheless, I am not blocking you for that part. You were not under any formal obligation to avoid TBAN-adjacent topics. However, the fact that you said you would do so, and then did the exact opposite, keeps me from cutting you any slack for the inevitable TBAN violation that did occur. In this edit (and these 2 related redirect creations [30][31]) you directly advanced the POV of the People's Republic of China (something you'd already done in a few of your TBAN-adjacent edits [32][33]) on an article on a geographical feature that is actively contested by the Chinese military. The article includes a sentence about an engagement between the PRC Navy and British merchant vessels, and you added a mention of the Philippine Navy removing markings from the "island" [sic], sourced to an article that frames this as part of a dispute between the Philippine and Chinese navies. (You also removed a sourced paragraph about the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling in favor of the Philippines, which is blatant enough POV-pushing that I'd be tempted to block here even if this weren't a TBAN violation.)

Wikipedians like giving second chances, but are much more hesitant about third chances. You came to this talk page, told three admins you'd stop doing what you were doing, got us all to trust you, and then came back and violated your ban even more blatantly. There are some indefblocks for TBAN violations that convey "You're blocked until you can learn to comply" and others that convey "This is the least restrictive way to enforce the community-imposed TBAN, and so should be treated more like a community sanction". Your first block was the former, and this block is the latter; I'll say in advance that any unblock here, now or 6+ months from now, should go through AN, as it's the community's trust you've violated here, not just mine as one admin. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. None of my edits are, remotely related to the tban.(e.g, I doubt anybody would say railway police in China have anything to do with the military) In fact, none of my edits fall under "paramilitary law enforcement". The examples are not adjacent to tban, they are as related to the tban topic as Moscow is to Berlin.
  2. I was, again under the impression that the edit to reed tablemount was completely outside the tban, as none of the content added was related to the military.(For the source, I was just reusing a source I found on the Chinese Wikipedia Version of the article and did not see the part about the Chinese navy; even now I still haven't found anything )
  3. Saying I am pushing a POV is false; I added info with reliable sources(for the reed tablemount one, I used a Vietnamese source for better neutrality) to articles. The paragraph was an accidental deletion, where I misread it that it wasn't talking about the subject. I apologize for this honest mistake.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is not nessecary since:

  1. My promise was kept, as none of my edits were even ambiguously related to the chinese military.
  2. The paragraph removal on reed tablemount was a genuine mistake; if I was informed of this, I would have restored it. My additions are not POV-Pushing(in fact, I've even used sources like VOA [34] or Vietnam news agency [35] in an effort to be more neutral in them), and all my additions had a neutral point of view.

Decline reason:

I don't think there's anything I can say here that will make this any clearer to you. Declined, of course. asilvering (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A Future Unblock Request

[edit]

Thehistorianisaac, I'm very sad to see that you've been blocked again (and it appears to be justified). While you may be discouraged, this isn't necessarily the end of your time on English Wikipedia. I urge you to take a full six months away (meaning no edits anywhere on English Wikipedia at all), the usual minimum time for a WP:OFFER, to take a break and to deeply think what you want to do here in the future. Then, make a request for the community, with a list of topics you'd like to edit, that are far, far, far away from the ones covered in your topic ban, things that couldn't remotely connect to the ban, like chocolate milk or the Tour de France or cloud formation or the color aquamarine. It doesn't have to be one of those things; those are just the first four completely unrelated things that spring to mind out of millions of possibilities. Don't look for loopholes to get unblocked or to make edits to the banned topics; look for a new path, one that might eventually lead to the end of even your topic ban when the community is comfortable with trusting your discipline.

If you do these things, I believe that you would have a decent chance of being given another chance by the community in six months, while right now, I believe that you would have practically no chance of an unblock, either by the community or an administrator. Neither Tamzin or Asilvering are brutes; in fact, both have bent over backwards to give many editors as many chances as possible. Right now, you will likely only find frustration, as topic bans are designed for editors who are able to follow them; they're not intended to be enforced by admins and editors having to watch those with topic bans as a full-time job.

Unfortunately, you took a very risky approach to editing, choosing almost entirely topics right on the edge of your broadly construed topic ban. To do that successfully, you need an ironclad discipline and impeccable knowledge of where the community feels lines are drawn, which is why several people gave you cautions to avoid even nearby topics that were not explicitly covered by your topic ban. An indefinite block from the site may be far better for your future English Wikipedia editing than a parade of topic ban violations and unblocks. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs
I really doubt any of my previous edits(post my previous appeal) would even fall under the tban at all, no matter how they are interpreted. I already avoided anything people could possibly see as falling under the tban. None of the examples provided are, really, anywhere even ambiguously close to the tban(other than being from the same country). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm trying to tell is your best shot of being unblocked. Trying to force it now is not a good idea; you may very well end up with your talk page access removed, and then it becomes much harder to get unblocked. But what you do is, of course, your choice, and I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. Probably gonna change the boundary on what I call the "demilitarized zone"(aka stuff that is not in the TBAN, however I will voluntarily avoid, e.g chinese civilian maritime law enforcement like the CMSA or stuff like the great wall) and "safe zone"(unambiguously unrelated to TBAN topics). Thank you for your advice all these times though.
I think something me, you and @Tamzin can all agree on is that we have different definitions on what I should consider completely safe from the tban. I'm willing to move topics like foreign militaries or chinese civilian law enforcement into the "demilitarized zone" until the tban is lifted if this could make it easier to avoid getting to close to the TBan. However, I would like to ask whether I should completely start avoiding editing chinese topics(assuming the block is lifted in the future) until the tban or if you believe stuff like chinese administrative divisions or national parks is unambiguous enough from the TBAN. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac, regarding your question, yes, I really do think you should completely avoid some topics. But I think rather than "Chinese topics", it might be better to avoid topics that have anything even remotely to do with government, vehicles of any kind, and conflict of any kind, if there could be any plausible link to China. Most Chinese topics are probably fine. Some topics you evidently don't think of as "China-related" are too close. If you want to write about, say, Vikings or hanfu, you're fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin and Asilvering: I can't see an IBAN breach here. The IBAN is for "Chinese military, broadly construed". Editing Chinese civilian police articles is not a breach. Nor is Chinese foreign relations, Chinese civilian governance or other countries' militaries. A ship in a navy that was at war with China is far from the IBAN. The Japanese minelayer Tsugaru article has no mention of the Chinese military in the article, nor did the user add or edit any Chinese military related information in that article. The Reed Tablemount article has no mention of the Chinese military. User Thehistorianisaac might be guilty of pushing a POV and not complying with NPOV. But, correct me if I am wrong, they have never been given a NPOV warning before looking at their talk page. It seems harsh to block a user when no prior warning has been given to them to enable them to correct their behaviour. Melbguy05 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) As I said, the block is not for the 15 edits that were adjacent to the TBAN scope. It's just that the existence of those edits, after a promise to not get anywhere near the TBAN scope, makes me disinclined to cut any slack when, on the 16th edit, Isaac did fly too close to the Sun.
2) Again, as I said, the article mentions the Chinese military, as does the source Isaac cited in adding content about the Philippine Navy removing Chinese flags (implicitly, flags planted by the Chinese military). Furthermore, the entire article is about a Chinese military topic. The main thing that the Reed Tablemount is known for, as the article makes very clear, is that the PRC disputes the Philippines' claim on it and expresses this through military actions. If Isaac's edit had been entirely about hydrography or something, then maybe this would not have been a TBAN violation, but in fact the edit was entirely about the dispute between the Philippine and Chinese governments, as litigated by their militaries.
3) Yes, if this were just POV-pushing with no TBAN violation I probably would not block without a warning. (There's a reason I used the word "tempted" above.) However, given that it is a TBAN violation—after three previous blocks for violating the same TBAN or the related IBAN, multiple warnings, and a last-chance unblock—the fact that the edit was pushing a POV, rather than making some innocent change, was a contributing factor to the block. Usually whether a TBAN violation is independently problematic is the main decider of whether I warn or block.
All that said, I'll throw courtesy pings to @Sennecaster, Voorts, and PhilKnight to see if their opinions differ. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Tamzin to make the correct judgment calls when it comes to ban violations and enforcement and fully support their reasoning here. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarifications here:
For the TBAN violation, I was completely unaware that the flags were planted by the chinese military, as it wasn't mentioned in the source either.
For the POV pushing part, the paragraph deletion was genuinely accidental; for the additions, the history part was kinda unnecessary, but I do believe that somewhere claimed by China should at least have some mention of it's chinese name(history part can be viewed as sort of POV, as I likely should have added in text attribution, but I think adding what the chinese calls it is not really that controversial). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Chinese, but per Google Translate of the source you cited (emphases added): He said the Philippine Navy could not determine who erected the signs, 'These signs do not have "Made in China" logos or anything else,' just some numbers. But AFP said the Philippines removed the foreign signs in May this year, just before the Philippine Foreign Ministry formally lodged a protest over what it called the Chinese Navy's violation of Philippine territorial waters. Gaining 'US support' on the South China Sea issue also became a top priority for the Philippines on the 15th. ABS-CBN News reported that the Philippine Navy had cleared Chinese military markings in the West Philippine Sea, while the US was increasingly willing to 'get involved in the Spratly Islands dispute' and had issued the latest signal of 'full support for the Philippines.' ... It is said that at least three US warships will participate [in military exercises], which is sending a signal to China that the United States has military relations with these countries and China should not use force to resolve the South China Sea dispute.

For what it's worth, I'm a believer in not applying G5 on constructive pages, so I did look up the two Chinese names you added before I deleted the redirects; I found nothing for either of them [36][37]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin
Oh yeah for the name 礼乐滩, 乐 can be transliterated as Le or Yue depending on the context
This SCMP source [38] uses Liyue bank, and considering the namesake Yue would be correct. That's my mistake, since Le is the far more common transliteration(For example, in my chinese name). Maybe switch it to Liyue bank instead.
For Lu Bank, the source I used said it was a pre-1947 name so it's likely not gonna get mentioned.
For the source, I only read page one of the article, which only mentions the chinese navy at the second last paragraph, and I only read the top of the article which did not mention the Chinese navy. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Isaac, even if I believe you on all of this, and I'm going to be honest I don't think I do, the appropriate remedy would still be an indefinite block, just for a different reason. If you, while on a last-chance unblock from your third block from violating a topic ban on the Chinese military, are somehow able to cite a source that discusses the Chinese military, on an article that discusses the Chinese military, for a claim implicitly involving the Chinese military, while completely overlooking the parts of both the Wikipedia article and the cited source that mention the Chinese military, then this would be a competence issue. Topic bans are a lesser alternative to blocks for editors who are able to comply with them. If an editor is unable to understand what constitutes a topic ban violation, the only option we have left is an indefinite block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what counts as a topic ban violation; I explicitly avoided adding any content that mentioned the Chinese military, and I wasn't aware the location markers were made by the navy, I was just aware location markers were removed. As far as I was aware, I was simply adding the chinese name, and also mentioning chinese markers were removed. I probably should read all articles fully that I cite or edit though, however, WP:TBAN never mentions anything about source articles, and I also never touched any part relating to the chinese military, or added anything about the chinese military
On the same topic, I think at this point if I am unblocked there needs to be some huge changes to approach the tban. It's no use saying I will stay away from topics related to the TBAN, when both of us have different definitions. I'm gonna list out the topics I'm going to focus on if I get unbanned, and if you think any of them get too close, please tell me so I could focus on something else instead. IMO it's much easier to comply if there is a list of things I can do, instead of just a broad range of things to avoid or try to avoid which we have different definitions on;
Content edits:
Chinese national parks; may add national parks in a city to municipal articles, but won't touch anything else
Minor edits
Maybe random typo fixes on unrelated topics, will avoid TBAN topics or topics which fall under the "DMZ"(Chinese police(I may still make dummy edits to my drafts on chinese police to prevent them from auto-deletion, but nothing else), other militaries of foreign countries).
Other:
Discussions on village pump or helping new editors on help desk/AFC helpdesk;
I think it's much easier to comply and prevent misunderstandings if I have a proper plan to comply with the TBAN. Any opinions on if there are things I should still avoid? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin thoughts?
I realized(and regret it took me so long) that I probably should restrict myself more to somewhere I definitely won't violate the tban, in oppose to simply avoiding adding/removing/discussing content on chinese military related articles or sections mentioning the chinese military.
My previous way of complying (or trying to comply) was just being aware of what fell under the tban and avoiding articles about it or sections involving it quite obviously failed. Another thing is, there's not much use saying I will avoid stuff that are tban adjacent, if we both have different definitions of that. My idea is it's much easier to comply if I have something to focus on editing that I can be completely sure won't violate the Tban;
(However, I would also still like to be able to make dummy edits to the drafts so they don't get deleted automatically before I manage to appeal the tban; I won't add anything new though) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said about your TBAN, now and before, has been about how much you want to comply with it. Everything you've done has shown the exact opposite. I don't know whether that's due to malice or incompetence, but I give more weight to what people do than what they say they'll do. My position remains that the community said you should be banned from editing about the Chinese military, and you've proven unwilling or unable to follow that restriction, and so if there's to be an unblock here, that decision should return to the community. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thehistorianisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The ban is not nessecary because: #For the listed prveious edits, they were already decently far away from the tbanned topic to not fall under the tban or even be considered borderline. #For the edit on the reed tablemount article [39], the navy section was left completely untouched per TBAN guidelines; in fact, I had not read that part of the article, and apologize for not being more careful. For the paragraph removal, I have previously explained it was accidental, and would have restored it had I been informed of the accidental removal. Additionally, for the new additions, all of them had adhered to WP:NPOV guidelines as I had used reliable sources in that context along with using a neutral tone. If you have further questions on my previous edits, I will be happy to explain them.

Decline reason:

South China Sea islands whose notoriety is almost entirely based on the naval deployments and maneuvers of the PLA Navy and the navies of other disputing nations are definitely covered by a broadly construed tban on the Chinese military. I would suggest dropping the wikilawyering and sticking to promises to give the topic a wide berth for any future unblock requests. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Bugle: Issue 233, September 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]