NatroneDay
I am not related to Pat Day nor do I have any business interests or personal associations with Pat Day.
I chose my name because I started my account to defend Pat Day and provide a factual accounting of his career in order to counter the one-sided slanderous and malicious attacks against Pat Day by user JIJJRG.
March 2020
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Arbitration enforcement request
editSince you have been indeffed and your opponent CU-blocked, the request is moot, and I formally closed it [1].--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
NatroneDay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to be unblocked for the following purposes: I am a racing historian and have been striving for the last month to provide an accurate, informed and balanced documentary on the Wikipedia page of Hall of Fame jockey Pat Day, widely considered one of the great jockeys who ever lived. The current text by the now-banned user JIJJRG was inflammatory, one-sided, false and misleading about the jockey's career. He clearly had an axe to grind and used two accounts to denigrate the character and history of this racing legend. I attempted to correct the record only to have 2,000 to more than 3,000 of my characters deleted every time by this user. Each time I added a positive note or record about Pat Day it was deleted by the hostile user JIJJRG.
I reached out for help to several moderators in an attempt to find a way to find a solution so I would not end up in an editing war or end up blocked as I place a high value for the mission of Wikipedia. My arguments have been backed up by other users who reviewed the case but they seemed to have forgotten about the page. I am not fluent in how to use the different codes and characters before and after citing sources but I have sourced all of my last attempted edit with an extensive list of credible sources from the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and ESPN but these were all deleted by the former user JIJJRG. I request help in documenting my sources with the proper coding and that my account be unblocked so I can provide an accurate record and description of the career of Pat Day, which is currently suffering from the attacks engineered by the former user JIJJRG who was a sock puppet of Peteski132 (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:JIJJRG ). Also, the hostility towards me by user JIJJRG and the mean-spiritedness that was shown towards Pat Day by JIJJRG which led to this situation can be better understood when examining the sock puppetry case of Peteski132 (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Peteski132/Archive) who was blocked for warring on the Jesus page. Pat Day was a well-known born-again Christian which gives further explanation as to why JIJJRG took such harsh actions on this page concerning my positive description of Day.
I thank you for your attention to this matter and hope that you will be able to help me in this important and honest endeavor to improve the page of Pat Day NatroneDay (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See below (chronological order). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
NatroneDay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to be unblocked. My efforts to balance the page of Pat Day with accurate and balanced history was blocked repeatedly by the now-banned user JIJJRG who was a sock puppet of Peteski132. I also think my choice of the name NatroneDay may also be causing some unwarranted suggestions that I am related to Pat Day (if I was a family member I would have obviously not named myself after the person I am writing about) and I would be glad to change the name to avoid any misconception this may have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatroneDay (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline since, as frustrating as waiting may be, you may only have one open request at a time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
Hi NatroneDay, edit warring is disruptive, even if you are right. In Special:Diff/948771035, a now replaced wording of your second request, you have described yourself as the "victim of an editing war". However, you have been an active participant of the edit war, and the encyclopedia was the actual victim of the dispute.
Whether you have a close connection to the topic or not: You have strong feelings about it and would probably continue pushing your preferred version if you were unblocked now. Instead of helping you to continue the disupte, I would like to help you with this appeal: I decline what is essentially a request for being allowed to continue the disruption. Other users' behavior is not at discussion here; you have been individually blocked because your edits have been disruptive. Your appeal currently denies this.
There are essentially two types of unblock appeals: Those that deny the initial block reason, and those that explain why it is no longer applicable. Your appeal is of the former sort, and can easily be declined: No, your edits have indeed been disruptive, and the block is necessary to prevent disruption. That's simple.
I recommend to make a different type of appeal: Explicitly agree not to edit about the topic again. At least not for six months or so, during which you make constructive edits that are completely unconnected to Pat Day. I recommend agreeing to a voluntary topic ban about Pat Day, and using the time while topic-banned to show the community that you are a productive volunteer who actually wants to improve this encyclopedia, instead of pushing personal projects. A conditional unblock could be a reasonable decision, perhaps even a partial block from editing Pat Day for the next six months. This timespan is in line with a common proposal, our "Standard Offer".
Ideas for contributions unrelated to Pat Day can be found at the community portal and the Task Center.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
NatroneDay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The encyclopedia wasn't the victim of the dispute. The reputation of Hall of Fame rider Pat Day was the victim of one editor's one-sided malicious attack on the jockey. The person who was editing the Pat Day page put in unsubstantiated slander in the Pat Day page under technique "he was given unflattering nicknames—Pat (I'll Wait All) Day,[6] Pat Delay Day and Patient Pat.[7][8] Many critics described Day's riding as exasperating, and many still grind their teeth remembering many of his rides aboard different horses. His patience as a rider was at times demoralizing for owners, trainers, fans and bettors."
This whole paragraph needs to be removed. The only accurate part of this paragraph is that he did have a nickname "Patient Pat" but it was a positive nickname not an "unflattering nickname" as the now-banned user JIJJRG demeaned him with.
This paragraph is a totally one-sided attack and needs to be removed, as does my unblock.NatroneDay (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
An unblock request is not an appropriate venue for conducting article content arguments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
NatroneDay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not believe my case has been thoughtfully reviewed. The issues are simply this: I created my account to balance out a one-sided hit piece on the article of Hall of Fame jockey Pat Day by an editor who has since been CU blocked for sockpuppetry. I reached out to administrators to fix the editing issue and was making progress before the now-blocked editor reached out to an administrator to block me. This administrator has since lost blocking rights. I am a collaborative editor and have patiently waited for the last month to resolve this issue and I am confident that you will see when I am unblocked that I will be an editor who contributes in a positive way to the community and that the edits I am making are important ones.
Decline reason:
One too many vile comments. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
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 now-blocked editor reached out to an administrator to block me. This administrator has since lost blocking rights. The admin who has blocked you has not lost his blocking rights that is an outright lie. If you lie like this when trying to get unblocked how can we be sure you won't lie if you do get unblocked.Tknifton (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think he's referring to Bbb23 taking a sabbatical after he was criticised by ArbCom for misuse of CheckUser, but I note that no actual userrights have been revoked as of yet. And even if they had, that doesn't make the block any less valid. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 19:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- The above request in a nutshell: "I created my account to edit war. I have then been blocked for edit warring. Please unblock me."
- Alternative proposal: Decline; in case of one more such appeal, revoke talk page access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let all know that NatroneDay is using numerous different sockpuppet ip addresses to continue pushing his preferred version [both removing reliably sourced content, and adding content without citing any reliable sources] with disruptive edit warring in the Pat Day article, including 2601:6C3:4081:A10:880F:BE7D:110A:5D64, 2601:6C3:4081:A10:FDF6:F268:862F:3E64, 2601:6C3:4081:A10:382C:1DB0:F90D:B67, 71.215.212.25, and 71.215.18.168.72.227.160.141 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.