Hello, CheckersBoard! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi CheckersBoard! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the time you've spent improving the Ringette article. It's on my watchlist and I've seen you make several edits recently, so I wanted to thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I initially just went in to correct typos...and it some how became a summer project lol. Not as professional as it should be, but there was a lot of cleaning up to do. I appreciate it :) CheckersBoard (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding the Sam Jacks article, I should still have that book. Will need to check through my library but I should be able to get the source. Appreciate you reaching out. Kind regards Mark Staffieri (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No rush, just trying to hunt down sources. Turns out sourcing any related ringette topic is far more difficult than I thought it would be. Seems I can find news articles but actual books appear to be scarce. Thanks again :) CheckersBoard (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette. You are in violation of the edit restrictions imposed when you were unblocked. This was discussed by user:Deepfriedokra and user:Drmies on your talk page [1], and you explicitly agreed to these restrictions prior to your unblock [2]. You reverted the same edit twice in 12 hours [3] [4] which is a violation of your 1RR restriction and your commitment to use dispute resolution for content disputes. Removing the unblock discussion and restrictions from your talk page [5] does not change anything, and the fact that you did so immediately after making your second revert makes it difficult to assume good faith. Furthermore, the the fact that your reverts included removing a source for Ringette Canada's transgender inclusion policy ^[1] is arguably a violation of your topic ban on human sexuality and your "Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits" restriction. Meters (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, this is disappointing. My options now are include a vigorous reminder, a short block, or an indefinite block. Perhaps Drmies will have more to say. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, I have always felt we were too lenient with this editor. Violation of 1R is immediately blockable, IMO--and do I read this correctly, Meters, that this person is fucking around making anti-trans edits? OK--I see it here. As DFO said, we do have options, but a warning comes like mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, and a temporary block is inappropriate, IMO, since blocks should be preventative and the "temporary" part might be just another invitation for the user to just wait a while and do it again. CheckersBoard, you will have to do much better than you did last time, after your last indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, it's been > 1 year. I would have expected backsliding or uncertainty or testing right after an unblock. I guess people just forget after a while. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this, but I have to say I am not surprised that this ended in a reblock. Meters (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did forget and no cleaning up my talk page was NOT a deliberate attempt to erase other warnings You can delete stuff from your talk page as I understand but the info is still accessible if it needs to be found. :I was looking for the talk page where an author left me a message, was looking for a missing source and they potentially had it. I was sick and tired of having to scroll through 50 or so outdated messages just to find the current ones. So I went on a declutter mission. :I forgot about reverts and gender stuff, I thought sex and gender were obvious. Also noticed at some point someone erased the fact that it was a non-contact sport, that's when I started trying to fix it again. Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll, but tried my best to make it more current. :I was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls which Meters had pointed out. I did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one. It's a very good one now that I have seen it, it means nothing has to be added to the article to explain it. Had I seen it to begin with I would have left it instead of wasting my time, especially since my attempt was just wordy and made the lead longer than was necssary, now it's short and sweet. And, if the edits are checked, did not say the sport was still exlusively female, I added women, boys and men. This can be checked in the edit history. I also added the majority of participants are still female, this is not made up. :The article is shorter now because a lot of content was moved to other pages or new articles which focussed on a related topic. I doubt it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary. :Anyways, can't do or say much more because I tend to write too much and more than is necessary and I don't have a lot of energy. Lately I'm actually focussed on looking for and filling missing info on other pages and translating articles. Plus I'm looking at possibly creating a stub because apparently there are two Red McCarthy's from Canada and they seem to have been mixed up. One played ice hockey but another was a pro ice skater, there's even footage on British Pathé, they are not the same man. :Yes, I can do better and now remember the gender and revert issue. I haven't had a problem for a long time, my record was good until this screw up. I keep getting confused over the gender issue, so sources work best for sure because I don't think I'm the only one. Thank-you for your time.CheckersBoard (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing this as the discussion below seems to have faltered and no one wants to actually accept the request. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (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.

• No objection to unblocking, though that's a terrible memory lapse. Counting on Drmies to disagree, but variety adds spice to life.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Deepfriedokra, maybe--but this is the last time. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes those with editing restrictions need a little reminder. I'm sure CheckersBoard won't forget again. (Cause coming back from a second indef is almost impossible.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, previous edit restrictions will remain in place. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't support an unblock. This looks more like article ownership, and these explanations do not ring true to me.
    1. Checkers "forgot about reverts and gender stuff", the editing restrictions that they explicitly agreed to as a condition of being unblocked. They were reminded about the restriction in December [6]
    2. Checkers "was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls " but did the exact opposite. The IP's summary: "Expanded scope of the sport - no longer exclusively played by women." was clear, as was mine: "restore the IP's changes. Not just a female sport now", but Checkers reverted both edits to restore the "girls" they had recently added to the first line of the article: "Ringette is a girls' non-contact winter team sport" and to remove the IP's sourced addition of "While sport was originally created exclusively for female competitors, it has expanded to now include participants of all gender identities."
    3. Checkers "did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one" More than a bit hard to believe given their edit summary: "Irrelrvant, article does not duspute this fact, this is the lead in the introductory patagraph and relevant due to its historical origin, it doesn't require historical revisionism". Why would this be an old source? This was a new addition by the IP. Removing mention of "all gender identities" and a source entitled "Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources" is, as I wrote above, arguably a violation of their topic ban on human sexuality and anti-trans edits.
    4. Checkers "Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll," Checkers doubts "it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary." It's not Checker's article. Others are allowed to contribute to it, and yes, even IPs.
    5. As for cleaning their talk page, yes it's allowed, but it looks very suspicious for an editor to remove their unblock discussion and editing restrictions just minutes after having violated them. And it's not as if this was a one-edit cleaning. This was methodical, more than 90-edit, one thread at a time cleaning.
  • The Ringette article, and ringette in general, has been a particular problem for Checkers for a long time. There is a long history of warnings related to this (ownership, personal attacks, copyvio, unsourced content, edit warring, etc).and more than one block. If this editor is unblocked I think we need a topic ban. Meters (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll abide by whatever decision the group wants, the edit history is available to observe. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are interested parties I found information from the previous block and put it up with the following title:

    "Previous content re: User block added" CheckersBoard (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I was wondering if I am supposed to make another unblock request because I haven't heard any news about my account's status and would like to begin editing again. Thank you for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not open another unblock request. You have one request open, and it has been discussed. If no admin has seen fit to unblock you after almost 4 weeks, it is unlikely that it will happen. Meters (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find out what and when the decision has been made? It seems rather odd that there isn't a method to inform editors who have been involved for years to simply be left in the dark. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Am I required to make another unblock request or is the block still under discussion? And btw thsnks for the music :) CheckersBoard (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told not to make another unblock request but there hasn't been any administrators who have revied it. I've improved a lot since last year though I still make mistaked from time to time, redl8nks are a problem I need to fix.

    I put back the previous information from the previous block which I should have read. There have been accusations leveled that are not only wrong but unfair because they are unfalsifiable so I can't defend myself, including the accusation that I was too close to a source which is dead wrong, found here 1998 World Ringette Championships I'm not even involved which is why I have been careful to cite and hunt for sources. Another accusation is that I decluttered my talk page for a sinister reason, buy I took them out one by one because I didn't know jow else to do it. Since I'm not close to involved sources, it is also why I couldn't get the correct date for the upcoming world event, I kept finding different dates and changing it.

    Previously this was left on my page: ----

    "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 am considering making another unblock request since it has been over a month and an administrator hasn't shown up. By the way I tried using a plagiarism detector app for the first time and to my surprise found some content which I have entered here has wound up on other websites word for word. While entries are logged here, they aren't there, meaning I can't prove the fact that they copied me and not the other way around. I'm not sure what the solution is.

    Sorry to bother you again Drmies, thanks for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned your request for a decision on your unblock at WP:AN. I suspect that this request has fallen through the cracks because your talk page is very difficult to make sense of. You add comments in the middle of previous threads, you delete stuff, you restore stuff but out of order, etc. Meters (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN thread was commented on by three admins, none of whom responded to your unblock request, and the thread has now been archived after four days of inactivity [7]. There's your answer. Don't create a new unblock request. Meters (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They did respond to the unblock request, you were the only one out of four or five people who wanted the block. Then Drmies lost interest. It's not legitimate. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote above again. Yes, user:Deepfriedokra, user:Cullen328, and user:Drmies commented in the AN thread I opened asking for action your stale unblock request, but none of them saw fit to accept it. That's what I meant. Here's the thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#User:CheckersBoard unblock request. And it's certainly not true to say that I was the only one who wanted the block. Cullen wrote I see little benefit to unblocking this editor. but if the editor is unblocked, they should be topic banned from Ringette and all previous restrictions should continue in force. And Drmies' Have we not spent enough time on this editor? is certainly not support for unblocking you.

My Don't create a new unblock request. above was in response to your intention to create another active unblock request while this one was still open. That should not be done. Now that user:UtherSRG has closed the request you could open another unblock request, but I don't recommend that you do so. It has been less than one month since this one was closed. Meters (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear: I see no reason whatsoever to unblock you. Thanks Meters. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Drmies, I do not see any good reason to unblock, Meters. Thanks for the ping. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what you originally stated and you had considered giving me another chance. It would help if you told me what changed your mind although I don't expect that you will. If it was a simple matter of no longer wanting to be involved, ok. Just be frank.

Btw, I don't appreciate it when other editors cast aspersions on my character or motivations regarding my behavior as an editor, especially when it's deliberately petty. I appreciate you didn't do this, but someone certainly has. I want to edit, others would rather play games. I'm not asking anyone to like me, it doesn't matter either way, but I don't like bullies. And my record for editing various articles in here for the last year speaks for itself. Thank you for your time Drmies. CheckersBoard (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:CheckersBoard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Enough Meters (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my previous post Your comments on me are verging on personal attack did you not understand? Meters (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware but you wrote your first message, then sent a similar one very shortly after when I hadn't even replied. It makes it look like there are two different editors involved which is confusing. I'd like to get back to editing. CheckersBoard (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of your selective memory/interpretations/deletions. The previous post I quoted from when I mentioned personal attacks was this one [8] on Nov 9. You made another personal attack at 13:00 Nov 14, and deleted my previous post a few minutes later, at 13:11 Nov [9]. I left you a new warning using a canned template, and then added separate post to expand on it. It is very clear from the time stamps and the signatures that both Nov 14 messages are from me, and that they were left almost simultaneously. Meters (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had enough. Go ahead, be offended:

Meters, I'm tired too, but you and I both know, and others have quietly observed, that I have been extremely patient with you as well.

- You have recently been attacking me relentlessly and they ARE personal attacks and insults (i.e. "selective memory") and haven't encountered anyone criticizing your approach who is in a higher position than yourself so far.

- You are also assuming I am not making edits in good faith, which you have done on my talk page. This is not only untrue, but last time I checked, is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

- Maybe you should move on and leave me alone since it's obvious you are determined to continually attack me and want to paint me in the worst possible light for some strange reason. You are assuming the worst.

- Previously, several editors were initially ready to have me unblocked including the editor who first put the block in place. You were the only one opposed. So don't pretend that the recent decision to keep the block in place isn't odd.

- You should also know by now that my editing has improved over the course of a year. Your previous claims were wrong, you were only basing it off of my performance from over a year ago.

- Why suggest that if I return, that I should only be blocked from the ringette page, then suddenly suggest that I be blocked from ALL women's sports articles, then want me blocked completely. You escalated and I was not even editing anymore. So something weird is going on here.

- It also doesn't makes any sense to block me from editing women's sports articles especially when I've contributed a lot, fixed several articles which were a mess, and added reference material that was sometimes missing. I've also translated a few articles which was difficult to do. Why you suddenly decided a broad ban like that should be put in place doesn't make any sense unless you are just trying to punish me for some unrelated reason.

- If you want to claim you have not made personal attacks, that's untrue. And I have been left with no choice but to defend myself. Attack the quality of my performance and contributions and stop making it personal. You know very well I can do a pretty good job as an editor even though I am not doing this professionally or for monetary gain.

Either tell me what I need to improve in order to edit again or leave me alone. I just want to edit. I may not be as experienced or skilled as you, but I am not exactly terrible either. I am not the only one who makes mistakes, but I learn more with experience.

THANKS. CheckersBoard (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you "need to improve in order to edit again"? Try not bullshitting us. I never supported this unblock appeal, and your claim that I am the only one who does not want you unblocked has already been addressed above by some of the other editors involved. My comment about "your selective memory/interpretations/deletions" stands. The only other possibility is that you simply don't see it, in which case this is WP:CIR and you should not be unblocked. I have spent more than enough time on this. You know how to appeal your block, and if you ever do I will evaluate that appeal on its merits. Meters (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]