User talk:Seventh Ward Dragon

Welcome to Seventh Ward Dragon's talk page. Because I am semi-retired, I am no longer very active on the English Wikipedia, however I do still check up every now and then. Please do not expect an immediate response by leaving a message here, I will get back to you as soon as I am able. Thank you. -- SWDG

Archives
1	2	3

1-3 months old	3-12 months old	>12 months old

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.217.198 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Fleming Wikipedia page

The statement surrounding him 'Comparing civil unions to incest' is both incorrectly interpreted and insufficiently substantiated with proper referencing or quotes. Thus, it should be removed on the grounds of potential misinformation. 101.98.138.184 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is substantiated by two local news outlets. How is it incorrectly interpreted exactly? I have already explained how it isn't. The material is properly cited and should not be removed without proper explanation, which you have yet to provide. SWDG 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Your edit to Rick and Morty – Corporate Assets has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending content, and the offensive content has been REVDEL'd. SWDG 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are you making Wikipedia pages for all the Rick and Morty comic book series, or what? 38.95.10.252 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 18:03, 2 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I made a ridiculous edit but immediately reverted it. Should not have happened in the first place, I apologize for the activity. I took it a step too far by creating the article, but I took steps to remove that too by moving it to draft space and CSD the remnants. I understand that was not cool, but you probably could have just WP:revdel it and move on. I will not do that again.

Decline reason:

Repeated vandalism (per below), lying in unblock request (about it being "one" time, and about thinking this is about your legit sock), violating previous unblock conditions. Go away for a good 6 months, and maybe we'll think about it. This is not a playground. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. Do not make another unblock request that does not address all of the actual behavior that you know you did. It will result in reblocking with no talk page access.[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.

This is a checkuser block and your unblock request does not address the actual reason for the block. Cullen328 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to further explain the reason for the block? SWDG 10:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t operate multiple accounts. You’re considering this as an abuse of multiple accounts because I made one edit while logged out? SWDG 20:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify my statement, I do own user:SWDG. However, this account I am currently writing from, is the only account I ever use for editing, hence my terminology “operate”. I don’t actively use SWDG and it wasn’t involved in this incident whatsoever.

Per WP:MULTIPLE I am allowed to have multiple accounts, as long as they act within ‘established policy’. WP:DG further clarifies that this account is a legitimate Doppelgänger account. My reason for creating SWDG was to allow me to be found easily by only typing four characters, rather the nineteen characters of “Seventh Ward Dragon”. This is well within established policy, there are no violations here.

there are very clear indications on the user page of SWDG that it is a valid account which belongs to me. Firstly, it redirects immediately to my user page. If you cancel the redirect and view SWDG’s user page, a message is displayed informing you that this is my alternative account. SWDG 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for the dozens of edit filter hits that you generated by attempting to blatantly vandalize while logged out, in addition to the blatant vandalism that you performed while logged in. (It looks to me like you intended to continue vandalizing while logged out, but didn't realize that you were logged in, hence the immediate self-reversion). And this was after you were previously blocked for socking and unblocked on the condition that you wouldn't sock again. You weren't blocked for having the SWDG account and I suspect you know that. I think you need some time off of Wikipedia to grow up. Spicy (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it’s a good theory, that’s not quite what happened - I didn’t mean to edit while logged out, not at all. I use a private browser window and it didn’t automatically log me in. I didn't realize this until I kept getting hit by the filters. It was never my intention to edit while logged out, and it was always my intention to remove the content immediately. I did so with haste.

”I suspect you know that”, well if you want me to give you a straight up answer that actually addresses your concerns, which I’m completely willing to do, perhaps you all should be more thorough with your accusations. It has not been clear so far what you are trying to investigate. PhilKnight stated “you have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.” The only other account I operate is SWDG, so what else am I supposed to think?

I have already spent time away from Wikipedia. I haven’t been here in months, even longer since I spent a considerable amount of time here, and I would suspect you know that. SWDG 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam I would suggest you carefully review the information here, as it does not correlate with the reasoning for my block request being denied. It’s quite hilarious you think I’m lying, especially where you claim I’m lying that I thought it involved SWDG, when it’s painfully obvious I was not provided enough information to adequately answer for myself. The administrators here, except for Spicy in their follow-up response, have not provided enough information to assess the situation and provide a rational answer. SWDG 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you claim that I’m lying about it being “one” edit, yet this seems to be the crux of the problem here - the fact that I made one problematic edit while logged out. I’m not claiming I only took one problematic action in total, rather that I made the edit while logged out. The fact that this IP was involved is the sole REASON you are categorizing this as a sock. I’m not sure how there was room for confusion here, when my exact text was “because I made one edit while logged out?” SWDG 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it hard to take the moral high ground when you added (and tried to add repeatedly) the crap you added to Mr. Men. Adding that crap, and then pretending you don't know what you did wrong? Adding that crap, and then wikilawyering about terminology (one edit vs multiple attempted edits)? Adding that crap, and then claiming it's not a big deal because you were going to remove it immediately (it was actually 7 minutes later)? I'm trying hard to imagine what possible benefit to the encyclopedia you might be. Feel free to be outraged by your treatment here; I don't imagine anyone else is going to agree. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the ridiculous content that was added to the dictionary clashes with the approach I am taking here, nonetheless that should not detract merit from my statements. Would you like to explain how I’m “pretending I don’t know what I did wrong”? I asked for clarification on the reason for the block because, despite Cullen’s statement, my unblock request clearly acknowledges what I did wrong. You can agree that seven minutes on this site is very short notice. And that seven minutes was me switching to the Desktop view and logging back in, so that I could access Twinkle to properly remove the content. I’m not “outraged” by my treatment here, I just feel that my efforts to genuinely explain what happened have been greatly overlooked. SWDG 22:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Seventh Ward Dragon/Userboxes/DeSantis

User:Seventh Ward Dragon/Userboxes/DeSantis, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seventh Ward Dragon/Userboxes/DeSantis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Seventh Ward Dragon/Userboxes/DeSantis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request per the Standard Offer

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

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

Request reason:

Unblock request per the Standard Offer.

I hereby promise to refrain from the activities which resulted in my restriction from the English Wikipedia. I apologize for my behavior leading up to and after my restriction.

Accept reason:

Alright, I accept this request under the standard offer. Happy editing. Be good. asilvering (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWDG 20:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At most, the evidence of block evasion shows Unlikely. I think this is sufficient to clear the checkuser part of this block, and to assert there's been no recent block evasion. I leave the actual review to the next reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seventh Ward Dragon, you say you apologize for your behaviour, but you don't say what that behaviour was or how you'll avoid doing it in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This block appears to have stemmed from a sock event involving an IP that was utilized for one problematic edit. A private browser window was being used at the time, on mobile at that, and thus a failure to observe the login status occurred.

Therefore, remedies to ensure that this does not recur should be the discontinuation of Wikipedia usage in a private browser window, and ensuring the login status prior to every action taken. Of course, refraining from making problematic edits at all - which is so obvious it need not be listed. SWDG 20:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked because of a single problematic edit. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seventh Ward Dragon/Archive. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you admit that you set up three sockpuppet accounts and engaged in trolling with those socks? Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significa and Cullen,

No, I do not admit that, because that’s not why I’m blocked nor is that even the block that I’m appealing. Those entries were added in October 2022. This block was in January 2025, over two years after the offense you’re talking about. I have already atoned for creating and using those accounts. SWDG 12:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Spicy said at the time of your recent block: {[tq|I blocked you for the dozens of edit filter hits that you generated by attempting to blatantly vandalize while logged out, in addition to the blatant vandalism that you performed while logged in. (It looks to me like you intended to continue vandalizing while logged out, but didn't realize that you were logged in, hence the immediate self-reversion).}} I personally do not find your passive-voice explanation of this, in your comment from five says ago, to be very reassuring. -- asilvering (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was an explanation of what happened in as neutral of a perspective as possible, doing away with words like I and my. The description of events is accurate to what truly transpired. What further clarification would you like? SWDG 14:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hey @Seventh Ward Dragon, blocks are only intended to prevent disruption.

Admins are here to protect Wikipedia - they just want to see that you acknowledge any disruption or problems you've caused in the past and can show that you won't engage in the same behaviour if you're unblocked.

That means they may bring up other concerns that aren't directly related to the original block, quite frankly because it would be irresponsible for them to ignore that.

If someone says "you did this and it was problematic" and it's something that you did in fact do, you need to address it properly.

Acknowledge your past mistakes, confirm you understand why it was disruptive and show that you won't repeat those actions if you're unblocked. That's all you need to do. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ due to combative wikilawyering: No, I do not admit that, because that’s not why I’m blocked nor is that even the block that I’m appealing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That “combative wikilawyering” amounts to simple opposition to the accusation that I was currently blocked for creating and abusing three novel accounts. Yes, as a matter of fact I created those accounts and I used them, but years ago and I was blocked for it already. I already admitted to and apologized for creating those accounts and using them improperly. This is not the reason I am currently blocked, as one admin had made it seem, and as you appeared to believe.

Now, I understand that editing Wikipedia in a disruptive, negative or otherwise hostile manner is more harmful than ever before thanks to an erosion of public trust in the information available on the internet. People need to have a source of reliable information, and over the past few years, the public has realized that Wikipedia fosters more reliable and self-correcting information than most others can claim, despite its fundamental nature as a free-to-use platform that allows anybody to contribute and change the articles within it.

Across the world, industries and academics have changed their opinion of Wikipedia - and it’s for the better. Where once it was seen as a crutch, but a limited tool not to be cited, the tables have turned and Wikipedia now enjoys the public trust it deserves. This is precisely why I cannot continue to edit disruptively. With every harmful edit, I undermine this hard-fought progress for the platform. I tear down years of progress for a few short moments of laughter, or malice, or spite, whatever the trigger may be for whoever is behind the keyboard. This behavior cannot continue, for Wikipedia has outgrown it. SWDG 19:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above again. There was no accusation that I was currently blocked for creating and abusing three novel accounts. We were reviewing your past severe misconduct which is relevant to a Standard Offer unblock request. The highly defensive way that you responded tells us something important. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, it does, but it's pretty easy to understand why someone would react in defensive confusion when told You were not blocked because of a single problematic edit. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seventh Ward Dragon/Archive., which I certainly myself read as "you received this block for creating these sockpuppets", a statement that is untrue. SWD's present block is not for having created those sockpuppets.

@Seventh Ward Dragon, your block was for socking, and it was set as indefinite because of your previous history of socking. This does matter, for evaluating your request. Myself, I tend to be inclined to let people have another chance when they've completed the standard offer if their previous behaviour wasn't egregious, as it is not in this case. What gives me pause here is, yes, the defensiveness, but also the way you've distanced yourself from your previous actions in your language, rather than simply accepting them and pledging to move on. Perhaps this is just a difference of communication styles. But it looks likely, from your past editing, that you intend to go back to antivandalism work. If you react defensively to people, especially people misunderstanding you or upset with you, you're likely to run into problems as soon as you return to editing. I prefer to know that I'm setting up people I unblock for success, not failure. -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy, as blocking admin, I wonder if you might want to comment. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding and your considerate response. Yes, I’ve tried to speak of my actions in a way that distances myself from them, not to avoid accountability, but to provide a neutral perspective of what happened while simultaneously displaying that I’m not proud of it and don’t associate with that behavior anymore. I do accept my actions, I apologize for them and for the disturbance they caused, and will move on. SWDG 21:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This satisfies me well enough. @Cullen328, you too, I hope. I'll give Spicy some time to comment. -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although my reservations remain, I have struck my formal opposition. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]