User talk:Bobbis99

I have just left the following note on Star Mississippi's talk page:

Hello, I see you've blocked User:Bobbis99, but I don't see where you've given sufficient reason to do so. Their 4 edits aren't problematic. If the user is a sock, the sock should be blocked, but you would need to demonstrate the fact. Please unblock the user or produce evidence. Thank you.

YoPienso (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Good morning @Yopienso.

They are welcome to request an unblock and an uninvolved administrator will review it. We don't do 3rd party unblock requests and that's not how the blocking process works. Star Mississippi 16:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I was mainly registering my concern at what I perceive to be overkill. I do think you could unilaterally undo or modify your own block. Am I mistaken? As you can see from my history, I'm more a gnome than an editor. I try to make improvements and stay out of trouble. Merry Christmas! YoPienso (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I could if the unblock request addressed the issues, but Bobbis99 would need to request it. May I ask how you stumbled on the editor?

There are special editing requirements around contentious topics, especially American politics under which the name of the Kennedy Center certainly falls. Happy holidays to you as well Star Mississippi 16:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I was looking to see how Wikipedia is handling the new signage at the Kennedy Center and skimmed through the talk page, including a collapsed discussion labeled "Irrelevant thread per WP:AT, started by now-blocked editor and including incivility and personal attacks." I couldn't (still can't) see why Bobbis99 was permanently blocked without so much as a warning for stating facts and opinions while NathanBru, far more opinionated, wasn't admonished at all. It seemed to me the comments there fell short of the high-ish bars for incivility and personal attacks, but if they occurred, I see NathanBru committing more than Bobbis99. I didn't take the time to see who collapsed the discussion, which I agree was unfruitful. I saw you were the blocking admin. YoPienso (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a "permanent block" with no possibility of removal. It is an indefinite block, only meaning there is no arbitrary end date and an admin must be convinced to remove it. If you want action taken against other users, please bring it to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It's possible someone will block NathanBru or not. Bobbis is not "permanently blocked" as there's no such thing. They happened to be actively disrupting the Talk page discussion when I looked at it.

Talk pages are not forums for stating facts and opinions, especially not in contentious areas where everyone has an opinion. Star Mississippi 18:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

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).

Bobbis99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I AM a new editor, and it appears I was blocked because somebody assumed I wasn't. I'm not sure how I could prove that I'm new, besides the fact that I clearly don't fully understand Wikipedia's policy on blocks. I've only ever corrected spelling mistakes I've noticed, which is why I made the account. I've been reading Wikipedia pages for years, and it just bugged me to see typos. I was fascinated by the Trump-Kennedy rename, so I wanted to see what the page had to say about it. What I wasn't expecting was for it to be completely ignored. I thought that was insufficiently informative, because it is going to be commonly known as the Trump-Kennedy center by the government and seemingly by the media from now on. Not mentioning this on the wiki page will cause confusion with no apparent benefit. While my statement may have been somewhat aggressive, I don't think it was particularly rude or worse than other comments, especially when the talk page is now becoming (in my opinion) insufficiently representative of any other viewpoints.

Decline reason:

You say, "I've only ever corrected spelling mistakes I've noticed". This is manifestly false. See for example, the deleted page Donald Trump and the American Civil War. Also, neither this nor this were correcting spelling mistakes. Nor have you addressed the proposed WP:TOPICBAN on american politics. Yamla (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2025 (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.

Trump's name is on enough stuff on this planet, we won't spoon feed the kool-aid to the cult or the public. The issue is not "completely ignored", that's utterly absurd. There is full discussion of it in the Kennedy Center article and the article title is under discussion as well. I'm not participating in it. I would unblock you if you agree to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics. Or, you may wait for another admin to give you a better deal. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My decline was an edit conflict with 331dot. You are free to agree to their terms if you wish. I highly doubt you'll get a better deal, though. --Yamla (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline the request as I'm....annoyed by this whole disturbing issue(which is Trump's MO- distract by enraging the opposition). But I would unblock as discussed above. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Bobbis99 contentious topics such as this are really difficult to navigate for experienced editors, and a complete minefield for new, inexperienced editors such as yourself.

I really think this is your best shot - topic bans can be appealed so I strongly recommend you accept this suggestion and get to know Wikipedia better by working on other subjects. I'm sure you've got lots of knowledge in other, non-contentious areas that'll be really valuable to Wikipedia.

Hopefully in a few months you'll have built up enough experience & productive editing history to request an unblock & revisit the subject, but I don't think this is the right time to do that.

You've got two experienced admins suggesting a route to being unblocked - take it! Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Bobbis99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

Sure, a topic ban is fine with me. I'll stick to typos, although I would like to clarify my statement on the subject being "completely ignored" - I am referencing the average reader. While an editor would see the talk page, and somebody who cares would read the full page to see it further down, the average person who opens the page would not see it, and it would just cause confusion my opinion. The average (not deeply interested) reader skims the first few paragraphs and clicks away. On the subject of my deleted edit on the Civil War page, while I do, in hindsight, agree that it should've been deleted, I still think the page was insufficiently fair. Obviously, the correct course of action would've been to create a discussion on the talk page rather than an immediate edit.

Accept reason:

As I said, I have removed your block subject to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics. I have logged this ban at WP:ER/UC. Typically it can be appealed to the community (usually WP:AN) after a time, six months to a year, if you can demonstrate things have changed since the ban. Courtesy notice to Star Mississippi. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Almost all of this unblock request would violate your proposed topic ban. That gives me zero hope unblocking you would be a good idea. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Bobbis99 can you please give us your understanding of what a topic ban is? For your sake, I think we need to clear this up quickly.

Please be careful with your reply and act as though you're under that ban already. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I must agree with Yamla, at least before hearing your explanation as requested by Blue Sonnet. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not planning on discussing the topic further. This was just an attempt to explain the fact that my deleted edit was a result of inexperience, not a justification for it. I was merely clarifying my previous reasoning to give you a perspective into what I was thinking. I fully intend to be cooperative, I'm have no intention to resist the ban.

I understand the concept of a topic ban, and if it is enacted, I will refrain from any discussion or edits of post-1992 US Politics. I was not aware that you wanted me to avoid the topic in the initial unblock request, but I am fine with doing so from now on. Bobbis99 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Congrats on getting unblocked! Remember, if you're not sure whether something is related, avoid it like the plague! Always best to play it safe. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Seconding the congrats on your unblock. Happy editing! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Bobbis99

December 2025

I protest the block

Related Articles