User talk:GrinningIodize

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: who up trouting they out

Special:Diff/1363500532 Wikipedia has some non-negotiables, and one of them is: don't advocate CP. You seem like a genuine editor, and I could believe I'm taking your words out of context, so I'm not sure you need to be blocked for that edit. But you were riding the line very closely. CP is wrong. It is immoral. And yes, we do block people who express contrary views. We have a zero tolerance policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not advocate for CP, and I personally oppose it, but I do not believe that my morals (nor anyone else's) on this subject ought to be absolute. Furthermore, I did not express my personal views in that revision, and I specifically stated that discussing them was beyond the point of the topic at hand. Finally, as I stated in my comment, the issue is censorship of machine learning models, not CP.

I would like to request that you, and by extension all others, refrain from discussing the morality of any form of pornography on my talkpage, when doing so is avoidable. If you wish to discuss these issues, please do them somewhere else. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. We should refrain from those discussions. Which is why I want to issue a necessary and clear warning: further rhetoric statements like Special:Diff/1363500532 is likely to get you blocked. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

What rule am I likely to break or currently breaking by posting the alleged rhetoric? GrinningIodize (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to change rhetoric to statements and have done so above so that we can get out of the realm of "alleged" because it is not allegation that you wrote Special:Diff/1363500532. Wikipedia:Child protection would be the policy basis for sanctions. Thanks for asking and I am glad I could provide this clarity so you remain unsanctioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

At no point have I advocated for romantic or sexual relationships between adults and children, nor have I used Wikipedia as a tool to pursue or facilitate them, nor have I identified myself as a pedophile (I am not one).

It is my view that any sanctions made in the name of the child protection policy against me would be fundamentally-absurd considering these points. If you can find an instance where I have, with reasonable certainty, contradicted any of the statements that I have made in this comment, please alert me to them.

I do not think that it's constructive (or effective) to try and find rule violations in comments that do not contain them, and I would like to request that Wikipedia administrators (including you and CaptainEek) avoid doing so when considering my statements (not to say that any of you have done so), here and at the Village Pump GrinningIodize (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Upon further review of WP:CHP, I don't see anything about advocating for CP. Am I misreading this policy or is there another one that I should know about?

Edit: I retract this question.

GrinningIodize (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: regardless of the policies, I do not intend on advocating for CP. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question for User:CaptainEek or anyone - What is CP? Child pornography? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon The correct term is CSAM (I should've been more clear), but yes, that's the discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi GrinningIodize, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, GrinningIodize. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anaf Ibn Shahibul (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, @Anaf Ibn Shahibul! I hope to get back to you shortly; where I live, it's morning time right now. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: it might be a while before I respond, as I have been busy with a lot of other stuff. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@GrinningIodize,

I was also busy with my studies. I will contact you very soon once I already finished the work. Anaf Ibn Shahibul (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, GrinningIodize. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anaf Ibn Shahibul (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anaf Ibn Shahibul, thanks for the updates! I appreciate your quick responses to my bug reports. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@GrinningIodize, Thank you too for your bug reports. I could have done the work earlier, but there was a slight delay due to some tasks. I have also introduced many updates; you can check them in the email, as I have provided the details there. Anaf Ibn Shahibul (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your recent edits appear to be disruptive. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits that are also constructive and in line with our policies.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Your recent comment at VP/WMF coupled with the warning you got in July makes me think you are not aligned with this project's culture and mores. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guerillero, if you don’t mind my asking, would you please cite the relevant policies and/or guidelines regarding the stated block reason so that I may better understand why I was blocked? GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion, as a dispassionate observer? You should avoid focusing on the letter of the law by asking precisely which policies are being cited; the spirit of the law is much more important on Wikipedia (or, at least, on the English Wikipedia). It is perfectly possible to be disruptive to the point of requiring a block without doing any one thing that is explicitly prohibited by policy. This is articulated in essays like WP:Here to build an encyclopaedia. I'm not familiar with the sum of your contributions but my general impression of your presence in projectspace is that you have been spreading the seeds of discord rather than expressing honestly held opinions and attempting to move the conversation forward. That could be construed as tendentious editing but, regardless of policy, is disruptive to the project's goals. I would suggest a different approach if Wikipedia's goals are something that matters to you and something you value contributing towards. That would be my advice regardless of the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, HJ. I suppose some of my edits could reasonably be construed as disruptive, but I also have a lot of uncontroversial edits too. In mainspace, I do small Wikignome edits and help fight vandalism, and in Wikispace, I nominate articles at XfD venues. Sure, I've made a good few suggestions at the Village Pump that others have not approved of, and perhaps rightfully so, but if you just look at when people complain without taking into account when they don't, I think that you'll find that most of my edits provide a net positive to the encyclopedia, even if the net positive in question is marginal. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guerillero If you aren't convinced by my appeal and the comments of others, which I suppose is fair, might I suggest a compromise? Perhaps I could be unblocked in mainspace and userspace until the end of the month, and then we could discuss again whether or not a block is warranted? I realize that this might seem a bit unorthodox, but I think that it would be a good way of testing my adherence to the project's culture and mores.

Alternatively, I have made over 2000 edits (not counting those made on the Simple English Wikipedia), and they're all public at Special:Contributions/GrinningIodize, so if someone wanted to conduct a survey of the last month or two of my activity here, I think they'd find that only a minority of my edits were controversial, and an even smaller (perhaps nonexistent) portion suggesting that the block was warranted. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

From my understanding, an administrator banned me because they feel that I do not align with the Wikipedia's values.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

I would continue to edit in my usual manner, though perhaps keeping out of controversial discussions a bit more.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

From what I can tell, no consensus was gathered on whether or not I should be blocked, nor did I find any records of people suggesting that I should be blocked, excluding the blocking admin.

GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From my understanding, an administrator banned me because they feel that I do not align with the Wikipedia's values.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> I would continue to edit in my usual manner, though perhaps keeping out of controversial discussions a bit more.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From what I can tell, no consensus was gathered on whether or not I should be blocked, nor did I find any records of people suggesting that I should be blocked, excluding the blocking admin.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> [[User:GrinningIodize|<span style="color:indigo;">'''GrinningIodize'''</span>]] ([[The Game (mind game)|you just lost the game]]) ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 19:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From my understanding, an administrator banned me because they feel that I do not align with the Wikipedia's values.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> I would continue to edit in my usual manner, though perhaps keeping out of controversial discussions a bit more.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From what I can tell, no consensus was gathered on whether or not I should be blocked, nor did I find any records of people suggesting that I should be blocked, excluding the blocking admin.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> [[User:GrinningIodize|<span style="color:indigo;">'''GrinningIodize'''</span>]] ([[The Game (mind game)|you just lost the game]]) ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 19:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From my understanding, an administrator banned me because they feel that I do not align with the Wikipedia's values.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> I would continue to edit in my usual manner, though perhaps keeping out of controversial discussions a bit more.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> '''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> From what I can tell, no consensus was gathered on whether or not I should be blocked, nor did I find any records of people suggesting that I should be blocked, excluding the blocking admin.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> [[User:GrinningIodize|<span style="color:indigo;">'''GrinningIodize'''</span>]] ([[The Game (mind game)|you just lost the game]]) ([[User talk:GrinningIodize|talk]]) 19:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Guerillero: - how do you feel about a possible unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: If you find an appeal that offers no changes and shows no introspection compelling, I would lose respect for you. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but the appeal isn't great, but I kinda feel the block was a bit harsh. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FWIW as a uninvolved passerby (here from VP thread), I also think the block was harsh. I am 100% not defending the behaviors/content posted by the mentioned ArbCom/WMFoffice blocked editor, but I think a no-warning block was a bit much. My reading of the situation is that GrinningIodize is still a relatively new editor (3yrs/2000 edits), who clearly didn't know ArbCom/WMF blocks like this weren't to be discussed onwiki. Reading through the July warning and VP thread, I do not think GrinningIodize was advocating or otherwise defending CSAM or related topics. That's my 2 cents. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they thought that drafts of banned users should be deleted, only to then question why the user got banned, and got hit with a stick for that. (Apparently I subscribed to one of the discussions on the one user's talk page, which resulted in a notification when that talk page got blanked, and now am confused why I did so as I didn't remember to look at the name of the thread before clicking the notification.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

You are correct. I didn't know that discussing office blocks here was taboo, and I'm not an advocate for CP or CSAM or anything of the sort. (In hindsight, my July comment was a foolish thing to write in the first place, as I had not anticipated the amount of trouble it would bring me in the following months.) GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Arrived here happenstance because the (now) blocked editor initiated an MfD. I spent considerable time attempting to look into the matter yesterday, out of morbid curiosity. I did not find it easy to discern exactly or generally why they were blocked, as an outsider to the situation. I do not think a robust appeal can necessarily be expected when it has not been made exceedingly clear what the issue was with their editing. Guerillero may see something in the tea leaves that we do not; however, everyone is due their length of rope. It does not seem, at least to the uninvolved eye, that nearly enough has been given in this case. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guerillero: - could you reconsider in light of the comments by other editors above? PhilKnight (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why I was blocked either. I don't know how an admin would be able to decide out of the blue whether or not I'm aligned with this project's culture and mores based only on a couple of things that I did. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

In hindsight, I probably could have written a more compelling appeal if I had panicked less at the site of an indef block. I was in the middle of debugging my Macintosh Plus's borked floppy drive when I noticed Guerillero's comment, and I rushed to write an appeal, which is made evident by the fact that I had previously misfiled it as a name change request (thanks once again for fixing this, CocoOctopus!).

I apologize for my inquiry at the Village Pump and my ill-advised commenting on ML censorship in relation to Grok. Those were both terrible ideas on my part and I shouldn't have done them. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you want to, you could probably request to withdraw this request and then type out a better appeal when you have time, assuming that Guerillero doesn't reconsider the block. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

That's wholly unnecessary. If the block is not warranted neither is a well-written appeal. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not brave enough to hit the unblock button myself, but I agree that this block seems never to have been warranted in the first place. Wikipedia is by design very transparent and having the concept of unquestionable, unexplainable actions and blocking people who dare to question them feels very very wrong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:35, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; I think the block should be lifted. CoconutOctopus talk 06:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I concur. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of Wikipedian culture, I had assumed that I was permitted to publicly request info on why a block was done. I suppose not. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here, this block is absurd. @Guerillero I would beg you to reconsider it, in light of several admins' comments. It does look like it will be lifted, so you might as well do it yourself as the blocking admin rather than forcing a colleague of yours to do it. FaviFake (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I accidentally misfiled my appeal so that it requested a change in username, which I do not actually want. Would someone please help me correct the templating here? GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I have done so. CoconutOctopus talk 20:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, CoconutOctopus! Your help is much appreciated. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)