User Talk: Rockycape

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=User talk:Rockycape/Archives/Archive %(counter)d
|age=7d
|counter=3
}}

{{Archive box
|auto=yes
|root=User talk:Rockycape/Archives
}}

{{clear}}
{{unblock reviewed|accept=I have unblocked. You are restricted to 1RR and you are advised not to edit Downball ↗. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)|1=Please review the current block which was put in place after I added unsourced information and reverted a merger discussion - I've been reflecting on my actions for over six months. I admit these two actions were a mistake and I won't make either of these mistakes again and instead will be more mindful of my wikipedia community responsibilities.

1. since the block I have continued editing wikipedia which has been without issues for over six months demonstrating my change of heart.
2. an unintended consequence of this block has been ineligibility to utilise wikipedia library for searching the literature for references/citations for over six months. I would appreciate having my eligibility restored by removing the block. '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 11:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)}}

:You are only blocked from a single page, the Downball ↗ article. Asking to be unblocked suggests you either wish to get back to editing that article, or you wish to regain access to the WP Library (or both) – which is your motivation here? And regardless, would you accept an anti-edit-warring restriction on that page, such as WP:0RR ↗? I'm asking because I for one will not unblock you unconditionally to do with that article as you please, given how much community time and effort has already been expended on this whole hullabaloo. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

:: My motivation is to have my editing restored back to full and unrestricted as it was before this ban was put in place. I am pledging my editing will be exemplary and I will be a good wikipedia community editor. I am requesting that you consider timing out the current ban immediately or if reducing that this also time out after a reasonable period but not be permanent. Notwithstanding the hullabaloo which I completely acknowledge my mistakes, any reduction in ban would be appreciated whether that was WP:0RR ↗ or WP:1RR ↗ or simply removal of the current restriction which I would accept.'''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g)

::: {{ping|Star Mississippi}} - how do you feel about an unblock with a 1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@PhilKnight thanks for the ping. I'm in favor of @Rockycape having access to the Wikipedia Library because it makes all of us better researchers and editors. 1RR would be fine, but Rocky I also suggest you edit as if that page doesn't exist. It seems to bring you issues that other subjects don't. Star Mississippi 12:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks all - '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 03:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::@PhilKnight: So I can avoid being tripped up: (a) Is my 1RR restriction on wikipedia as a whole? (b) When does it expire? (c) When would be reasonable to have this removed? Thanks - '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 04:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: Yes, the 1RR restriction is across the whole of the English Wikipedia. It doesn't expire, but after 6 months you could request its removal. PhilKnight (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks @PhilKnight - '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 06:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Hi @PhilKnight, I have a couple of genuine and in good faith questions that I posed previously to the blocking admin that remain unanswered and are impacting the risk of being tripped up again.
::::::::::Although I don't have any problem with the blocking admin (or any admin) choosing not to respond, is it reasonable for another admin to step in to help me with this? Can I ask you to respond or would it be better to ask the next available admin or not ask at all?
::::::::::I'm not trying to make unnecessary work for an admin, but I do have some remaining concerns about getting tripped up again.
::::::::::'''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 02:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::: What are the questions? I'll answer them if I can. PhilKnight (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::I’m trying to better understand the scope of the advice of archived discussion.
::::::::::::In particular, the blocking admin noted that edits were removed because they involved continuing to add unsourced information, which had been an issue on the prior page.
::::::::::::I would like to clarify whether adding properly sourced, non-controversial descriptive content would also fall under that restriction. For example, I was considering adding the following sentence to the Downball article, supported by a reliable secondary source (reference #2 - https://ctac.esrc.unimelb.edu.au/biogs/E000139b.htm):
::::::::::::“The basic mechanics of the ball game Downball are that the ball is hit by hand in a downward motion to bounce off the ground before rebounding off the wall and back into play.”
::::::::::::@PhilKnight - Here is the question: Given the previous advice not to edit the Downball article, would adding this sourced, factual description still be considered inappropriate at this stage, or would discussion on the talk page be required before making such an edit?
::::::::::::'''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 22:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Sorry for not replying earlier. I strongly recommend you don't edit the Downball ↗ article. Just forget about the article entirely. PhilKnight (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::@PhilKnight I'd still like to contribute via the article talk page.
::::::::::::::::Even people with COI (which I have none) call out there COI and continue to edit articles or call out there COI and still contribute via the article talk page.
::::::::::::::::I will take your advice and the previous advice from Star Mississippi to not edit the article right now as I appreciate your good intentions.
::::::::::::::::Thanks for providing a response to my question. '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 04:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: {{ping|Star Mississippi}} - what do you think? PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@PhilKnight I don't think anything good comes from Rocky editing about Downball and they exhausted the community's patience (and mine) continuing to wikilawyer, which they're doing again here. However they're not blocked and therefore are able to contribute despite my opinion. Star Mississippi 15:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I understand there are lingering concerns. My intention is to demonstrate over time that those concerns are no longer warranted. I hope that, if my conduct remains constructive, that will be recognised in due course. '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 02:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)