Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Ricky81682 unblocked (January 2020)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Ricky was a productive editor, and I'd be happy to see them return under the terms of the standard offer. I am confident that the "complete and utter idiocy" won't be repeated. – bradv🍁 15:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
2. The request shows genuine remorse, his editing on other projects has been positive and there were no incidents here while blocked. Also, Ricky knows he is under a microscope even if this motion passes, so I don't think we need further restrictions than those proposed in the motion. Plus, there appears to be a strong consensus here that agrees that Ricky should be given a second chance. Regards SoWhy 21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Per the appeal and the input from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
4. I'm satisfied with both the appeal and the community input. Maxim_(talk) 23:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
5. The project will benefit. –xeno^talk 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Per comments above as well as the community input below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Support unblocking per a convincing appeal, and after reviewing the community feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
8. I have concerns, but not sufficient to stop the appeal. Ricky, please prove me wrong. Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Edit wisely, Ricky. I hope and trust in your sincerity. Katie^talk 13:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
10. We haven't made it a formal topic ban, but I think it would be a very good idea to avoid anything to do with userspace drafts. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain/recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

• I'm inclined to support unblocking based on Ricky's appeal below, but given that he is a former administrator blocked and desysopped under a cloud, we decided to post the motion publicly to hear any community comments first. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  As "one account restriction" was not defined at the link target, I updated the wording to clarify that they may not edit anonymously. Feel free to edit further. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wordsmithed a little further to avoid repetition. And I have no idea whether they would be eligible for a rename, but I wouldn't want this motion to prevent that. – bradv🍁 15:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Community discussion

The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:

I would like to request an unblock on English Wikipedia. I was blocked in October 2016 by Arbcom pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ricky81682. At the time, I was an administrator here for almost a decade.

I admit that I was sockpuppeting and trolling around with various other accounts to make a point across the project. Basically, in mid-2016, I was in some very minor disputes with other individuals here and created fake accounts that added absurdity to this. It was purely a WP:POINT violation. Before that, in the years I have been involved in the project, I have NEVER done anything like that but I admit that I typically stayed away from relatively contentious editing disputes. For some reason, the issue of userspace drafts got me absorbed into complete and utter idiocy in a way nothing else ever has.

Of course, when caught, I first began to pretend like it was someone else editing on my devices rather than admit fault. In complete embarrassment at my childishness, I continued to try to deny my antics until I was eventually desysoped and banned.

I'm aware that I have no chance at ever becoming an admin again but I would like to be able to resume editing here. In the intervening years, I have focused on simple English and Commons and focusing on my core area of organizing and dealing with categories while staying away from the kind of bizarre silly disputes that got me in trouble here.

I hope that my years of service to this project prior to the many month-long idiocy, combined with the years of service since then, is sufficient evidence that I understand the seriousness of wasting other people's time and energy with such nonsense and will never engage in any antics like that again. Again, I'm aware the community will likely never have the confidence in me again as an admin which I only feel shame about but I would like to be able to edit here in good standing once again.

Thank you very much,

Ricky

– Joe (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Is this the equivalent of the "section titled 'Community discussion'" in the scary pink warning box above? If not, please move appropriately.)
  Logged-out-Ricky is community-banned too (discussion), so this isn't solely arbcom's call. —Cryptic 12:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Cryptic: Joe Roe renamed the section for you. As I read it, that IP range was harassing Ricky, not used by Ricky. Isn’t that right? –xeno^talk 13:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah that IP isn't listed in the SPI. Was it later linked to Ricky? – Joe (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  It was indeed used by Ricky - he edited a DRV logged out, and I noticed before it was oversighted that his IP was in the same range as the anon harassing him. I can go looking for the right drv subpage if someone with the special OS goggles wants to confirm that, but it'll take a while. I'd thought at the time that the overlap was coincidence - it's a very wide range - but behavorially it's pretty damning in the context of the other socks. (Also, it was mentioned indirectly in the SPI by User:SmokeyJoe, though as an IP it was of course not commented on by the CUs.) —Cryptic 13:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Turns out it wasn't even oversighted - [1]. —Cryptic 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Two or three ranges of IPs were trolling Ricky. Ricky was obsessed with clearing old abandoned drafts, fast. The IPs were countering with poorly-put counter arguments. In hindsight they read as sarcasm directed at Ricky opponents. At the time my suspicion was that Ricky was being trolled by a family member. There was no overt malice, but was SOCK violating and attempting to ridicule debating opponents. No objection to Ricky returning, if he stays away from abandoned drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding the procedural point: although ArbCom is more reluctant nowadays to decide appeals of bans placed by the community, it still has that authority under the arbitration policy. Some long-time editors might remember the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC), which was a subcommittee created by ArbCom specifically to handle appeals of community-imposed sanctions. When BASC was dissolved, ArbCom passed a motion saying it would only hear certain kinds of appeals. No opinion as to whether the community ban falls under one of those categories, but it technically could be "solely arbcom's call". Or it could reroute that decision to WP:AN. It's up to them. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  When I raised this exact same point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Indefinite community site-ban for Edgar181, Joe Roe was pretty emphatic that they don't have this power anymore, or at least wouldn't exercise it. [2] —Cryptic 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  So the community banned unnamed individuals and it later came to light that some of those individuals might have been Ricky81682? Was the amorphous ban ever converted into a named ban?

  As to the procedural question, the Policy (ratified 2011) grants responsibilities, some of which the committee chose to download back to the community by motion in 2015. –xeno^talk 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  From what I understand, Ricky81682 was checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry in October 2016; however, it later turned out that an earlier ban was placed by the community in January 2016 not realizing it was Ricky81682 at the time, but later found to be Ricky81682. I don't think that the amorphous ban was ever converted into a named one; at least I haven't seen such a discussion. It's a very unusual situation, and because of that, I think the best solution is to have ArbCom decide this site-block/ban appeal in its entirety; no need to get WP:AN involved.

  The committee still has the power to decide appeals of any community-imposed ban, but in 2015 it passed a motion to limit the types of appeals it considers (it can pass a new motion at any time to expand that scope to additional types). With that being said, this appeal does fall within the post-2015 purview of ArbCom because Ricky81682 is currently subject to a checkuser block, and I'm assuming logged-out editing is a factor in the checkuser block. I think there could be an argument to hold an WP:AN discussion on top of this, but that's getting a bit too wiki-lawyer for me. Just have ArbCom do the whole thing. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  It was announced at AN, and the concept of them possibly having been banned while presenting anonymously was raised early in this discussion. It seems to me the fact the unblock has received support can be interpreted as support for vacating whatever portion of the 'unnamed' ban may apply to Ricky. –xeno^talk 14:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• I remember Ricky being one of the good guys prior to his dramatic self-destruct, and I for one would be happy to see him back. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• (assuming this is right place to comment) - Before my time, but this seems a reasonable appeal. I can't see how keeping him out would be preventative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• The name Tippopotamus (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682/Archive) does sound familiar for some reason, but otherwise I remember this case very imperfectly. The appeal inspires confidence, though, and I hope the committee unblocks. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

  As I understand it, the Tippopotamus account was a declared alternative account; it was included in the SPI for completeness. –xeno^talk 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a very self-reflective appeal. Curiously Idon't remember the case at all, but theSO has been well adhered to, and I also hope thecommittee unblocks. ——SN54129 13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well before my time, but enough time has elapsed for reflection and learning, and the unblock appeal suggests that has happened - I hope the appeal is successful. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• The appeal looks appealing and with one account restriction, I will support their unblocking. They clearly need to restrain themselves though. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• A cautious yes if indeed there has been no socking since 2016 and there has been constructive editing on other wiki projects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes they have been contributing to Commons, I support letting them back with the proposed 1 account restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was disappointing when it was discovered that Ricky was using socks. It was even more disappointing to discover that he was sockmaster behind the IP's attacking himself. I had spent considerable effort in tracking down the IP's that were involved and proposed the ban linked by Cryptic above. Nonetheless, Ricky's service to WP prior to that insanity was already well over a decade and, to me, grants him a fair amount of good will for this appeal. If anyone is interested, I still have the page I created to log down all the IP's I could find. I went back to it and most of the IP's have not edited since the end of 2015 although some edited in 2016, but nothing later than that. I would not be opposed to Ricky being unblocked Blackmane (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• As I remember, I was one of the primary arbs reviewing the situation that was brought to me and I proposed some form of the original motion, or at least the idea behind it. It's been 4 years since, and with over 100,000 in contribs to other places since, I would be fine with this motion passing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support He was a good admin and also a good editor. Socking was unexpected but I see no issue now. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support People can learn from their mistakes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Everyone can make mistakes, even incredibly bad judgements such as socking. Most of our users that sock, though, do not have the giant repertoire of positive contributions that Ricky did. As such, I'm more than willing to grant this unblock request (don't think the one account restriction will be necessary after they return either, but wouldn't be a terrible idea for them to be open to random checks of their account for the first year or so). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock with a provision that all edits must be done from this account – no alternate accounts or logged-out editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Editors involved in the discussions relating to userspace draft are well-aware of the antics that Ricky deployed to make a WP:POINT. I, for one, do not support punitive measures and would welcome their return despite their wrongdoing — however, I would prefer if they also had an indefinite restriction w.r.t. anything related to user drafts (userspace and draftspace), until we are sure they will not go down the same hole again. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Assuming you are also soliciting community consensus to unban. Sufficient time served; I wish checkusers would have a permanent green light to make sure old tricks aren't revisited. Any next socking episode would be the last, I am sure. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Ricky was a great editor and indeed a great admin and personally I don't see why they shouldn't be given a second chance. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As I would've expected from someone with so much experience, it's an appeal done the way an appeal should be done, and seems reasonable. Like QEDK and SmokeyJoe, however, I would've liked to see a condition (or explicit voluntary commitment) to stay away from userspace drafts given the context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I would like to see Ricky unblocked, he is an excellent contributor and I think we need to give people the chance to come back as productive members of the project. Everyone makes mistakes (said as someone who has made mistakes in the past!) and these should not hang over us for all time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• It's obvious this will pass, and I don't think it will be the end of the world if he comes back, and I'm well aware that humans (especially me) are imperfect. I won't pointlessly oppose to make sure I get attention (after all, this isn't RFA). I don't even know for sure why this particular unban request annoys me, but it's probably related to the fact that it's really annoying that intentional trolling, not caring one iota about wasting other people's time, and lying to everyone's face about it is now being spun by some people here as simple "mistakes". And while I'm sure the unblock request was wordsmithed quite a bit, it still has a whiff - to me, anyway, although apparently no one else - of "this crazy topic forced me do something stupid", rather than "I consciously chose to do something stupid". I would feel slightly better if he promised not to even try to be an admin again, and promised to stay away from the userspace draft issue forever, but support is so strong here that it would probably be smarter to just ignore me and say nothing at all. Grumble grumble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

He does mention that he knows he has no chance of ever being an admin again, and I think the vast majority of the community would agree, I certainly wouldn't ever support adminship for someone who had committed such a serious breach of trust. I see your point about the word "mistakes". It is somewhat open to interpretation. These certainly weren't things he did by accident, but rather serious errors in judgement. However I do feel that the remainder of the appeal makes it clear they understand how thoughtless and infantile this all was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: learn the process that ArbCom is established

Where is the best place to find the reading material? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv, I take it you are asking for the arbitration policy? You can read it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. If this is not the case and you are asking to find something else, can you please clarify? All best, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for response @Dreamy Jazz:. To clarify, I didn't refer to the policy, I refer to the history and process that creates ArbCom. In that I like to learn the discussion why it was a ArbCom not something like a Supreme Court (how it was named), and why the term was 1 year and 2 year, elected by community etc. These are all very interesting and fascinating to me as a decentralized organization / community that we at Wikipedia come into a consensus of forming such governance process. In real life I will read Journal of the Federal Convention to learn how the structure of US is set up, and in Wikipedia I like to learn how one of the most important governance tool/branch/structure, the ArbCom, was proposed and formed. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: Wikipedia can be a wonderful source of information - even about itself. So, have you tried looking at the encyclopaedia article about Arbitration Committee and checked out the 26 references there? I suspect this might well give you much of what you seek. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, @Dreamy Jazz: You are awesome and yeah, from where you pointed me to, I found it: the email thread that creates ArbCom. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yay! Great stuff. Glad to be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee recommendations

How (if at all) are Arbitration Committee recommendations communicated to the community? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Announcements are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and you are told that at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thincat: thank you for pointing be in the right direction. However, the guide for arbitration does not mention the Arbitration Noticeboard in prose. It only mentions Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, clerks' noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard, arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and administrators' incidents noticeboard (wikilinks copied from the guide page). I've tried going the other way as well. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, [it] is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. However, these announcements are not mentioned on the guide page either. All mentions of "statements" refer to case participants' statements, not statements from AC. Section "Decision" ends with The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time. Perhaps, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard should be mentioned alongside Administrators' noticeboard. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I expect you're right. Thincat (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the Arbitration noticeboard. Would adding a separate section about the "Arbitration Committee recommendations" mechanism improve the guide? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

I request for an Arbitration for a dispute involving myself and an admin today. In my opinion, this admin (El_C) has crossed the line by abusing his/her powers and basically told me that he/she can take an action based on his/her personal judgment, without quoting any policies/rules/guidelines. I felt very disappointed that we as the general Wiki editors need to live under this sort of bureaucracy. I have refrained from starting an edit war with him/her though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. El_C 04:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My style is not unusual. When talking about our home planet, the article 'the' is generally omitted, just like when we talk about our home, we say home instead of the home. Please refer to Earth and its related articles as a reference. Thanks. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your style is either unusual or just unnecessary. Please don't continue making these edits while this complaint is left outstanding. Thank you. El_C 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is becoming disruptive — please stop making these edits, or your access to editing may be revoked. El_C 05:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Even you are, could you please explain what did you mean? By saying other people is disruptive without giving a clear explanation only make things more confusing. I have made my point above already, but I haven't heard any proper response from you other than threatening to revert my edits. Did I make any vandalisms? No, so what for? Please have some mutual respect, mate. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, you are making the articles worst —not better— with these type of edits. At best, the changes are simply unnecessary. I'm sorry, but you need to cease with the modality of those edits. El_C 05:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Which part? If you want to moderate other editor's good faith edits, what you should do is only edit the parts that clearly violate the rules and write a reference in your edit summary, not reverting everything they have done. If the other editor disagrees with your moderation, discuss with them by quoting the rule in their talk page. If they refuse to admit their violation and starts an edit war, then send them an official warning. I know it is time-consuming, but moderation is a Quality over Quantity thing. Every genuine editor, whether they are an admin or not, can be a good moderator if they could show respect to other people's work. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but there isn't enough worth salvaging for that to be a worthwhile endeavour. And I'm not going to use platitudes to look respectful. I already am respectful, have been, and will continue to be. Please, just go do something else aside from these mostly cosmetic edits. They are of little value. El_C 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So even you have agreed that my edits had offered some little value, then why revert them without quoting any rules or discussion? Can't you just modify the parts which violate the rules? For you, it's just a press of button, but for others, they have spent some time to complete the edit. You have shown no respect by press that revert button carelessly and even worse, have shown disrespect by chasing and eliminating all similar edits by that editor. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits were too subpar to be retained. You need to move to a different modality of edits. Contribute another way — in a way that does not involve such an excessive focus on cosmetic changes which, in your case, ultimately were of little value. El_C 06:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Little value is still better than no value, only vandalism should be reverted immediately. I reckon the Wikipedia community should be more inclusive rather than everything strictly controlled by the moderators. It will make life easier for all of us! 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bottom line: your changes, for the most part, were not an improvement. El_C 09:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why should it must be totally reverted? What is the core value of Wikipedia? I still don't get it. Some people warn other people not to start an edit war, but often it is those people who started it. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring

Unless it is clear vandalism, chasing other people's edits and revert all their edits without discussion first is a self-centred action which proved to be a source of conflict and is hurting Wikipedia very bad. I think we both like Wekipedia to be a pleasant place to share our knowledge, do we? Please always remember to refrain from abusing the reverting option when editing. Thank you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator and I consider the type of edits you are making to be disruptive. El_C 05:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? So this is your reply? I have made my points in my talk page, but you have done nothing other than accusing my edits were disruptive. So whether an edit is disruptive or not is purely depending on an individual's personal judgment? What a joke, no wonder a lot of productive editors have left this platform since their efforts were not appreciated by those who constantly abuse their reverting option. Wikipedia is a joke, period. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is my reply. As for the question of whether an edit is disruptive or not is purely depending on an individual's personal judgment? Yes, it is up to the individual admin's judgment when assessing what is or isn't disruptive at any given circumstance. El_C 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? So basically you are saying there are no rules to be followed. Wow, here is the truth, you are wasting your time reverting every other people's edit which you don't like until they got fed up and leave or you got fed up and quit. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There are rules in the form of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as Wikiepdia's Manual of Style — I try to adhere to both the former and the latter as much as I can. There is also Ignoring All Rules, which has to do with common sense prevailing over bureaucratic and wikilawyering arguments. El_C 06:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you are coming from now, but you have still not responded to the main issue. I reckon when writing about our home planet, the article 'the' should be omitted, there are plenty examples to support this editing style. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to parse what you were saying directly above but was unsuccessful. El_C 06:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy. When someone ask you "Hey, where are you going?", you would reply "I am going home.", you won't reply "I am going to the home.", would you? The same can be said here. We live on Earth, Earth is our home, we can't permanently live in another place (we can live in outer space temporarily with a space suit, but that doesn't count), so we don't need an article to emphasize our place of residence. In my opinion, it is totally disrespectful for someone to put an article before our unique place of residence. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this pertains to what article? Just cite the diffs of the pertinent edits, please. El_C 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The article "the", we don't need to write this article before planet Earth. Please refer to Earth and other Earth-related Wikipedia articles as a reference. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.