User talk:AllMyEasterEggs

Welcome!

Hello, AllMyEasterEggs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tutorial to help get you oriented editing Wikipedia)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Jim1138 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute joke. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

My block was not legitimate the first time around and it's absolutely not legitimate now.

I am being blocked solely for challenging a controlling groups of editors and admins on their increasingly overreaching actions in locking down the Gamergate page and preventing a challenge or debate of their own positions.

I argued against the recent (site precedent setting) 500 edit/30 day account restriction on the Gamergate Article and Talk page here [1]
In discussion I pointed out that pages with far more contentious subject matter are subject to far less serious edit restrictions.[2]
Making these points was evidently too much for the editors involved so I have been once again blocked.
My gagging not being enough, the points I made in discussion, pertaining in particular to the wider precendent being set are now also being deleted.[3]

Let us be clear. This block is no more about "Sockpuppetry" than my [previous block https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:AugustRemembrancer#March_2015] was. It is about abusing administrator privileged to disallow even the discussion of the overreaching and draconian restrictions these editors are engaged it. It comes from the same source as the 500/30 edit precendent which is even now being set. It's goal is to forceibly shut out all opposing viewpoints and impose page control by fiat. These controlling editors will not defend their own positions even as they set site precendent.

I wish to challenge this 500 edit/30 day decision. What am I supposed to do? What made my points so objectionable that they now must be stricken from discussion? Why does my convienient ban coincide with their removal? This is not about "sockpuppetry" or any other rule reaching that has taken place. This is about a group of editors and admins abusing their pivileges to force through site policy decisions and precedents. This block is a sham, as was the previous, in support of that abuse.

I would request that this block be reviewed by an independent administrator, unaffliliated with this group, and who is at least willing to review the broader persepective instead of accepting this sham justification at face value.AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

By your own admission, you're block evading sock puppet of AugustRemembrancer (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[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 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).

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

Request reason:

The reviewing administrator has made no effort to investigate or address the extensive concerns which I have raised in relation to this block.

The initial sockputtetry block on my first account was not legitimate due to it being my only account on this site at the time and this second block is simply an abuse of position in order to prevent me from commenting on the site-wide presendents being set by the same group of admins responsible for problems I in good faith attempted to address. It is glaringly obvious that this block resulted from what was in effect a request by an editor to have a dissenting opinion removed. This same process and false accusation of sockpuppetry were what lead to the first account being illegitimately blocked.

The accusations of "ducks" and sockpuppetry are Kafkaesque and serve only to shut out editors and opinions which certain admins do not wish to even suffer presence of, let along debate their increasingly untenable positions against. Positions which are increasingly setting bad precendents for the site as a whole. Once again, this 500 edit/30 day block requirement is precendent setting, but debate on it is being prevent by these continued abuses of process and privileged.

I am placing this request template to either have this account unblock, or else the previous account unblocked. If this presents some kafakaesque catch-22 scenario, I can only note that several admins to date have notably shown their ability to run roughshod through rules and fair procedures. I'd ask that people stop using rules and procedures as bludgeons to remove and disallow not only content, but even debate that they they wish to avoid. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I make no comment about the block on your primary account. But this account is a block-evading sock, and the fact that you clearly disagree with the first block has no bearing.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[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 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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a block-evading sock account. This is a new account as the old one was permentantly blocked on a false accusation of sockpuppetry. There is no other way for me to edit in any way without creating a new one. The admins involved are disingeneously avoiding the realities here that have been extensively outlined, and providing no possible means of resolution. These blacks amount to a de-facto personal ban on wikipedia editing despite the very definition of "sockpuppetry" applying to additional accounts, which I never personally posessed at the origin of this farce. What are my options here? * Return to my first account which has been false declared to be a sockputtet and permentantly blocked from editing? * Somehow delete the first account and to remove the sockputtet accusation from this one? * Somehow delete both and create a third account, probably restarting this cycle all over again? I'd like the administrators to at least pretend to consider the following "hypothetical" scenario. A new user creates an account, which is accused of being a "sockpuppet" and then blocked. Is that user then permentatly banned from editing wikipedia? They cannot editing using the original account. They cannot create a any new accounts. Is the purpose of the WP:SOCK rule to permentantly ban new signups from editing? I have absolutely no idea what rules admins are playing by here. The intention appears to be to simply block/ban/revert and remove all dissenting opinion on precendent setting rules, the 500/30 rule in this case. This entire situation is Kafkaesque and aburd, and the next admin could at least have the curteosy to suggest some kind of rational resolution to all of this. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had an account that was blocked, preventing you from editing, so you created a new account in order to be able to edit: in other words, you created a new account in order to avoid being blocked. That is what "block evasion" means, and it is against Wikipedia policy, so the new account you created is blocked, and will remain blocked. If your previous account really was your first account, then I can understand that it must be frustrating to have it blocked, but the way to deal with that is neither to evade the block by using more accounts, nor to bitterly complain about how unreasonable you think Wikipedia administrators are. The way to do it is to request an unblock of your original account, in a polite and civil way, remembering that the request will be reviewed by someone who will be giving up his or her time voluntarily to do so, and will be making a good faith attempt to assess what is most likely to be the case. Remember also that the criterion that administrator will be applying is "will unblocking this editor be on balance likely to help the project?" and that demanding things and complaining about administrators' conduct will serve only to give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you are likely to be belligerent if unblocked, and that will reduce, not increase, the likelihood that you will be unblocked. Remember also that I could easily have posted a one sentence decline of your latest unblock request in a few seconds, but instead chose to spend a significant amount of my time writing this message, in the hope that it may help you to better understand how to increase your likelihood of being unblocked. Finally, since the unblock requests here keep repeating essentially the same points, and will continue to be declined, and since in any case you don't need this account to be unblocked, since if you are to be unblocked it can be done to your original account, your access to this talk page will be removed, to prevent waste of both your time and ours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[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.

Realistically, your best option is to contest the block of your first account - with as much sound evidence as you can muster. "There is no other way for me to edit in any way without creating a new one" - that's what block evading is about. YOU are blocked - rightly or wrongly - not just your account. This account is a sockpuppet. You need to appeal at your first account. I'm just giving advice and I'm not getting involved in Gamergate matters as I know nothing about them. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct to my understanding. My original account was blocked for sockpuppetry, wrongly. No evidence was ever presented. The purpose of the sockpuppet rules was to block additional accounts, not issue a personal block. What exactly is a person with only one account supposed to do if there original account is blocked? AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is faulty. A block is applied to a person, not to a specific account. You, personally, are blocked on every account you may have or create. A person with a block applied to their account is required to request unblock only at that account; creating new accounts is automatically defined as block evasion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So permentant personal blocks on first time account holders for "sockpuppetry" is in keeping with the purpose of the WP:SOCK rule? There isn't a way to present evidence that an account is not a "sock" account. Given the quick trigger fingers of the controlling admins already mentioned, I doubt mine is even the first case of this. At what point does this constitute an abuse of the rules requiring some kind of action other than rote application of blocks and page templates?AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]