User talk:Eating Glass Is Bad
Don't eat it.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Alexf(talk) 17:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is this username a "blatant violation of usename policy"?--Asher196 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- This one is OK, the one they had before was not. -- Alexf(talk) 10:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is this username a "blatant violation of usename policy"?--Asher196 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Eating Glass Is Bad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Proof of No Vandalism....
Still waiting
[edit]I am still waiting.
I have not vandalized at all.
My username is not illegal. It is not profane; It does not threatens, It does not attack It does not impersonate another person It does not suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (because I have shown that all my edits are useful)
It does tell people not to do a dangerous thing because poop has lots of bacteria.
Still, I am willing to change my user name EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Please, Alexf
[edit]Please unblock me.
You may be very used to blocking people but it is extremely distressing to be suddenly blocked. Please examine your heart and find if it is not entirely hard....perhaps a kind part exists for you to undo your action. EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Please, please, please
[edit]Please Thank you. EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
New Proposal
[edit]Ok, you pick a user name and assign it to me. EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Please!!!!
[edit]Customer service is very bad, it seems. I keep pleading. The time that it took to block was rapid but customer service to review it is much slower. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia and would be beneficial to address. Thank you. This is merely a suggestion to improve Wikipedia. EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
HELP
[edit]HELP HELP HELP EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you...no idea
[edit]Thank you.
Some administrators have no idea how distressing it is to be blocked. I suspect that there is a significant amount of vandalism that is indirectly caused BY administrators. After a block and a wrong accusation of vandalism, the user then makes it true. This is not something I would do but I clearly can feel the reason why some might do it.
EatingPoopIsBad (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I am sure you are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It may be that the message was distressing and not the correct one, for that I apologize. It does not change the fact that the previous user name was unacceptable and had to be changed. -- Alexf(talk) 10:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello EatingGlassIsBad! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
Your username and talk page make me smile.
LegalTech (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Account status
[edit]Is this your first Wikipedia account? NE Ent 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Distasteful
[edit]Hi, I find this edit distasteful to the extreme. Comparing the Holocaust to editing WP, are you serious?? You seem to have a hangup about WP editors, I don't know about that and frankly, given your behavior, I don't care. Let me add something to that: if ever you make an edit like this again, I will indef block you. Bring me before ArbCom, I don't care, but belittling things like the Holocaust in this backhand way is not the civilized WP that I am a part of. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Randykitty, it's not the first time he's invoked Godwin's law. On this occasion, he accused an election article of being "Nazi propaganda" because one of the candidates in the infobox was seated more centrally in his picture, making him look slightly larger than his opponent. Tiller54 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Secret account 18:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Eating Glass Is Bad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin's reason to block is mentioned in a RFA. He/She writes"I'm removing this vote as it's clearly disruptive and revenge. ...I blocked for 31 hours to discourage this behavior in RFA." This is clearly a wrong reason to block. FYI, I asked the candidate about his views about improper blocking and other heavy handed actions by administrators and if he will try to correct it when he see it. A good answer (which I even provided to him as a hint) would be that he would not support it or he was mainly interested in video game articles and would keep fairness in the back of his mind (but wouldn't be dealing with it much). Instead, he not only ignored the question but, worse yet, didn't do anything when the question was blanked out. I see this as a lack of leadership, hence my oppose vote for the RFA...............What this block does is send a signal that you vote oppose in a RFA at your own risk to be blocked.Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I only looked at three of your RFA comments, and all of them were clearly trolling. If you continue such behavior after your block expires, your next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 24 November 2014 (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.
- (non-admin) I don't know about blocking you for it, but I was disturbed by your oppose, I was quite speechless (not in a good way). It looks like if you continue with this behavior after your block expires/is lifted, you'll probably be topic-banned from RfAs like Rotten regard was a few weeks ago. Of course I'm not an admin, but I see no problem with this block, as you almost got blocked when your question mentioned the holocaust in an inappropriate way, so this was the last straw. --AmaryllisGardener Public talk 20:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will not decline this unblock request as I participated in the RfA. If I was uninvolved I would decline this request in a heartbeat. Your actions deserved a longer block in my opinion.
- However I will tell you right now that being disruptive at RfA is about the most damaging thing you can do the to project right now. Your disruptive questions are tantamount to "When did you stop beating your wife?", it is not new and it is not clever. If you do it again in the future I will recommend a topic ban for your from participating in RfAs. You would not be the first. Chillum 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes,EGIB, your unblock request demonstrates you have spectacularly missed the point. When you misstate the facts (What this block does is send a signal that you vote oppose in a RFA at your own risk to be blocked.) in an unblock request you doom the request to fail. I will also pass on declining your request; it misses the mark as GAB compliant from beginning to end. My suggestion would be delete the present request, reconsider the situation and attempt another request. Tiderolls 22:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
WIKIBREAK
[edit]I have decided to take a voluntary wikibreak of greater than 24 hours. Please do not try to take advantage of me. You may leave comments, good or bad, nice or nasty. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ani
[edit][1] NE Ent 02:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Eating Glass Is Bad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked on November 24th. At the end of the 31 hour block, I was NOT combative. Instead, I said sorry to everyone and did a little bit of editing, all non controversial. Then Kevin Gorman, without any good reason, blocked me for a month......This is against Wikipedia policy. I served the time already (in the U.S., it's unconstitutional to put someone in jail twice for the same offense, called double jeopardy). It is against Wikipedia policy for several reasons...1. Is punitive and doesn't serve the purpose of blocks, which is to prevent damage, 2. He didn't even discuss it with me (sometimes called "warn") which is the effective way to change behavior, 3. He is wheel waring with an administrator, who gave me a block already, 4. He may be trying to harm Wikipedia by trying to get me to become so mad and become a vandal, 5. All the edits that I have done since the block ended are all reasonable, then he blocked me again........Show that you are a reasonable person by unblocking me this Thanksgiving season. IN SHORT, I was blocked, served the time, and edited ok since then but was blocked two days later. This is really wrong to block me. Please do not try to think of an excuse for Kevin Gorman, just unblock me. For that, I promise to make good contributions to Wikipedia (as I already found some errors and bad prose). Thank you. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the diffs below it is clear that you are trolling through ridiculous demands yet again. Unblock declined. Keep this shit up and expect and indef block eventually. Chillum 00:16, 30 November 2014 (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.
- For the reviewing administrator: this account was initially blocked for obvious trolling on RFAs. Upon the expiration of the block, the user quickly made this ridiculous demand of another user, which resulted in a warning from me. In response to that warning, the user upped the ante rather than stopping the trolling. IMO, this user should be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#trolling_account NE Ent 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an attack on me and false accusations. Here is what really happened.
1. Block ended after 31 hours.
2. Edits
a. talk page edit to Secret (sorry/apology, explanation why I thought his report was not accurate, reiterated sorry)
b. correction to museum article
c. talk page edit about name (name is ok, but the added signature line suggests bad things, just like a user name of "Eating Shit is Good" is bad. Still, it was a FYI)
d. correction to museum article (grammar)
e. article talk page: suggested neutral way of saying things but avoided article edit so as not to offend anyone
f. talk page edits (2+corrections): olive branch to Ohnoit'sJamie and calm discussion.
g. talk page edits (1+correction): congratulations and encouragement so Sam Walton
h. my own talk page (short wikibreak, request not to take advantage of my absence, but others did take advantage of it to attack me)
i. talk page edit about a bad article (another user later agreed with me)
j. talk page edit making additional comments about i.
In the mean time, someone reported me to ANI but did NOT provide a good link. They only provided a diff when they should have provided me with the link to the section. That came from an experienced admin!
Mr. Ohnoit'sJaime shows how aggressive he is. Even his name wants to provoke fear. He wants triple jeopardy, meaning blocked 3 times for the same offence, which is unconstitutional in the U.S. I have been nice after my initial 31 hour block and showed that I am a nice and productive user. That should be the end of story, not continued administrator harassment.
I even have an endorsement.
::::Looking through the contribs does not bring anything up that may be troll'y in my eyes LorChat 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, you forgot to mention the part where you compared Secret to Vladimir Putin. Also, "User:LorChat" doesn't exist. I would request an admin revoke EGIB's tp editing access, after all this with him trying to game the system. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Putin is the fairly elected leader of a large nation. He worked hard to bring the Olympic Games to Sochi. He has maintained dialogue with the U.S., not like North Korea. He is not Hitler. I do admit that the analogy was a little bad. His denial that Russian forces are in Ukraine wasn't the best example of a conflict of interest. (Putin says that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are involved, not Russian military forces). A better example might be the governor that recently pardoned his own son. AmaryllisGardener did not address the issue of a nominator of a RFA removing comments and blocking others. That is a serious conflict of interest since it is using administrative powers for their own personal gain, which is to see their nominating RFA succeed.
- Still, I have expressed sorrow and have said that I will move on and let it go.
- The fact remains that after the 31 hour block, I have tried to act nicely despite being treated not very nicely.
- AmaryllisGardener is telling a non-truth, I am sorry to say. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=635595615&oldid=635595372
- Please leave me alone and DO NOT POST ADDITIONAL COMMENTS UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING NICE TO SAY.
Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to talk about your political opinions. Further use of this page for soapboxing will result in loss of talk page privileges. Don't compare people to Putin, it is not appropriate. Chillum 00:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Note to Chillum.
Thank you for looking into this. After the 31 hour block, I made it a genuine effort to be nice to others, apologize, give words of encouragement, make good edits, etc.
I see that you voted in the RFA. That should make you a fine person to unblock me since I already served time, namely 31 hours, and should not be subjected to double jeopardy.
I promise not to talk about politics anymore.
You voted support for the RFA so you unblocking would be great.
If you deny the unblock, it could be unwise since it sends the wrong signal and a possible conflict of interest. Being a wise administrator, I think maybe you are on to resolving this. I pledge to help you by editing wisely and being nice to all.
In politics, a left leaning proposal is often successful if proposed by a right leaning politician. However, I won't give an example since it touches wrong nerves. This I learned, Chillum so thank you.
Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Chillum, you just made a mistake. You are part of the RFA support gang. I thought by putting a hold, you were seriously weighing the different issues.
I wonder how much of Wikipedia is trying to get users mad so they vandalize. I am not like that so if that is a goal, it is not successful. Happy Thanksgiving. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let's make something perfectly clear: Wikipedia blocking policies are not at all connected to the US legal system, so drop the silly "double jeopardy" crap. Insinuating that it would be "unwise" for Chillum to deny your unblock request is yet another ridiculous demand to add to the growing list. I think it's time the Wikipedia community stopped wasting time with you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are so mean and so disruptive. Please do not write on my user talk page. Thank you. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are not in a position to demand anything. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are so mean and so disruptive. Please do not write on my user talk page. Thank you. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This recent block has nothing to do with RfA. It is about your continued trolling after the RfA block ended. Insisting a user pretend they are blocked because of some perceived slight is a perfect example of the hostile trolling you have been engaging in. As I said in your unblock request if you do it again you may find yourself indef blocked or community banned. The community has little patience for trolling and wikilaywering has little effect here. In particular the community has been harsh on those disrupting RfA.
Please stop talking about the US legal system, if you prefer to deal with them then I suggest you find a way to get their attenton. As long as you are doing things we don't like then you will deal with us.
Calling me part of the "RfA Support" gang is simply a public display of ignorance on your part. Look through my history on RfA(which is about 7 years longer than yours) and you will see that I often oppose and it takes an exceptional candidate to get my support.
Before you speak, stop and ask yourself "do I know this to be true". If the answer is no then either do your research or just resist the temptation to talk without knowledge. Chillum 17:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)