User talk:Epistemologicalbiker

Welcome!

Hello, Epistemologicalbiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sethia000 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already been made aware of these sanctions by Doug, I suggest you stop edit warring to restore that tag. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this sanction notice means. If you could explain what relevance it has to your removal the Political POV warning tag prior to the conditions for removal being met, it would help me understand the situation better.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Political_POV states to "Place this template on articles where you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view in regards to political parties, politicians, events or governments, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." There is no mention of requiring others agree before this warning tag is placed. Indeed, on controversial subject matter where bias may easily go unnoticed and unquestioned, or at least tacitly upheld and denied, such a thing would be unlikely. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug, could you help me understand what this notice means? Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behave. Follow our policies and guidelines very carefully, we enforce them more in this area. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits and being a Single purpose account pushing a disruptive POV, wasting good faith editors time. This is visible throughout the majority of your edits, but of note is this edit and the resulting talk page discussion where you, invertedly or not, prove you misrepresented a source to promote your own POV. I am not sure if this is your first account, as your arguments read similar to several other blocked accounts in that talk page's history, but no matter.

You can appeal this block using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, if you believe I am wrong. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:26, 7 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not misrepresented the source. An individual has persistently replied to me misrepresenting the source themself, which includes both it's own description of the organization (and numerous others) and a description of what the organization itself says; this individual is stating the source includes only the latter. The first indication of this should have been the fact that the source describes the organization (a la "the organization did ...", "it was ...", etc), only then transitioning into quoting the organization itself ("its website states ..." etc). Please note the source is publicly available on libgen and may be reviewed by anyone.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, locked — TNT (talk • she/her) 19:41, 7 July 2022 (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.

Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

@Moneytrees: @TheresNoTime: et al, you might want to compare this one to the Benjiboi sockdrawer: SPI

Benjiboi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Especially the edits of the indeffed sock

Gleeanon409 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Both made the same arguments on NAMBLA and related articles, have a similar voice and style (gaslighting, tendentious editing, dramaboard shopping) etc. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan I don't think I know the history of that user as well as you do, so I can't say for sure. I personally thought, if this account is indeed a sock, that it is from one of the various blocked editors that can be seen in the Nambla talk archive. To me, it feels like they all speak in a similar way, repeating the same non-arguments. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's either of those accounts and I don't know that it's worth digging into and giving it more attention at this point. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan@Moneytrees@Praxidicae I can see that the account is globally locked. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think it needs more attention, but something of note that we found in the Gleeanon investigation is the odd editing pattern: The user didn't seem to sleep. The round the clock editing pointed to either an ongoing bout of mania or, more likely, a shared account. A group of accounts shared by a small handful of users would also account for the shared voice, repetitive arguments, as well as the occasional odd inconsistencies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]