User talk:Theduinoelegy

Welcome!

Hello, Theduinoelegy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fish

Well, I have written only five articles on fish. I would suggest you visit a page of our Ukrainian fish expert though, @Ykvach:)--Mishae (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

KonveyorBelt 22:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GG ARBCOM notice

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

This notice is just FYI, but you are also close to WP:3RR currently on Anita Sarkeesian. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at WP:AE

See WP:AE#Edit war at Anita Sarkeesian. You may reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this topic has been deleted as things were said that the admins didn't want known. Or perhaps for some other reason...??? Theduinoelegy (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically Archived, a little search box on the right will let you find the original discussions [1] and [2] are the direct links though. Koncorde (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Due to your disruptive behavior on Anita Sarkeesian I'm imposing upon you a 90 day ban on 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 per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 04:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no disruptive edits. This is clearly censorship.Theduinoelegy (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting your complaints in the log of WP:ARBGG will have no effect on your situation. If you want to appeal your topic ban, you can fill out {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} and post it at WP:AE. The appeal procedure is given in WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is bureaucratic nonsense. I edited in the utmost good-faith to bring balance to an article that is very clearly not balanced. It is pretty obvious that there is white-knighting going on, combined with massive group-think that is causing the article on Anita Sarkeensian to fail in the most basic standards of impartiality. My desire was to draw attention to this before similar behaviour explodes all over Wikipedia. I have no faith that an appeal would be fairly or promptly heard. This process is intended to kick things into the long-grass. I don't see how waiting 90 days to have an appeal heard is any different from waiting 90 days for the ban to be auto-lifted. You don't work for local government by any chance, do you? Theduinoelegy (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

You are hereby notified of the existance of [3], a request for enforcement of your topic ban. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You are hereby notified that, as I am King of Wikipedia, you are my servant and will do as I please ;).Theduinoelegy (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that you stop making disruptive edits to prove a point like this and this? Frankly your best bet to avoid being blocked is to disengage and completely avoid the topic area you have been banned from. The arbitration topic ban is a pretty real thing and it is strictly enforced. Chillum 17:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you disagree with the truth of the added statements? If they are true then they do not disrupt Wikipedia, which is a project aimed at bringing truth to the people, is it not? Theduinoelegy (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using talk pages
[edit]
The appropriate place to converse with other users is on their talk page, not their user pages. In this edit, you edited my user page - User:Hipocrite. You should have, instead, edited User_talk:Hipocrite, my user-talk page. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Says who?Theduinoelegy (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing other user's user pages. This is disruptive, and will lead to your being blocked. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you have edited my talk page and the difference is...??? That one says 'user' on the top and one says 'talk'? I will refrain from editing your user page in future, though :). Theduinoelegy (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay final warning. If you continue to act disruptively I will block your account without further notice. Chillum 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read, disagree with supposedly established hierarchy for 'act disruptively'. Theduinoelegy (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read it any way you like. Regarding your question about truth, you may want to look at WP:TRUTH. You are not the first person to come here demanding your version of truth he heard. Chillum 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are actually saying that you don't give a **** if things said on Wikipedia are true... Theduinoelegy (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read the link I gave you then you would understand Wikipedia's position on truth. I won't paraphrase the essay for you, you can read it if you like. Chillum 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is 'Wikipedia'? In any case, no edits I made directly contradicted the policy, so that's irrelevant. The point was that, all other things being equal, statements one believes to be true should be valued over those ones believe to be untrue. It's quite clear if you look at the Anita Sarkeesian article that wasn't happening. When the camping admins are implying you're probably a rapist because you wanted to amend for NPOV and YOU end up getting warned for casting character aspersions, there's something seriously, seriously wrong with the system and the attitude of the people in it. Theduinoelegy (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement block
[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching your topic ban, per this AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
No. This decision is not democratic and is outside the rules of Wikipedia. You are abusing your powers. I will not abide by your decision.Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your ability to send emails using Wikipedia's EmailUser function. If you make disruptive comments on your talk page your access to it will be revoked and your block may be extended. Also, given your comment above, if you evade your block by editing logged out or with another account your block will likely be extended and the IP address or account you use will also be blocked. The instructions to appeal the block are listed above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your ability to edit this page, since you're using it as a forum to resume the attacks on other editors that brought this enforcement action [4]. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement block
[edit]
I have blocked you for one month following this edit [5] to Anita Sarkeesian in violation of your 90-day topic ban. Additionally, the topic ban is extended to one year from the original date of the topic ban, 25 February 2015. Expiration of your block did not remove the topic ban, and expiration of the current block will not affect the ban's extension. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit. WTF??? Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your edit was that it violated your topic ban (again) which stood until next month. Since this is the second time this has happened, you've been blocked for a longer term and the topic ban has been extended until 25 February 2016. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so basically, Acroterion has no way of enforcing this ban properly, so you rely on the user to self-enforce and then impose massively draconian regulations on those who don't immediately Agent Smith themselves. Also, thanks to whoever it was who created the temporary redirect that pointed my browser to Metawiki (an admin I assume,) but I have no intention of getting lost in a mass of bureaucracy forever. If Wikipedia can't police itself properly (as is becoming pretty obvious by now) I will have to go elsewhere to put forward balanced, NPOV information. May your servers rot forever in disuse.Theduinoelegy (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans have no means of technical enforcement in Mediawiki software: we can't prevent registered users from editing a given section of Wikipedia through technical means, even if we could figure out how to code it for something like GamerGate and gender related topics, broadly-construed. As with most things in life, you are responsible for learning and observing the boundaries of what you can do. In your case, you have twice crossed a plainly-set boundary, and escalating technical sanctions in the form of blocks from editing anything in Wikipedia are how we respond. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. This is annoying. I want to add a citation to the Vegan page and now I can't because my good-faith edits and dyslexia related abstract memory issues got me banned. This is poo.Theduinoelegy (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll just work out how to make decent edits without incurring the long letter of the law-for-the-sake-of-it-and-because-you-pissed-off-the-admins-by-disagreeing-with-them. We don't forgive or forget, btw, admin Smith.Theduinoelegy (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this sort of edit [6]. You don't own this talkpage, Wikipedia owns it, and you may not refactor other editors' comments. It's one thing to change signature colors, it's another thing to pretend someone said something that they didn't. If it happens again you will not be able to edit this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I altered the page to reflect the underlying truth of their words, which were disingenuous as initially formulated.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May 2015
[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mkdw ^talk 23:09, 25 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).
Theduinoelegy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for reasons that make no sense and are all to do with a set of Anita Sarkeesian edits. I am very obviously here to help with Wikipedia and the reason for the block is an idealogically motivated lie. Theduinoelegy (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading over the ANI thread which resulted in your indef block, I'd say there were quite a few good reasons for it.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 22 February 2016 (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).
Theduinoelegy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or

the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,

will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and

will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (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.

Bullcrap. You and I both know it was for lies which is why you won't specify your 'good reasons'.
If you continue to make unblock requests that do not address the reason for your block, you and I both know that I will happily remove your talk page access. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the block was I was making comments that made things confusing for people who were part of a clique. I expect to get banned for being a good person. Bit Jesusy.
You are done wasting our time; talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Theduinoelegy has been Confirmed to have been evading their block via logged out edits. Any standard offer will need to take this into account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]