Blocked to enforce indef

I've blocked this account to enforce the block placed on A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, as this appears to be an alternative account per Special:Diff/812539045. I'm confused as to what you think you're doing.. can you enlighten me? -- There'sNoTime ^{( to explain)} 14:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ There'sNoTime: & @ Nihlus: further to IRC chat. Thank you. There'sNoTime, you are correct, this an alternative account. For background on what I am doing, I have been receiving general negative feedback around the general meaninglessness and and difficulty in spelling my username. Consider trying to ping "A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver" without copy/paste? Or finding my userpage via the search bar? What do you think it means? Apparently it is the worst username ever and rated -9.9 out of 10. This is all a shame because I quite like "A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver", but even I must admit it is a bit unusual.

I contacted the stewards on meta regarding it being changed, and got told that it was too soon after my last rename (from Aguyintobooks) and that it couldn’t be changed while I am blocked here on en-wiki. So instead, I just made a new account from special:createaccount on my previous account to maintain the link, making it clear it was a replacement account, and posted the block notice from my previous account here, and changed my global userpage to point to it as well, all to make sure people are aware it is still me. Arthur Kerensa ( talk) 15:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Arthur Kerensa: I see, thank you for clarifying - I don't believe there is any further action needed here. For the avoidance of doubt, you will not be using A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (on any project) and will instead be using Arthur Kerensa? -- There'sNoTime ^{( to explain)} 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

@ There'sNoTime: yes that is correct. Arthur Kerensa ( talk) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

To clarify, you did not contact the stewards nor did you speak to one as you submitted it through Special:GlobalRenameRequest where Céréales Killer rejected it. You were advised to deal with your block and wait six months before making another request, so why did you circumvent the m:Global rename policy to make an alternate account while indefinitely blocked? Nihlus 17:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Given the current circumstances and your previous history, I cannot but wonder whether it would be prudential to turn the autoblock on. Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd say that was an excellent idea. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Stop collapsing the information on this page

Wikipedia editors in good standing have relatively full control over their talk pages. For instance, they can remove most things, and other editors cannot restore them. They can set them up as they like, and add whatever decoration they like.

YOU ARE NOT A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR IN GOOD STANDING! You are indefinitely blocked from editing, and you had the gall to create a brand new account while you were indef blocked!!

You do not control this page, which is here so that you can communicate your desire to be considered for an unblock - and that is all. If you collapse the information above again, I will ask an admin to take away to talk page access. I hope that is clear. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Beyond My Ken: please point me to a policy that states that he can't collapse stuff on his user talk page, as well as where it says in policy he has no control over his user talk page either. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

This stricture is commonly upheld by admins, and it is inherent in WP:UP#OWN: "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." Because they belong to the community, and not to the user, if an admin considers -- as I do -- that collapsing the pertinent information in the above thread is disruptive, and an attempt to duck his responsibility for his actions, the talk page access can be removed. If you think it's good advice to encourage this editor to continue to collapse the thread, I'd say that you're giving them bad advice. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I presume that removing my comment was a heat of the moment error?

I will say that I would have preferred it if this discussion had happened on my meta-wiki page, as I had asked people to comment there, I had not intended to have to use this page for discussions. The presence of discussion here is encouraging further discussion here, no-one seems to have even noticed the redirect to meta-wiki.

Since discussion is happening here, I will assert that this is a page where I can talk to people, and they can talk back, and there can be a discussion, I am entitled to remove/archive all the comments here completely if I wanted too, and there is no policy based reason for anyone to state that the fact I am blocked affects this, additionally I don't appreciate a non-admin controlling my talk page. And the fact that you are using it to continue attacking me on matters already resolved is disappointing.

Your comment directly above clearly states that you consider the thread above to be "pertinent information" and that collapsing it is "disruptive" - well that is great, and obviously I consider it pertinent, else I would remove it entirely, rather than making the effort to neatly archive it with the block notice, but it is really not your concern, you don't own this page either, give it a rest. The issue of my new account has already been dealt with and resolved by the people that are responsible for these matters, you should give this a rest as well. Despite the fact you quote WP:UP#OWN you seem to have neglected to read WP:UP#CMT despite the fact I have already brought it to your attention.

If you think talk page access should be removed, that is fine, I believe you can request that on ANI (or AN?). But I would respectably ask that; it is fully protected to stop you (or anyone of these other non-admins who appear to object to my existence) from using it as a grudge noticeboard in my absence. And that the inter-wiki redirect is retained so that people may still contact me on meta-wiki where I can have a proper discussion with them.

I cannot carry this on without an edit war, either file a complaint or let me organise my talk page as I see fit, I will return in a few days to see what you or others have to say about the issue. If you know an an uninvolved administrator who has the time to comment, that would also be good. Arthur Kerensa ( talk) 14:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I will do neither. As I said above, if you collapse the information again, I will ask for your TPA to be revoked. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Beyond My Ken: Out of curiousity, why wouldn't WP:BLANKING apply here? Pinging the blocking admin for opinion. >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

As I have been pinged - WP:BLANKING applies entirely here, and the editor is more than entitled to collapse the above discussion if they so wish. I suggest everyone cuts it out and finds something more constructive to do -- There'sNoTime ^{( to explain)} 19:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply