Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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.Please also note that Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet account. I do not have any other wikipedia accounts. I do not know who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet for, or on what basis this conclusion has even been reached. There has been no explanation of any kind. Could User:The ed17 please explain their reasoning here? AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with the blocking admin's characterisation of your editing pattern, and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:18, 23 March 2015 (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.
Seems fair enough. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A user with 87 edits asking me to apologise to a blocked user with 31 edits. Sure. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This was my first and original account. No other account has ever been presented as supposedly being my own. No evidence was ever presented by any editor or admin in this case.
Unable to edit, I created a [second account /info/en/?search=User_talk:AllMyEasterEggs] to discuss this same groups continued escalation of increasingly draconian measures. This account was then also blocked for sockpuppetry putting myself in the Kafka-esque position of needing to return here to request an unblock for what is now being argued is a permentant personal block on myself as a result of a sockpuppet declaration on my original account.
I add that these blocks are not motivated by any contentious editing on my part but by controlling editors who are simply blocking opposing views. This behaviour is by now setting site wide precendents wholly against the principles and ethos of what this encyclopedia is supposed to be. I'd ask the reviewing administrator to consider the context of these blocks their the potential for abuse of the rules involved. AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 22:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have no reasons whatosever to believe that this is your first account. Max Semenik ( talk) 06:02, 17 May 2015 (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.
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous admin is being entirely disingenuous. As I have explained
Refuting this is easy. If this is not my "real account", then show which one is.
This block constitutes a gross abuse of the rule being applied. The burden of proof in applying a permanent personal ban to a first time editor lies with the accuser. It is not enough to make a false and unsubstantiated claim of sockpuppetry or anything else and pretend that this is true. It is as plain as day that the site rules are being abused here.
I would appreciate if the next administrator to review this would at least take the time to explain how I am supposed to exit this absurdly Kafkaesque position? AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 02:23, 18 May 2015 (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.
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Which accounts? Which accounts is --jpgordon referring to? Provide the evidence.
Decline reason:
We're not in a court of law. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik ( talk) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (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.
I don't think you can exit your position, frankly.
The most common tactic of Gamergate supports on this site is to continually request (or, in your case, demand) that editors and administrators continually do more and more work to support their demands. You know, sea-lioning.
Since you've shown no willingness to follow process or operate in good faith already (such as making block-circumventing accounts), I doubt anyone is going to "right the gross injustices" being done to you.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders now.--
Jorm (
talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And again, you're making demands that people do extra work for you.
--jpgordon is an administrator with CheckUser authority, which means that they have the ability to see your sockpuppets. This information is not typically published as it falls into issues of doxxing and privacy policy violations. --
Jorm (
talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
AugustRemembrancer, now that your talk page access has been taken away, your only recourse is through the UTRS (
Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System) and to appeal to the arbitration committee.
Be warned, if your argument continues to be that the admins are unfair and biased, that Wikipedia is corrupt and that there is a concerted effort to silence people with particular points of view, your account will never be unblocked. That argument only demonstrates that if you were to be unblocked, you would be a disruptive editor. Your argument has to involve taking responsibility for the conduct that resulted in the block and must indicate that your future work would be a positive and productive contribution to the project.
It's not against the rules to criticize Wikipedia but those editors who do this and are not seen as disruptive are editors with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience editing, not new accounts like yours. There is very little tolerance for newly created accounts that set about trying to right wrongs and talk about the "abusive admins." There is no doubt lots of room for improvement on Wikipedia but we are all volunteers and most editors are trying to do the best they can to improve the content of the project.
It would have been in your best interests if you had spent time learning about policies, guidelines and culture that exist on Wikipedia and edited regular articles instead of plunging into one of the most divisive talk pages where your conduct and your account would be under intense scrutiny.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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.Please also note that Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan] 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet account. I do not have any other wikipedia accounts. I do not know who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet for, or on what basis this conclusion has even been reached. There has been no explanation of any kind. Could User:The ed17 please explain their reasoning here? AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with the blocking admin's characterisation of your editing pattern, and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:18, 23 March 2015 (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.
Seems fair enough. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A user with 87 edits asking me to apologise to a blocked user with 31 edits. Sure. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This was my first and original account. No other account has ever been presented as supposedly being my own. No evidence was ever presented by any editor or admin in this case.
Unable to edit, I created a [second account /info/en/?search=User_talk:AllMyEasterEggs] to discuss this same groups continued escalation of increasingly draconian measures. This account was then also blocked for sockpuppetry putting myself in the Kafka-esque position of needing to return here to request an unblock for what is now being argued is a permentant personal block on myself as a result of a sockpuppet declaration on my original account.
I add that these blocks are not motivated by any contentious editing on my part but by controlling editors who are simply blocking opposing views. This behaviour is by now setting site wide precendents wholly against the principles and ethos of what this encyclopedia is supposed to be. I'd ask the reviewing administrator to consider the context of these blocks their the potential for abuse of the rules involved. AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 22:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have no reasons whatosever to believe that this is your first account. Max Semenik ( talk) 06:02, 17 May 2015 (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.
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous admin is being entirely disingenuous. As I have explained
Refuting this is easy. If this is not my "real account", then show which one is.
This block constitutes a gross abuse of the rule being applied. The burden of proof in applying a permanent personal ban to a first time editor lies with the accuser. It is not enough to make a false and unsubstantiated claim of sockpuppetry or anything else and pretend that this is true. It is as plain as day that the site rules are being abused here.
I would appreciate if the next administrator to review this would at least take the time to explain how I am supposed to exit this absurdly Kafkaesque position? AugustRemembrancer ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon ::==( o ) 02:23, 18 May 2015 (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.
AugustRemembrancer ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Which accounts? Which accounts is --jpgordon referring to? Provide the evidence.
Decline reason:
We're not in a court of law. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik ( talk) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (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.
I don't think you can exit your position, frankly.
The most common tactic of Gamergate supports on this site is to continually request (or, in your case, demand) that editors and administrators continually do more and more work to support their demands. You know, sea-lioning.
Since you've shown no willingness to follow process or operate in good faith already (such as making block-circumventing accounts), I doubt anyone is going to "right the gross injustices" being done to you.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders now.--
Jorm (
talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And again, you're making demands that people do extra work for you.
--jpgordon is an administrator with CheckUser authority, which means that they have the ability to see your sockpuppets. This information is not typically published as it falls into issues of doxxing and privacy policy violations. --
Jorm (
talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
AugustRemembrancer, now that your talk page access has been taken away, your only recourse is through the UTRS (
Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System) and to appeal to the arbitration committee.
Be warned, if your argument continues to be that the admins are unfair and biased, that Wikipedia is corrupt and that there is a concerted effort to silence people with particular points of view, your account will never be unblocked. That argument only demonstrates that if you were to be unblocked, you would be a disruptive editor. Your argument has to involve taking responsibility for the conduct that resulted in the block and must indicate that your future work would be a positive and productive contribution to the project.
It's not against the rules to criticize Wikipedia but those editors who do this and are not seen as disruptive are editors with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience editing, not new accounts like yours. There is very little tolerance for newly created accounts that set about trying to right wrongs and talk about the "abusive admins." There is no doubt lots of room for improvement on Wikipedia but we are all volunteers and most editors are trying to do the best they can to improve the content of the project.
It would have been in your best interests if you had spent time learning about policies, guidelines and culture that exist on Wikipedia and edited regular articles instead of plunging into one of the most divisive talk pages where your conduct and your account would be under intense scrutiny.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)