User talk:Clash of the Teepies
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@A. C. Santacruz and ScottishFinnishRadish: As you can see from this removal, Wikipedia seems to have got a lot more paranoid and bureaucratic since I was an editor. You may want to post that query for yourselves, since the answer might be very pertinent (as would any non-answer I would think). I guess I'll have to go back to minding my own business. Wikipedia eh. Clash of the Teepies (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever your opinions, if you are to engage in an Arbcom case follow the rules. I don't appreciate you disrupting the process, and I certainly don't appreciate you pinging me. Do not ping me again, either in this account or others you might create, for I will pay no heed to whatever you might have to say. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your loss. As I said, the rules when I was last here didn't say that what I did was forbidden. Obviously since then, the people most threatened by Arbitration have realised the benefit to their own interests of being able to put their perceived enemies under fear of retribution if they dare to even ask a logical question, as I did, let alone make accusations or post evidence. A very effective tool of suppression, I imagine. If you think the monumental effort of collating and defending evidence about the GS group's alleged problematic editing at Arbitration without having any idea beforehand whether ArbCom have even the slightest intention of banning them if needs be, or even if philosophically justified, that's your lookout. I left Wikipedia in part because it often seemed like the price of entry was to freely submit yourself to farces like that. If you have that time to waste, and if you like being made a fool of, more power to you. Clash of the Teepies (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)