User talk:Eaterjolly

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eaterjolly. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! JarrahTree 10:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated even if a bit late, if anything it adds a sense of being noticed by others in the community.

This block on the interwebs, is just a bit intimidating, but for such a integral resource I wouldn't have it any other way to be honest.

I like that I've survived this long without a hairpin-trigger greeting, and still my first talk post is this.. ho ho, surprising I haven't gotten the least bit of in-trouble (yet) isn't it ha ha

I hope to stay like this a while more between contributions;

hope you have a good one and you'll be the first one I buzz if I have any concerns!

Eaterjolly (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I hope you had brought cookies suitable for a strict vegetarian : D Eaterjolly (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Village pump: Wikipedia, a quatertiary source

(WP:SNOWBALL)

(edit: previously section-titled "cut it out")

Look, sometimes people advance proposals so out of line with what Wikipedia is and how it works that they aren’t worth discussing. Your proposed change has a 0% chance of being accepted. I am reclosing it, again, and to be clear I am doing this as an administrator in order to stop disruption of the village pump caused by your proposal. If you open it again, expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion to censor

(edit: previously section-titled "September 2018")

(Redacted warning about restoring proposal, because agreed overreaction.)

@Kirbanzo: @Beeblebrox:

One cannot have an edit war in a discussion namespace.

Claiming otherwise is an abuse of wikipedia policy.

If the idea you want to censor by closing and collapsing, truly up-ends wikipedia, then no one will respond and nothing will happen.

Your acts of censorship only show cause to believe some merit exists in my argument.

I will take this to the arbitration committee if I must because this kind of bold censorship is an abuse of authority.

The discussion violates no policy. WP:SNOW explicitly states that it is not a policy.

Please assume I act in WP:GOODFAITH.

I shall assume the same and that you only mistook me for spam.

Eaterjolly (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox:: (edit by Eaterjolly: redacted text 23:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Kirbanzo (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo:

I appreciate your apology. : )

Do you mind if I restore the proposal?

I don't intend on trying to canvas some "win".

I just want an earnest response to my criticism, my claims, and my proposal.

Eaterjolly (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice service

(edit: added "service" to section-title)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The thread is WP:ANI/IncidentArchive993#User:Eaterjolly. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion dismissed: what next?

@Alex Shih: @Beeblebrox:

So I read over WP:PEREN, not finding anywhere in there my proposal to specify how to find wikipedia appropriate information in otherwise unreliable sources (which happens often on wikipedia anyway imo). You even specified 1.6/1.7, but I don't notice any similarities between either proposal and mine, besides 1.7 and 1.6 also vaguely having to do with the sources allowed on wikipedia.

I also read over WP:NOTFORUM and that seems like an absolutely ridiculous policy to cite in a discussion area, and my discussion did have to do with "the task of creating an encyclopedia" so I don't get the problem.

I'd appreciate someone telling me why my proposal doesn't help rather than just throwing policy links at me and trying to shut me up.

Thanks : D

Eaterjolly (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

March 2019

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: {{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.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I had previously told you that I didn't block your account and that I would allow you to post to WP:AN using it (your account) to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent was given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community would be able to review the situation fairly. You have continued to IP sock disruptively so I have indeffed this account.

If you want an unblock review on wiki then you will need to give your consent to checkusers to associate your account with IPs. Or if you would rather, you may appeal to the Arbitration committee and they should contact me as I have evidence for them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, given that the IPs voluntarily associated themselves with the account on-wiki, I'm not sure more consent is required. The last time they did so (to my knowledge) was in January 2019, long after this account stopped editing. Huon (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, I didn't realize that they had. Do you have a diff or a page? They have used other IPs since spurring this block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: It's messy, but here they write (with link): "My account's only post (later re-signed with my IP)Ever:" - that's a link to an archive of the talk page; the original edit was by this account. If you check the relevant talk page's history as of September 17, 2018, the IP removes the signature with an edit summary of "I was this user [...]". Huon (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=First, I want to apologize for the hassle caused by my insisting on using IP. I believe in anonymity. I caused difficulties because I wanted others here to care as much as I do. Not an excuse but an explanation. I know I caused a mess with my IP signatures. I know that made reading or interpreting the pages I posted too difficult. At first I hadn't deserved blocked, but because I had no consistent IP to ping nor any consistent talkpage to talk to me 1 on 1 about how I should handle myself, admins had no other option. However because of the tone of the conversation about me I interpreted this as done with malintent. Futhermore because no other administrator criticized that tone had at the very beginning of the process nor had anyone suggested to me what I should do to compromise, I perceived this as a political block that had naught to do with my IP use and that just being a ruse. I still feel like I can only guess what the administrators want from me. I guess if I contributed only with my account and never as IP that would satisfy them. I could probably guess that before. I was wrong for not offering that solution at the very beginning. If I feel unsafe sharing my opinion on venue online, then I shouldn't share that opinion. I shouldn't expect wikipedia to protect me, at the cost of so much hassle. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}