User talk:Clownshking

Clownshking, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Clownshking! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hello, I'm Boud. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Demographics of Eritrea that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This was your personal attack against me which stated that my intentions in editing were to promote the viewpoint of a particular political party. Your claim that I'm a sockpuppet was also a personal attack. I do not support the TPLF and I am not a sockpuppet. Boud (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horn of Africa Discretionary Sanctions warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Boud (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Boud (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:HORN topic area ("Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes"), broadly construed.

I think the ANI complaint (permanent link) proves, at the very least, that you are not compatible with this topic area, at this time and for the foreseeable future. If there is interest, the road to climb back up this hill consists of demonstrating long-term productive editing without incident elsewhere.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:HORN#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 13:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the topic ban covers the topic, broadly construed. This talk page comment could be deemed a violation of your ban. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it's a blatant misreading of the conversations, and shows a profound lack of WP:AGF. No, admins are not letting some people run around as if they are in charge. No, I am not picking sides, and neither is El C. If C.Fred hadn't already warned you I might have dropped a block because that kind of commentary undermines all we're doing here. What you haven't noticed, because you didn't look for it and maybe you didn't care to look, is that I blocked the IP who disrupted your talk page, right here. So no, we're not playing favorites. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

let me ask if I am allowed to even ask? Apparently by Bouds history and interactions with editors like myself and others he disagreed, he used the tools of punishment to get what he had obtained which is HOA articles with no counter POVs. Whether the admins intended or not, the outcome is essentially that! On top of that, the admins won’t even consider an SPI, how is any editor to believe there is fairness in this type of treatment. He has gotten more privilege and I can’t even request anything. This all seems rigged especially his use of the HOA sanctions against editors he is attempting to get banned or blocked. Case in point myself. You can block theIP but there are more involved and Boud is involved but you won’t even allow me to get an SPI. Like I said there is Sockpuppetry and admin unintentional collusion happening in this case! I know you all have the powers to block and ban which I totally respect. However just observe the HOA articles and see Boud and his POV editors shift all of those articles to their POV. Take what I say as what will most likely happen if there is no checks and balances.Clownshking (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to beat a dead horse, on a subject you're topic banned from, after several very clear warnings by several different admins. If this continues you'll be indefinitely blocked next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[removed comment]

Would you like to make a constructive edit, or shall we interpret that as you requesting your account be indefinitely blocked with your talk-page access revoked? —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've assumed the latter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]