User talk:Dwarvenhobble

Welcome!

Hello, Dwarvenhobble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

Please fix your signature. You've linked to Handpolk's user page instead of your own. — Strongjam (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol how on earth did you make that mistake? Handpolk (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Routine notification for GG-related articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Strongjam (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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. 5 albert square (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Despite my initial appeal and evidence to the appeals committee I was ignored and banned on the no edit wars rule for exactly 2 re-write which didn't violate the 3 Re-write rule. The reverts were done against editors who have been convicted by the arbitration committee of having taken part in edit warring themselves. I stated my evidence, I stated my previous case and my account was banned permanently with no-one able to cite a rule having being broken only claiming that the mere perception of edit warring was enough. Wikipedia is meant to be a place of facts and not percieved crimes or "I think he's bad" a place of evidence rather than feelings. In most of the democratic world a person has to right to defend themselves and know the crime they are being accused of. You can permanently ban me again and delete this, or you can look into the previous case. One of these options will show you as a group that cares for the systems you claim to defend here, the idea of a people's encyclopaedia or you can delete this and hide it and show that this isn't a peoples encyclopaedia but "some peoples" encyclopaedia the "right" people's encyclopaedia to tell "The right" thing to people. In my initial appear I said I would happily go in front of the arbitration comittee on the gamergate article and present my evidence there and be judged. I was refused. I was judged, convicted and sentenced without trial or my case being heard. I was told either accept editors made mods were infallible. I'll happily be held accountable as long as others are held as accountable. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, feel free to keep proving me wrong though.~~~~

Decline reason:

You are blocked for sockpuppetry, and this is the issue you must address in any future unblock requests. I get the impression, possibly incorrectly, that this appeal should have been posted on the talk page of your previous account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To Anthony Bradbury"talk" As you may or may not be aware. I was banned from my previous accounts talk page for doing just that. I literally cannot post on that account even to my own talk. I appealed the ban with the appeals committee via email and was told in no uncertain terms by them that they would not review the charges and the admin who chose to ban me previously were infallible. At no point could the appeal committee even present the charge against me let alone evidence in the previous case. It is my understanding that in most courts of the world the Appellate court is not a sentencing board. In fact at no point did I face any kind of court before the court of last resort. The mods in question were taken as absolute in their judgement and infallible thus I despite approaching the appeals committee and presenting evidence I was denied any appeal on the grounds of the mods in question being considered absolute authorities. Furthermore the appeals committee chose to present an alternative punishment that was extremely ambiguous in nature, when I asked for clarification on the rules their response was "anything we deem relevant to it" in other words a punishment with potentially no limitations and a free invitation to re-instate any previously issues punishment at any of their or any other mods subjective will. Clearly this would be easy to abuse so I asked for clearly defined limitations, this was denied and I was told I could either accept their option or never be unbanned. No appeal was heard than and they made it clear they would hear no appeal or evidence. I say this here as I cannot anywhere else that will be heard. Dwarvenhobble (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Actually, you're banned for sockpuppetry as my notice above says.

If you think that you should be unblocked then please read the guide to appealing blocks then you need to submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the UTRS and this has been declined, then you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.

Please note that if you edit from an IP whilst you are blocked then that is still classed as sockpuppetry and it will lead to your IP address being blocked, possibly even rangeblocked.--5 albert square (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwarvenhobble, this is a warning. You should follow 5 albert square's advice on appealing your block. Also, the more you evade your block, either through named accounts or IP addresses, the less likely that any appeal will be decided in your favor. That said, the slightest hint that you continue to abuse this Talk page as you abused your main account's Talk page will result in revocation of your access to this page as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 I did appeal the block. The appeal committee couldn't point out a single offence that broke wikipedia's rules for which the punishment would have been fitting. They however claimed that the punishment was right and the only option was to accept a topic ban from editing "anything relating to Gamergate in any way" I asked for clarification or a list as to what this would include and they refused to give one other than to say "Anything we deem to be related to it" so I refused to accept a nebulous easily abused / exploited punishment. I could have accepted, come back and I dunno been editing a wikipedia article on an Ubisoft game and due to some possible tenuous connection been permanently banned again with the claim it was because I broke said agreement. After being permanently blocked already for editing the size of a lock symbol to revert it to the default size the arbcom itself had applied you'll understand if I have little trust that such an agreement wouldn't be abused. Also as I've said before most others accused of gamergate related Vandalism were given a hearing requiring people to present evidence to arbcom of said infractions. The appeals committee couldn't point out the rule I'd broken warranting the action in question. Multiple of the people involved in the dispute against me have actually faced arbcom rulings against them over the article in question. I merely ask for a fair hearing. Am I to be considered abuse and dangerous because I won't bend the knee and kiss the boot and you know actually request to even know what heinous crimes against wikipedia Im accused of committing to warrant the first ban? Or is this now to be considered a place where any action taken by anyone in authority is considered just and cannot be appealed or dared challenged?Dwarvenhobble (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]