User talk:EarlWhitehall

Mentioned at WP:AN

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan where I have mentioned you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

– bradv🍁 06:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at WP:AN, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for this edit. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 12:32, 28 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The good reason to unblock me is that I was just making a joke. I didn't know humour was against Wikipedia rules. It won't happen again, I promise. I will try to be professional from now on. EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only because the sun is shining will I refrain from blocking you indefinitely. Instead, I'll revoke your talk page access. Use the next two days to think about your approach to editing. Favonian (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2020 (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.

Followed up by this, too. Wikipedia has a civility policy. If you post any similar "jokes" or other rudeness on this page, your access to editing it will be revoked. Bishonen | tålk 12:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Okay, whatever. Now leave. Go read some yaoi or something.

(edit conflict × 2) A bit of advice for you: saying "I was only joking" as your unblock reason and then attacking the admin that blocked you is all but certain to cause your unblock request to get rejected by the reviewing admin. I suggest that you withdraw your personal attack at Bishonen and read over our guidelines for appealing blocks to draft a request that stands a better chance at getting you unblocked. I will also mention that it is fortunate that you were only blocked for 48 hours by Bishonen. Typically, personal attacks such as the ones that you made on WP:AN would cause an indefinite block. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OhKayeSierra: I am eternally grateful for her magnanimity. EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Lovely, I'm sure that'll get you unblocked. You don't get to tell me to leave. Actual humour is not against the rules. I did not acknowledge your "joke"; I put scare quotes round the word, to indicate that you called your post here a joke. Which you did in this insulting post. But an uninvolved admin will come and review your unblock request. Bishonen | tålk 12:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: How could you treat a fellow anime fan this way? Don't we face enough persecution from the outside world? Why has it come to this – anime fan oppressing anime fan... I just want a world where weebs can live in peace. I know you want the same, so please put in a good word for me with the impartial admin. EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What..?

Hello. You pasted in a great big chunk at AN which doubled text that was already there. What happened? I will assume it was probably a mistake. See [1]. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe they were trying to resolve an edit conflict and didn't understand how? Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonnen: It was probably a mistake. Not sure what happened. Sorry.

Anyway, DrL is up to her old tricks again. She and Johnnyyliu have been vandalising the Christopher Langan page. GorrillaWarfare edited that page a few days ago, and it was voted by admins that her version of the article should remain. Can you look into this? Thanks.

Pings don't work if you make typos in the username so I'll ping User:Bishonen for you. However as long as your are indefinitely blocked, it's none of your concern what's going on in articles, nor what other editors get up to. It's especially not your concern what editors are doing when you were blocked in part for trolling their talk page. In addition, DrL has not touched the Christoper Langan page since that one mistake on 26 February, a good thing since she is still topic banned from it. She is editing the talk page, but that is allowed if not disruptive. She is allowed to express her opinion on the content issues within reason, and there has not been, and will never be, an administrative vote on the content since that's simply not how things work. (The comments at AN were not a vote on keeping GorillaWarfare's version.) If you have evidence that Johnnyyiu is proxy editing on behalf of DrL, or even a sock of DrL, you should have presented that evidence rather than trolling DrL. So although I guess this is karma for my earlier comments, as things stand, she cannot be held responsible for Johnnyyiu edits and you should not be blaming her for them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nil Einne. Oh no, my block-display script shows me the unfortunate Bishonnen is blocked! Sad! Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Nil Einne: I may not be able to edit Wikipedia anymore, but I can still read it, so I have every right to be concerned about the biased editing that is going on right now. It makes no difference whether or not Johnnyyliu and DrL are in cahoots (which they are). What matters is that the current article is factually inaccurate, contains grammatical errors, shows clear bias, and is just an overall disgrace to this website. I mean, for God's sake, one of the quotes attributed to Justin Ward is totally false; the editor just put quotation marks around something GorillaWarfare wrote.

The article should be rolled back to GorillaWarfare's last edit. She is a credible and impartial Wikipedia contributor. None of the editors on the list over at AN – and that includes Johnnyyliu – can be trusted to edit Langan's page. EarlWhitehall (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate use of your talk page while blocked. If you would like to appeal your block you may do so, but using your talk page to comment about other users or to request others make edits on your behalf will result in your talk page access being revoked. – bradv🍁 18:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Appeal my block? I am sure that will work out well for me. Thanks for the advice, Brad. EarlWhitehall (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't get it. Was I banned for my "boomer humour" remark? Look, DrL and I have known each other off-Wiki for years. I wouldn't exactly call us friends, but we have a mutual respect for each other and often engage in these silly back-and-forth jabs. I fail to see the problem, since I posted the message to her "Talk" page and was clearly not trying to involve anyone else. I think the moderator who banned me was being overly sensitive and seeing animosity where there was none. EarlWhitehall (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think part of you being unblocked will require you to agree to be topic banned from editing the Christopher Langan article and related subjects, so you will need to describe what other edits you want to make. As this request does not do that, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I agree to being topic banned. But I can't think of any other articles that I would like to edit at this moment in time. I don't want to lie and make something up. If I do end up editing other pages in the future, they will most likely be related to computer science or philosophy, since I often find myself reading about these topics on the site. EarlWhitehall (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you do not want to make any edits, there is no reason to lift this block. You are welcome to request another review of the block when you actually want to edit (outside the topic of Christopher Langan, widely construed, of course). Huon (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2020 (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.

Anyone reviewing the situation should know that EarlWhitehall is an off-wiki opponent of Christopher Langan and DrL (Langan's wife–see DrL's comments at BLPN (permalink)). Comments at this talk such as [2] are mild trolling but these comments demonstrate use of Wikipedia for harassment. Those comments were written while the situation is being examined at WP:AN (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]