Jump to content

User talk:Eaterjolly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated welcome!

[edit]
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:

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)[reply]

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

Village pump: Wikipedia, a quatertiary source

[edit]

(WP:SNOWBALL)

[edit]

(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)[reply]

Motion to censor

[edit]

(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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Notice service

[edit]

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

Information icon 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)[reply]

Motion dismissed: what next?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

March 2019

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[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).

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. Eaterjolly (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2019 (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.

For the record, @Berean Hunter: I consent. Eaterjolly (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eaterjolly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From mid-July until mid-September, you edited the Suicide article with your account and did some reverting and challenging. You used your account to challenge neutrality while editing the article and cited a thread on the talk page where you have responded as multiple IPs but not your account proper. Although malformed in your cite, it is this archived thread. After edit-warring on the article with your account in mid September, you left this thread as an anon with "I'm the user you reverted. Please discuss with me through the IP, as I don't want my account more associated with this topic than necessary." You were IP socking but claim that doesn't apply to you. You also modified signatures believing that this is acceptable and it isn't. From IP to account (1) but if you look at the RfC here, you will find no signature except "I'm IP-editing so I won't get notifications about this article and I don't want to get too emotionally invested. 04:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)" as the current signature. You were frequently doing this kind of thing throughout Talk:Suicide. You have made proper attribution there into a mess.
  • After failing to have your way regarding the RfC, you took up residence as IPs, displaying OWN on other threads such as invoking IP "Vetos" on unrelated threads. Block evasion, IDHT and edit warring against consensus are also in the overall mix.
  • In this ANI thread, you had given the complainant the impression that "They don't appear to have been editing the article itself" and "Note: I'm not really sure how to notify an editor on a changing IP address. I'll post a notice to the talk page of the IP address linked above, since that seems to be the most recent one they've posted from." leading to this unanswered post. The complainant's impression was that the IP hadn't been editing which is false and illustrates prima facie IP socking. The difficulties that you have created by editing as a changing IP is too inconvenient for established editors particularly when you have an account. Since you were brought to ANI as an IP in that thread in November, you avoided scrutiny from where your account had been brought to ANI in late September.
Evidence
  • 16 July: Posts with account to talk page, diff
    • Posts on a usertalk with "I am bias in this topic (as is the only genuinely strong motivation to contribute on a wiki)....I do feel my moral code offended by the wording of the article..." diff
  • 29 September: Bbb23 blocked 2600:1702:1740:2ca0::/64 with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (CheckUser block). The account is claimed by the IP as public admission a week before. The anon block meant that the account was still allowed to edit at that time but you should have ceased anon editing.
  • 17 March: You began adding to the now-deleted User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 and with this edit revealed a very faulty understanding of consensus. "Consensus means all parties agree. Yes, until I agree no consensus forms. Until EVERYONE agrees no consensus forms." <== You do not understand consensus at all.
    • Despite warnings, you posted at Talk:Suicide (1) and AN as an IP anyway and they were reverted per DENY. The block is based on Special:Contributions/24.229.52.128 versus "I didn't block your account and I will allow you to post using it to WP:AN to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent is given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community will be able to review the situation fairly. They may judge whether there is IP socking among other things" (2).
  • From your current unblock request, it sounds like you still do not understand that you were IP socking. That needs cleared up with reassurance from you that it won't happen again. You also need to demonstrate that you understand WP:CONSENSUS because as of March 17, you don't understand that at all.
  • If you satisfy the above, any unblocking will include a topic ban on Suicide, broadly construed. That means that you are completely done with that subject on all parts of Wikipedia and re-blocked if you violate that. Additionally, you would only be able to edit using your account with a regular signature. No IP editing at all.
  • If you still want to contest that you were IP socking, you may post your request for a review here and it will be copied to AN on your behalf by myself or another admin so that the community may review the situation.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My IP address rapidly changed while posting as an IP editor to a discussion. If I endeavor to never contribute as an IP editor again, that shouldn't happen. Not sure what ambiguity exists in that commitment, nor what you want me to admit to exactly. Thank you for collating all this information. All seems honest. I wish to contest your behavior as admin. As I said in the appeal, I consider my block a reasonably measure to start a conversation, so I would not wish to contest the original block.
Eaterjolly (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'll let other admins discuss things with you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you assert I edited the article, might you please link the corresponding diffs?
Eaterjolly (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this partial contribs window from July 16 to Sept. 14 shows you editing no less than nine times with your account on the article. You can use those diffs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honesty.
1 topology change [1], 3 commented-text edits [2] [3] [4], 3 banner edits [5] [6] [7], plus 2 article body edits [8] [9].
Eaterjolly (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

[edit]

I feel as though today I've learned an important aspect about how wikipedia operates.

If someone wishes to include a notable perspective in an article
they should not try to directly neutralize the article.

Instead they should reduce the perspective down to the facts you believe.
(in other words, try not to explain "why") and share those facts in talk.
Try to find widely-viewed sources which validate your perspective.

If you looked yet failed to find any, then saying so counts as very helpful.

Editors will use your perspective to find more sources for the article.

Most importantly...
one should ALWAYS express their perspective...
absolutely anonymously.

Eaterjolly (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Social phenomenon

[edit]

Template:Social phenomenon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow: Respectfully, not like I can, nor that I can continue the template. Eaterjolly (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality on Wikipedia

[edit]

Note that I capitalize Wikipedia, not because Wikipedia might turn out a proper noun, but because; Wikipedia (in the style of Behrouz Boochani) itself possesses agency, perhaps to ideas, but also; to private social graphs. I wrote already how Wikipedia does and should act like a "quatertiary" source, which checks tertiary sources for mistakes by corroborating primary or secondary sources cited or inferred as original sources. If secondary sources obviously misinterpret a primary source, either we should quote the primary verbatim or seek clarifying sources. The internet provides unprecedented means for fact-checking which led to Wikipedia's success in the first place.

Lately, I've observed a continuation in the trend of disregarding that advantage with the article on Judy Mikovits, who either prefers misinterpretation uncleared or has no platform to clear misinterpretation. Rhetorical devices such as "only you and your", "planned" in the sense of "accounted for", "manufactured" in the sense of "waste by-product", etc. Wikipedia should give sanctuary to the "truther" or "conspiracy theorist", because both have a very potent desire for reliability. Those groups derive motivation from skepticism.

Yet, indirect COI'es perpetuate whereby if Wikipedia questions the reliability of an established source in any specific contexts, through cognitive dissonance questioning a potentially vital reference for their daily work, that causes unnecessary difficulty in the livelihoods of editors. Even base skepticism or the first questions in the process, might cause undue discomfort. I have no solution. Mob rule arbitrarily declares the truthers uncivil. Likewise, mob rule arbitrarily declared I violated the BRD cycle. Not bitter, I wear the lie like a badge of honor. "Look, I spoke such truth, only a lie could silence me." The only solution seems to have separate (lowercase) wikipedia'es for separate people, tiered according to comfort with skepticism. Skepticism doesn't mean publishing baseless imagination in an article, but skepticism does mean entertaining baseless imagination for investigative purposes.

Eaterjolly (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Typeset

[edit]

Template:Typeset has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaterjolly&oldid=1120824512"