User talk:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld! Thank you for your contributions. I am Money emoji and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting name you have.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! 'Interesting name you have too :)

Money emoji, it's the last song on The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SEPECAT Jaguar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. As it happens these were both minor corrections which I anticipate any Indian or European English writer would indeed see as constructive, and both appear NOT to have been undone. How curious. 'Sounds like there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line, but hopefully no harm done.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2019 (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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

May I please draw your attention that you are edit-warring at Kaliningrad falsely claiming that you have consensus for these changes. Please stop immediately. Editors who can not stop edit-warring get blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to gently suggest that you check the mirror there, Yaroslav. There is a clear consensus that European English is appropriate for this article - and you're the one making destructive edits which are not positively contributing to good-quality content. That's not good behaviour, and I think you know it. A wise move would be to step back, take some time out and, perhaps, get some guidance from a seasoned editor.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on a campaign to change articles to British English even when others disagree. I see you have been doing this since August. The next admin to study the edit warring report will be tempted to block you for failing to seek consensus. There may still be time for you to promise to cease making English style changes until you have obtained consensus on at least one talk page in your favor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is incorrect, Ed. I do appear to have been on the receiving end of bullying behaviour from an editor intent upon abusing his position, however.

Edit warring at Kaliningrad

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been a serious abuse of the reporting procedure by an editor who wished to claim 'ownership' of an article rather than collaborating in good faith with fellow contributors. Unimpressive, to say the least.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI topic

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld and ENGVAR, at your service--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you this time with no expiry since it seems you are intent on continuing your campaign of changing disparate articles to use "European English", despite having been both warned repeatedly and recently blocked in attempts to get you to stop. Your misleading edit summaries that these edits are "improving readability" and "fixing spelling errors" suggests you are trying to enforce British spellings for no constructive reason. If you wish to be unblocked, please read WP:ENGVAR, in particular the retaining the existing variety subsection, as well as the tendentious editing guideline, and then explain what you intend to do differently if your account is unblocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 8 October 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).

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

Request reason:

There seem to have been some unfortunate assumptions made here which could have been rectified more readily through discussion. I have not engaged in 'disruptive' edits, but genuine attempts to improve the quality of a number of articles which were evidently in need of some help regarding sentence construction. Because they were articles about European subjects and there was no sensible reason to write them in American English, naturally I used European English. This is not an 'EngVar' dispute; I would, naturally, employ American English when editing an article about an American subject. Sadly, another editor has claimed 'ownership' of an article which he seems particularly exercised about, but this and the campaign of blocking attempts are not a wise way of resolving a difference of opinion. The objection to the nom de plume I employ is similarly spurious; these are perfectly permissible on Wikipedia as long as they are not duplicated. I am, of course, aware that I could simply set up a new account but would prefer to see the escalation process used responsibly, and for the editor who has had difficulty editing in English to get some practical support from other contributors (as well as myself, of course).HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I may have missed it but I don't see where your username is criticized; though I think it could be argued that it violates the username policy as disruptive since it makes your signature a mile long, unnecessarily disrupting talk pages and making it harder to communicate with you as other users will need to type in the entire thing. However, I'm setting that aside for now. Saying you could evade your block does not help your case as it indicates that you are willing to disregard Wikipedia guidelines when you find them inconvenient. You may have a good motive for doing what you are doing, but you are going about it in the wrong way, and your request does not indicate how you will change or even concede that you have acted improperly. For these reasons, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 9 October 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.

May I please remark that the "new account" you might set up will be blocked on the spot for block evasion, and will be easy to trace since it will likely engage in the same type of disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying that I now see where your name was criticized; as I indicated, I can't say I disagree. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, 331dot. I see your point about the name being a little on the long side (hindsight is a wonderful thing), although I think you're also right that it's a side issue here. The fundamental problem is that the account has come under attack from an editor who appears intent upon imposing their point of view, rather than as a result of misbehaviour on my part. The 'pattern of disruptive editing' was on his or her part rather than mine; I am endeavouring not to make that point too directly as I doubt that allowing things to get personal helps, but a look at the talk page re Kaliningrad will give you a good flavour of their behaviour. In short, I fear that this was a block placed in bad faith. I don't want to have to 'work around' it for the simple reason that administrative tools and powers need to be used responsibly and with thought for the impact of over-zealous enforcement. Bullying puts off volunteers, and with voluntary input the content of Wikipedia suffers. As this is the only forum currently provided for a sensible discussion, a second look would be appreciated.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 15:42, 9 October 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).

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

Request reason:

This account has been maliciously blocked by an editor who appears to have wilfully ignored consensus, engaged in edit-warring and then sought to blame me for correcting his mistake. That's not something which I can apologise for - I'm on the receiving end of bad behaviour, not the one guilty of misconduct. I would suggest a fresh look at the talk page for Kalingrad, and a sensible reversal of the block. As stated above, I do not want to move to another user name, but neither am I content to see abusive behaviour rewarded.

Decline reason:

In general, you must only address your inappropriate behaviour in an unblock request (see WP:GAB). Here, you are alleging malicious action on behalf of the blocking admin. Please provide specific evidence that there was a pre-existing consensus on the article's talk page, justifying your edits. Please then provide the specific diffs showing that the blocking administrator ignored the clear and determined consensus on that article's talk page and reverted your edits. Yamla (talk) 13:48, 10 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It is indeed unfortunate that this situation has come about as the result of apparent misbehaviour by an admin, if that is the case, and I would not have wished to have to raise the matter otherwise - but it does seem fair to expect that concerns about abuse of privilege should be explored and resolved properly, and with due process, rather than by expecting the 'victim' to apologise. The consensus which the other editor/admin acted against is clearly visible at Talk:Kaliningrad#Language_of_the_articleKaliningrad, as already stated. As a brief summary for convenience, the discussion concluded quite clearly that there was no positive rationale for applying US English to the European subject of the article; the editor/admin concerned claimed ownership of the article rather than engaging in constructive discussion in good faith, and inappropriately raised the issue as perceived misconduct rather than seeking and using constructive support. Although this inevitably raises questions as to whether the editor concerned should be in a position of authority, the purpose of this request is simply to remove the block upon this account so that I can contribute constructively once more; a look at the full record of my contributions will, I'm confident, show that I have a decent record of improving and expanding articles to the benefit of Wikipedia. I am happy for this issue to be escalated to senior and experienced administrators if necessary, as it would normally be a set of circumstances which would occasion a formal complaint. However, I do think it is reasonable to see this as the final request; I would like to continue to support the project, but there comes a point where repeated communication failures are not a proportionate use of time.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That you would consider a discussion with three participants - you, one who vociferously disagreed with you, and another who pointed out that the variant of English you were claiming precedence for basically didn't exist - to constitute consensus for your changes is deeply concerning. If you do not understand how consensus - one of Wikipedia's most fundamental processes - works to this degree, then it is clear that you are not suited to contribute here. That you continue to impugn the competence of the administrator who blocked you - despite not apparently even knowing which administrator it was - further suggests that you are not suited to working in a collegiate editing environment. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:01, 11 October 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.

There is very clearly no consensus on Talk:Kaliningrad#Language_of_the_article. Nor were you blocked by the other main party in that discussion (Ymblanter); you were blocked by Ivanvector. --Yamla (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin comment - indeed I am the administrator who enacted this most recent block, not Ymblanter. I reviewed the discussion and have reviewed it again by request, and I find that the blocked user's argument that there is consensus to use European English in the article is blatantly false. It should also be noted, and was noted by a WP:3O reviewer, that "European English" does not exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned: all of our templates referring to "European English" are redirects to British English. Here is the order of interaction from my view: (I will refer to HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld as "Hugh" because the chosen name is too long to type repeatedly)
1. On 27 August 2019, Hugh changes one section of the article to British English. He is reverted, but restores the edit insisting "this is a European city so naturally uses European spelling" (see above note about European English redirecting to British English), and is reverted again.
2. The following day, Hugh opens a talk page discussion with a statement declaring that the article would now use European English. After Ymblanter points out that users making unilateral decisions without discussion is not how Wikipedia works, Hugh requests a third opinion with a not particularly neutral statement.
3. The day after that, a 3O reviewer reminds the two editors that WP:ENGVAR dictates to maintain the existing variant of English in use until there is a discussion and a consensus is reached to change to a different variant. As no discussion has occurred, and the reviewer does not understand why a Russian city would have ties to British English, 3O sides with retaining American English because it is the variant in use. Hugh responds that his argument does not refer to British English but to European English. The 3O reviewer reminds him that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are the same thing.
4. Hugh does not edit for a month.
5. When Hugh returns on 24 September, he makes a series of edits changing Kaliningrad to British English, and only after finishing those changes continues the talk page discussion, responding to the 3O reviewer as though the reviewer had neither observed the equivalency of British and European English nor sided with the use of American English in the article (WP:IDHT).
6. Hugh is reverted again, but continues making changes to the article and insists that the discussion established consensus to use British English (it did not; if anything the discussion established consensus to use American English).
7. On 28 September Hugh is blocked by EdJohnston for 72 hours because of his incessant edit warring.
8. After his block expires, Hugh leaves two messages again insisting that they are right and accusing Ymblanter (and maybe also EdJohnston) of WP:OWNing the article, and a week later goes on a spree of changing randomly selected Russian topics to use British English (using the {{Use European English}} template, which as was pointed out to him, is a placeholder for {{Use British English}}). He also managed to get in a thinly-veiled racist comment about Ymblanter's English proficiency (WP:NPA) which does not endear me to his cause.
9. On 8 October Hugh is blocked again, this time by me, and indefinitely. You can see my advice below the block notice above, in particular to read the ENGVAR guideline, acknowledge the "retain the existing variety" rule, and explain what he intends to do differently if unblocked.

All of Hugh's unblock requests to date have been some form of continuing to insist that their edits are correct and have consensus, that European topics should use British English (by way of "European" English), that he is the victim of bullying or other improper behaviours by everyone he has interacted with during this dispute (WP:NOTTHEM), and that he intends to continue his campaign to change Russian topics to British English whether he is unblocked or not (implying intent to evade his block through the abuse of multiple accounts).

For these reasons, I recommend declining his latest unblock request, and if there has not been a remarkable change in attitude and acknowledgement of the issues in the next one, I also intend to revoke talk page access. I'm through explaining this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly 'through' explaining why this sort of abuse of privilege is inappropriate and unhelpful behaviour. The editors involved have been noted, and future, similar, misconduct will result in formal complaints. No further purpose is served by endless discussion here, however. This account is thus closed.HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]