User talk:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.

Welcome

Hello, Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion., and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Talk page guidelines

Hello again. When I left the welcome note for you, I added your page to my watchlist. I noticed that you edited Bakir123's comments, and removed one of your own after there was a reply to it. Please don't do that: it violates the talk page guidelines. If people change their own comments after other editors have replied to them, it can completely change the meaning of the other editor's comments. For example:

Editor1: I decided I'm going to spend all of tomorrow cleaning up articles in that area.
Editor2: I do that every Saturday.
Editor1: You seem to know a lot about that part of the country. What's the beach like?
Editor2: My mum's parents live there, and we spend a month with them every summer. It's mostly rocks, and a bunch of albatrosses.

But then Editor1 changes their remarks, and now Editor2 looks quite mad:

Editor1: In Antarctica, they use penguins for money.
Editor2: I do that every Saturday.
Editor1: So you've been to Mars? What's the food like?
Editor2: My mum's parents live there, and we spend a month with them every summer. It's mostly rocks, and a bunch of albatrosses.

I know you're still quite new here. I remember how many things there were to learn when I started editing here (and I'm still learning). That's why I'm leaving you this note. The best thing would be for you to undo the changes. Things will be back to the way they were, no harm done. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here. I'll keep this page on my watch list for a bit. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm 1234qwer1234qwer4. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:GorillaWarfare 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:GorillaWarfare, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your posts on that page are completely out of order - comparing someone to a member of the KKK is a completely unacceptable personal attack.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: IM SO DONE WITH THIS. Why don't you actually read instead of just seeing the word 'KKK' and giving me a warning? Read the actual conversation for once. I don't stand for this absolute bias and misandry. Quit it. I didn't compare her to a KKK member, I JUST GAVE AN EXAMPLE! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH THIS! Also, the relations between a KKK member and a BLM protester is the same as a men's right advocate and a feminist. Just read her MGTOW article and see how biased and one-sided it is. Shouldn't feminists not be writing men's rights articles? JUST READ IT! You'll see what I mean... She even turned on edit lock. This is ridiculous. This isn't feminism vs masculism fight. So I've had quite enough of this. LOOK AT HER TALK PAGE AND PROFILE! SHE'S A PART OF ALL FEMINISM MOVEMENTS, SHE'S A WOMAN AND A QUEER! And here she is calling the MGTOW movement "misogynistic" IN A REAL ARTICLE AND TURNED ON EDIT LOCK! YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? Mohammad (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for sounding harsh.. I just don't like the way the MGTOW article was expressed. What really annoyed me was the editing lock was on so nobody except the original creator could edit. I'm sorry for being angry and expressing it in a harsh and rude way... I don't even edit these types of articles.. If you look at my contributions I'm really helpful to articles such as 2021-22 UEFA Europa Conference League, 2021-22 UEFA Europa League, and 2021-22 UEFA Champions League. I'm a good editor and I constantly edit football articles. I love doing this and losing this account is the last thing I want to happen. Please forgive me and I'll stop doing things such as this. Mohammad (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

see comments below Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this unblock a mere 10 minutes after making this edit does not fill me with confidence that your remorse is genuine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Well only now have I realized how aggressive it was and I'd like to apologize for anyone who got offended with my comments. This is really the first time I got into a severe argument like this as you can see by my contributions. I swear I have never done anything like this before which is why I'm even shocked I had the thought to even think about typing that. Really I'm just here to edit football articles, please forgive me. I literally added over 110 tabs of domestic leagues and cups in Europe to keep track of so I can be the first to edit when something new happens. Please, I love Wikipedia, and I'm awfully sorry for every person I offended. Thanks for your time Mohammad (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam This was in reply to a final warning. I'm not sure what is supposed to not have been clear. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(keep getting edit conflicts, sorry if this doesn't address all comments) So, a couple of notes:

It's not a matter of sounding harsh. It's a matter of repeated unfounded accusations and insults.
GorillaWarfare did not edit protect the page. That was another admin, El C. I wonder why you would just assume GW did it when it is so easy to check? If you are referring to the protections from last July, the logs clearly show that GW just restored the protection level El C originally specified.
There are a lot of editors of that article, including since the protection was applied. It is not protected so only GW can edit, it's protected from drive-by disruptive editors. The recent upgrade to extended confirmed protection was done, again, by El C. Again, these are easily checked. Why do you assume the worst without even checking?
You are not going last very long here if you compare being a feminist with being a member of the KKK. I know you claim you didn't say that.... except you did. Re-read what you wrote.
You are going to have to be able to edit collaboratively with women, non-straight people of all stripes, and feminists. Without name-calling, without all caps freaking out. This is not a misogynist-safe space.
Being anti-misogyny is not the same as being misandrist.
I assume you're getting most of your information about what is going on here from an off-wiki site. Is that a reasonable assumption?

If that is clear, and you're assuring me you're not going to continue to attack another editor for the crime of being a woman who dares to disagree with you, I'll unblock so you can go back to football articles. But let me be clear - this will not be tolerated. Deal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: That is absolutely clear. Thank you so much... Mohammad (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on this assurance, I've unblocked. You are absolutely not required to answer this, but if you're willing to answer, I am genuinely curious why several editors have recently being making similar accusations, all based on the same easily-disprovable errors in fact. Was I correct above that you got your information from an off-wiki site? That's the only explanation I can think of. Again, don't answer if you don't want to, and I'm not asking what site. But it's kind of like 5 neo-Nazis all accusing a Muslim editor of doing something they obviously didn't do; you have to wonder if they were coordinating on Parler or something. (See what I did there? I obviously know you're not a neo-Nazi, I didn't say you were a neo-Nazi, but the comparison was a little insulting, wasn't it? even though you probably knew exactly what I was doing?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thanks for reaching out! No we aren't running on anything it's just I guess we all think that the article was expressed badly and seemed a little one-sided. And also the reason of the attack wasn't because she was a feminist, but because the article about men's rights was supporting feminism. I guess we all agree with that. And no, your comparison wasn't insulting at all and I'm even a Muslim (if you don't believe me look at my user page, I don't know how else I can prove to you...) because you were just giving a comparison so I could have a better understanding of what you mean. And no I am definitely not getting any off-wiki sources nor am I in a cult. Thanks for asking though! Mohammad (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No we aren't running on anything it's just I guess we all think ... I guess we all agree with that. When you say 'we', to whom are you referring, exactly? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: The comments made by Floquenbeam (as seen above) mentions "I am genuinely curious why several editors have recently being making similar accusations... you have to wonder if they were coordinating on Parler or something." Mohammad (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It was a slightly unusual word choice. On the off chance someone on another website did suggest that you post that to the MGTOW talk page: They're not doing you any favours. You're better off ignoring them if you want the chance to keep editing articles on football here.

It's never a good idea to say the kinds of things you said about GorillaWarfare. All sorts of people work on all sorts of articles here. And behind every username, there's a real person. Please remember that. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't attacking her because she was a feminist. I'm not excusing myself, I'm just letting you know Mohammad (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Baltic Cup

2020 Baltic Cup had a clear consensus to redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Baltic Cup. If you disagree, please use WP:Deletion review to contest this. Also, your restoration provided 0 sources that the cup is not cancelled, restored a blatantly incorrect fixture list with dates in 2020, and provided no sources that it will be called the 2020 Baltic Cup- given that it's now 2021, it would be expected to be called 2021 Baltic Cup and so should be created there if there are sources so that it passes WP:GNG. Please stop reverting without discussion against the AFD consensus with zero evidence that the 2020 Baltic Cup is uncancelled and will use that name, as it's disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Hi Joseph. Thank you for reaching out. The 2020 Baltic Cup actually starts in June 2021. Just look up "2020 Baltic Cup" on Google and it will give you the date thing saying "2020 Baltic Cup will begin on Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and ends on Thursday, June 10". Also according to this source it shows the fixtures, dates, and times for the 2020 Baltic Cup. Thanks!

PS- Oh and even when you look up "2021 Baltic Cup" on Google it still says "2020 Baltic Cup will begin on Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and ends on Thursday, June 10" Mohammad (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for continuing to assume bad faith and the harangue other users, after a recent block for similar behaviour.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#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. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to recalibrate your understanding of what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. Start by reading WP:NPA - I really mean that, read it from beginning to end. Implying that someone is editing out of bad faith, or with ulterior motives, is a personal attack unless you provide specific evidence and do it at the proper venue. If this was the first time something like this had happened, I might only have issued a warning; given the previous comments you made about the person in question prior to your block, I see this topic ban as the minimum necessary sanction to prevent you from disrupting work in the topic area. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thank you. I needed that. I really need to get rid of all my distractions to continue my editing. I agree with your idea. But the guy under me (@El C:) is blocking me from ALL articles. Can you please tell him that this is enough? The only issues I have ever made were gender-related. If I'm blocked from that, perfect! Thank you for your help and please tell the guy that this and not an indefinite block is a necessary punishment. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will not be arguing that the indef block in excessive - as I said, I saw an urgent and immediate need for a topic ban as a minimum first step, but I do not disagree with those who have said that someone who is willing to say what you did should not be editing here. This is likely to be a moot point now anyway, as there is a consensus developing amongst the community at ANI to ban you from the site - a community ban is not something that I or El C would be authorised to overturn.

It has been pointed out at ANI that you are still young. As a teacher myself in real life, I'm going to offer you some advice, which you may decide to take on board, or to reject, as you see best.

At the heart of this community is respect. Any person - no matter what their race, religion, sexuality, gender, nationality, or whatever other category you can think of - anyone can edit any article. When discussing what should go into an article, what matters is content and sourcing, not who is writing it.

This principal of accepting and working with all sorts of people applies in real life as well. From your userpage, I see that you are an Arab-American from Riyadh, and above I see that you are a Muslim. I hope that you never encounter prejudice or discrimination in your life because of the colour of your skin, the accent you speak with, or the faith that you follow; I'm sure you can imagine how horrible and unfair that would be if it did happen to you. Please consider what it must be like to encounter people making assumptions or saying unpleasant things about you because you are a woman, or because you are gay. As you grow up, don't become someone who does that to other people; try to become someone who accepts that not everyone is the same, and that our differences shouldn't be a problem. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thank you for that. Still young as in real life or Wikipedia? Because both would be true. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in real life - I don't know your age (please don't tell me), but one of the people commenting at the ANI thread mentioned that you were young - I hope that you will be able to grow and mature, and come to understand why saying things like you did is considered so offensive, and why it's not permitted here. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I already have learned now (I just pictured myself in her situation) and I felt really bad. I'm trying to learn more about feminism and women's rights now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to stereotype, but folks who grew up in a stratified, patriarchal culture (which is most of them to some extent) tend to approach social interactions in terms of dominance and submission. Wikipedia is not like that. Here we strive to be a community of equals, where groveling to "superiors" is not necessary and lording it over "inferiors" is not tolerated. Food for thought. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: I don't think that's the reason but it might be. Thanks for reaching out though. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassment, still. RE: "I'm not stupid" — The intuitive good-faith response should have been an apology or, failing that, a dispassionate counter that isn't aggressive in nature.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 14:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged a while ago, before all the crazy page moves: Just want to say that, since SHTDCaA lied to me earlier in order to be unblocked, and I stupidly fell for it, I do not care whether they are ever unblocked, and do not need/want to be pinged anymore regarding this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:

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).

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wait what? I thought I was blocked from gender related articles? What happened to that? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is for personal attacks/harassment. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2021 (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).

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only reason this happened was because of the article. Just cut off my access on these articles and you'll see that I can't get involved with anything. This is the only article I've done something wrong. If you block my access it will allow me to continue to contribute normally and will stop me from getting involved in that article which is causing everything. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only reason this happened was because of the article--no, the only reason this happened was because of you. If you have so little self-control that you're asking to be physically prevented from editing in a particular area to keep yourself from being disruptive there, then there is no reason to think that you won't be disruptive elsewhere. Or, to put it another way, that's exactly what we did: cut off your access to those articles (and all others). (Also, there's an ongoing ANI discussion about this situation that should probably be allowed to finish before any unblock would happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 11 April 2021 (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.

@El C: tell @Sdrqaz: that I under NO CIRCUMSTANCES messed up Ponyo's archives. I'm actually helping her list them in monthly as she asked for a neater archive order. That was a super unreasonable assumption. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I apologise. In general, users do not usually edit others' archives and I was under the impression that Ponyo had only wanted the navigation box to be edited. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: That is partly true. But I've only caused an issue with this on that article because that's the only article I don't like. Scroll up to my talk page and see the "block from gender-related articles". I think that's a perfect idea. I won't get involved in any controversial gender articles, meaning there will be nothing to get angry for, and I can still edit articles such as sport-related ones. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you said the last time you were indef-blocked, and yet here we are again. I think Floquenbeam was pretty clear about how you needed to change your behavior then, and you didn't. Why is this time any different? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: But I wasn't banned from it. My stupidity and not thinking twice got myself into more trouble. I am an idiot which is why I need to be banned from gender-related articles in order to get out of it. I wasn't banned before. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban isn't a technical measure--it can't physically prevent you from editing a page. (There is such a thing as partial blocks that can selectively block you from editing a particular article, but that only works on a per-page basis; it's not effective at enforcing a broad topic ban like this.) Ultimately, it would still be up to you to abide by your ban, and if this is what you do when you're not thinking, then I just don't have faith that you wouldn't just disregard your topic ban when you're not thinking as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Can I make a promise? If I even look at the MGTOW article ever again just ban me. I am trying to learn how to control myself and from now on, I look before I type aswell. When I look back at this I see it was very stupid of me to do. I'm not even interested n the article and I'm staying away from it. I actually am going to block it from my computer. I'm trying to change for the good now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2021 (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).

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See chat with Writ Keeper right above this Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That discussion doesn't indicate any confidence on the part of Writ Keeper in your ability to control your behavior. You've already had a second chance, much to the first blocking administrator's regret. I see no reason to give you a third chance. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2021 (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.

@Acroterion: I have successfully blocked the article. Now there is no way I can interact with it. Just give me a third chance. I'm learning how to cool myself. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's not technical means for a user to do so, and second, you were blocked for personal attacks and harassment, which are not the fault of any article on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: brother, I know that. But what I'm saying is that since I've blocked it there is no reason to attack someone and I am not angry anymore. Let's make an agreement. You can choose. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: The agreement could be that I can't edit controversial articles, or I can't talk to people I disagree with, or I stay away from specified articles, or I'm only allowed to edit specific type of articles. You name it. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2021 (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).

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let's make an agreement. The agreement could be that I can't edit controversial articles, or I can't talk to people I disagree with, or I stay away from specified articles, or I'm only allowed to edit specific type of articles. You name it. I can really do anything to get my account back. Believe me when I say this. I've learned "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead." I just finished reading WP:NPA. Also read my apology below. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I just closed the ANI discussion as consensus to site ban, so your block can now only be overruled by community consensus in response to an appeal made at WP:AN. You may request for an administrator to copy an appeal there on your behalf by using the unblock form. However, please note that the community is unlikely to take an unblock request kindly until a significant amount of time has passed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:24, 13 April 2021 (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.

[W]hat I'm saying is that since I've blocked it there is no reason to attack someone and I am not angry anymore. And what will happen when you do get angry again? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: If I do get angry my first step is to drink water and relax. Then think about what I'm angry about. I will then let it go and just relax. And also, whenever (NO MATTER WHAT) will always re-read all my edits before I click "publish" to make sure it's 1. Nice. 2. Appropriate. 3. Important. I'm also planning on taking anger management soon. (Maybe in a week or two). Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Apologizing

Listen @Padgriffin: and many others. I am not publicly apologizing not because I'm not sorry (because I actually am). But because if I apologize again to GorillaWarfare people will just think I'm bullshitting in doing this to get unblocked. But whatever I don't care whether you think I'm legit or not, you can believe what you want, but I'm sorry for GorillaWarfare.

1. I'm sorry for calling you a Queer as a slur. I should have more respect for other ~~genders~~ sexualities.

2. I'm sorry for getting mad at you for being a feminist. I'm going to start supporting women's rights more.

3. I'm sorry for constantly personally attacking you. There is no way I would ever apologize enough for that. You've been through enough already, and I hope I didn't hurt you even more.

4. I'm sorry for constantly bothering the MGTOW. I now have blocked it and you won't hear from me about that nor will I be editing it.

5. I'm sorry for being misogynistic. I'm trying to change.

6. I'm sorry for not apologizing earlier. I put myself in you're position and see how terrible this must be for you. I should've told you this right away.

7. I'm sorry and keep doing what you're doing to stand up for equality and rights for women. Thanks for being you and I'll leave you alone now (but if I am unblocked before I leave you alone, I'd like to send you a barnstar for doing great in the feminist community and I respect that.)

If you think I'm lying, go ahead, but I know that I'm not. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too little, too late. You were given a second chance and abused it. There is already an overwhelming consensus on ANI on site-banning you. Padgriffin (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: I can give everything. WHat more do you need? I'll do it! Also what does site-ban mean? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Padgriffin's referring to is called a 'community ban'. Right now you're blocked. A ban is the next, more serious step after that. It's much harder to come back from a ban than from a block. I'm glad you apologised, but it can't undo what's been said and done. Whether you're blocked or banned, a word of advice: It may be tempting, but do not try to sign up with a new account and pretend to be someone else. That's called socking, and it's a huge mistake. You'll be found out, and it will ruin your chances of coming back. I think that the best thing you can do now is to accept that you won't be editing English Wikipedia for a long while - a year or two, at the least. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: I don't want to sockpuppet. If I get banned here so be it. I'm not ever going to do that. Also whoever makes the 2022 in association football article please ask them to reach out to me because I'm sure they'll miss competitions. Since I can't edit I'll tell them what they're missing. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology, Mohammad. I am happy to see you read Girth Summit's wisdom above. If I could try to add some of my own: it seems to me that perhaps you are just beginning to dip your toes into the world of social justice issues such as men's rights and feminism. They are complex topics, and there are many subgroups of each that take different approaches, focus on different issues, and believe different things. One thing that I think is sometimes missed by newcomers to these movements, particularly those whose knowledge of feminists has been formed through the often-exaggerated portrayal of feminists by antifeminist men's rights groups, is that most people and groups who fight for men's rights and most people and groups who fight for women's rights are fighting for the same thing.

We live in a society where certain expectations exist for people based on their gender, and these expectations are built in to every facet of society: how people interact with one another, the workplace, the legal system, the medical field, and so on. They manifest in ways that are deeply troubling for women: violence against women, legislation that denies women autonomy over their own bodies, and pay inequality and the glass ceiling are some examples. But these same societal expectations are the source of the issues that men face that you may have been reading about in your foray into men's rights. Societal expectations of men, including that they should be tough and not show weakness, lead to stigma in seeking mental health treatment and poorer mental healthcare, and is likely a factor in the higher suicide rate among men than women (at least in the US; I am speaking with a generally US perspective as I believe we both reside there). The belief that women are naturally nurturing and motherly, which can on the one hand place unfair expectations of household labor on women and factor into limiting career growth, has on the other hand unfairly influenced decisions in family law courts in ways that disadvantaged fathers who sought equitable decisions in matters of child custody and monetary support.

Although it is sometimes portrayed that way, those fighting for men's rights and those fighting for women's rights are not fighting against each other; they are in reality two groups on the same side of equality. But there are groups (who I have described above as "antifeminist men's rights groups", and who are often called "men's rights advocates" or MRAs) that describe themselves as advocates for men's rights who have twisted the definition of "men's rights advocate" to mean something entirely different from what the phrase suggests. Some of these groups and people are not fighting for equality, but rather to maintain the structural inequality that in many ways is advantageous for men. Some of them even try to claim that the power balance has shifted in favor of women, and that it is men who are systematically disadvantaged by society. Some of these groups, which all stemmed from the men's movement to begin with, don't particularly care about fighting for political or social change at all, and have instead become groups united in their hatred of women and belief in the superiority of men. Question for a moment, if you will, why men in a movement that ostensibly seeks to distance itself from women (MGTOW) would spend so much time, certainly far more than your average person outside their group, discussing and focusing on women. Is it because they truly wish to separate from women ("go their own way")? Why wouldn't they just do that, then, and focus on whatever it is that does interest them? Is it perhaps because they are more focused on their hatred of women?

From the comments you have made following your block, it seems to me that perhaps you went seeking communities that advocate for the rights of men, a noble and worthwhile cause, and ended up finding the manosphere communities. I have been painted as a villain and enemy by several of these communities (discussions that I and others suspect you may have seen, as it is odd for someone who had previously not interacted with me to suddenly have such vitriol for me, and you hold some misconceptions that seem based in falsehoods those groups have spread, such as that I was the one to edit protect the MGTOW article), so it may be optimistic of me to hope you will take some advice from me. I don't intend to preach or to "convert" you to the side of feminism; I think you may already be on that side, actually, as someone who cares about equal rights among the genders. But regardless of whether you are on the side of equal rights, or if you have begun to adopt the beliefs of the misogynist communities you have discovered, my advice is this: take a step back. Read some of the sources used at MGTOW that you have dismissed, perhaps without reading, as biased feminist writing. Read a little bit about the ways in which feminism and men's rights groups have common ground. Read about how those fighting for women's rights and those fighting men's rights are not engaged in a zero-sum game, where strides made in women's rights are at the expense of men's rights (or vice versa). Read about how manosphere communities are intentionally recruiting and manipulating young men, teaching them to both hate and fear women (I have recently begun reading Laura Bates' new book, Men Who Hate Women, which I would recommend if you can get a copy, though it is not freely available online. If you can't get a copy, she describes the recruitment topic a bit in an interview with The Times of India). Read about the history of the men's rights movement, and do your own thinking about why feminists would even be the enemy of the actual issues that are central to men's movements (both those fighting for equal rights, and those which have shifted towards the misogynist and antifeminist end).

And if you take one piece of advice from me at all: if you continue to visit manosphere communities such as MGTOW, at least try to keep in the back of your head how they may be portraying things from only a singular point of view. This is good advice for any subject, men's rights related or otherwise: if you read about a topic from one perspective, try to find an opposing perspective on that same topic. To take an example, I went to a MGTOW forum just now and one of the top posts is a delicious-looking picture of seafood from a man who is for some reason celebrating not having to make any alimony payments (I wonder if he is even divorced or has children—I read a recent article commenting on the fact that many people repeating MGTOW talking points about "divorce rape" are teenagers or very young men who have never been married themselves), and the comments are full of people treating as unquestionable fact that family courts are biased in favor of women. When you see a post like that, just do a little research outside of the forum: "do family courts advantage women?". Read a feminist perspective, and also look for topic area experts (in this case, divorce lawyers) or academic perspectives that are less ideological.

Though you may not think so, and many of the members of MGTOW who are aware of me certainly don't think so, I care very much about presenting a neutral account of groups in the manosphere (and all other topics I write about), which accurately reflects the coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure if you've kept up with the discussion you started at RSN on the subject, but outside commenters there found the sourcing to be high-quality and appropriate. In all discussions on the MGTOW talk page I have encouraged commenters who have concerns with the page to suggest new sourcing, taking any perspective, that can be used. While I am willing to discuss my views on feminism, men's rights movements, etc. on talk pages such as this one when it seems pertinent, I am not some evil feminist mastermind trying to shape articles to my own view—I've been working on this project for almost fifteen years and I certainly think I would've been blocked or topic-banned long ago for such advocacy, which is against our policies.

To return to your comment to me a bit, and address some relatively minor details: some have referred to a comment you made about me as homophobic, and I wonder if you might be confused about this since you used the same word ("queer") to refer to me as I use for myself. "Queer" is a reclaimed slur that used to be, and still can be, an offensive way to refer to members of the LGBTQ community. A lot of whether it is offensive or not depends on context, so if you are angrily denigrating someone and you refer to them as queer, it will often come across as a slur. If you are politely describing them and you mention that they are queer, that is fine. One thing you should generally avoid, though, is referring to someone as "a queer" or otherwise using "queer" as a noun—that is almost always interpreted as a slur, regardless of tone. For example:

N Jane Doe is a queer.
N The rainbow flag is a symbol of queers.
Y Jane Doe is queer.
Y Jane Doe is a queer person.
Y The rainbow flag is a symbol of queer people.

You also wrote above that I'm sorry for calling you a Queer as a bad thing. I should have more respect for other genders. Queer is also not a gender, it's a sexuality. A person of any gender can be queer, and I am a woman (gender) who is queer (sexuality).

This reply has gotten quite long, so if you've gotten this far, I applaud you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Wow. You really opened my eyes there. Also yes I support both sides of equality. And sorry I keep getting confused with sexuality and gender since there are so many. Thank you for explaining that it is "queer" and not "a queer". You might've saved me some trouble. Anyways I just want to really thank you for taking the time and writing a huge reply to explain these things to me and thank you for accepting my apology (I'm assuming you have, if not please let me know). You are awesome and ignore the hate from people like me. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My plan

@Sangdeboeuf: @GorillaWarfare: @El C: @BlackcurrantTea:

Well hello everyone. As you may know I have been site banned due to the harassment of GorillaWarfare. I have apologized above for that just in case you think I haven't apologized, but that's beyond the point. I just wanted to let you all know that my plan is to wait until I have become older (so I have matured) and then request an unblock.

Because once I become older I think I'd have matured enough to know the basics of what and what not to say. That means I'll take a break and come back once I've matured more. Thanks for reading this everyone and I'll be back in a little while. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been community banned per consensus. Trying to canvass by pinging everyone will not help your case, and only makes you look worse. Padgriffin (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: I just wanted to let everyone know. What is the issue? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: There I got rid of it. But I still don't understand the issue? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you didn't ping Padgriffin any more. I didn't see it as canvassing, because canvassing means that the person doing it expects to change things by canvassing. I think you understand that things aren't going to change; you were simply explaining your plans. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO pinging LITERALLY EVERYONE involved in the C-Ban would constitute trying to ping a partisan group in an attempt to shift their opinion. If this user wants to be unbanned, they can come back in a few years and explain it then. Padgriffin (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: Brother, listen. I'm not trying to change their opinion. Since they were all a part of my ban I am letting them all know that I plan to come back in a while to mature and request an unblock. Where am I saying once I come back I'm innocent? I'm just telling everyone. I even pinged the guy that didn't vote for my siteban. I'm not trying to change anything Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sound plan. One's outlook changes as one ages. If you come back in a few years time with a better understanding of this situation, request an unban to the community with a clear undertaking then the community will usually consider it. Best of luck when you decide to try Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this easier for you. Talk page access is being removed. You are banned by the community. The ONLT thing you should be doing on this talk page is requesting an unblock or review of your ban. I wouldn't even say you should do this for at least a year. The fact that you said "I have been site banned due to the harassment of GorillaWarfare." clearly indicates you have no clue why your actions led to a ban. To prevent the continuing harassment of other users, I'm removing talk page access at this time. In at least a year, when you are ready to come back, you can use WP:UTRS to request an unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: I think what St. H.T.d.C. & A. meant was their own harassment of GW. It's a weaselly way of phrasing it, but the fact that their next statement was I have apologized above for that makes it pretty obvious that they were talking about their own behavior, not GW's. Just FYI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite confused by RickinBaltimore's comment as well, but decided against asking here as I though I might have too little understanding of the situation and due to the fact that Rick used the same phrasing just after that ("harassment of other users"), which led me to believe that his point was that St. H.T.d.C. & A. was harassing multiple users rather than GW alone. I'm also not sure how this is "weaselly" or how you could interpret a genetivus subiectivus into that wording. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]