User talk:FDJK001

Welcome![edit]

Hello, FDJK001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard GG Notice[edit]

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also special 500/30 restriction on GGC page[edit]

Just letting you know why you've been reverted and hatted at the Gamergate Controversy talk page:

The top warning includes: Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)

Sorry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, ForbiddenRocky, I know I don't have more than 500 edits but I'm positive my account is more than a year old. Doesn't that count? FDJK001 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Lacking 500 edits means you aren't allowed to edit "Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits"

If you want more info, I've got a link farm of info about the restriction here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi FDJK001, came here to discuss the same thing. It's both 30 days and 500 edits. I realize that it's a big restriction and you were editing in good faith but it's been upheld at both WP:ANI and WP:AE. — Strongjam (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there has to be some exceptions, Strongjam and ForbiddenRocky, right? I thoroughly researched this controversial topic and so I came up with a higher level analysis of the situation: these gamers aren't willing to let video games grow and mature. Also, we can just ignore and/or revert obvious unproductive editors (I've seen some of those edits to the talk page and I personally think they can be suppressed if they are personal or irrelevant attacks.

If not still then it's okay, I'll just wait a little longer.

FDJK001 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an exception you're going to have to take it up at WP:AE. I think the standard vandalism and BLP exception would apply, but other than that, if you read the appeal I link, the admins are taking a pretty hard line on this restriction. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FDJK001 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>You won't get an exception at AE or anywhere else. This is a third rail, to be avoided by everyone without asbestos underwear even with the best will in the world. The talkpages reach into megabytes of discussion, meta-discussion, and discussion of the meta-discussion, which is why draconian restrictions are in place. There is current, ongoing ugliness related to the topic elsewhere on the wiki, and this is a very-not-good time to stick a toe into the water there. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the ugliness of the situation very well, and know the cause-and-effect and logic of the Gamergaters. I personally have been a victim myself, and am trying my best to remain neutral. I am asking for a request to give legitimate claims, and am wearing heavily armored bullet-proof scuba suits to safely make a productive discussion.

FDJK001 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thank you for caring anyway, Acroterion. FDJK001 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No exceptions will be granted, and I state that in my capacity as an administrator enforcing the arbitration. Please take that seriously. The restrictions were not implemented lightly or whimsically, and they have been gamed in the recent past. You have nowhere near the necessary standing or experience to be able to contribute, especially given your very recent disruptive conduct. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Very recent disruptive conduct"? What are you talking about?

FDJK001 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten this [1] [2] and this [3]? Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are irrelevant because for one those are months old and the message I sent to him was a joke, and you should know that. Have you seen these [4], [5], [6]?

FDJK001 (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 14? The issue is closed. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put it in there then? That's like a month old, Acroterion so look at my major projects. FDJK001 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Since I have legitimate trouble remembering how to create a title and how to distinguish between a major or mi FDJK001 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If you think you're going to get to 500 edits that way, you can forget it. It's viewed as conclusive evidence of bad-faith gaming of the sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was bashing myself for inappropriately formatting titles, repeatedly, but thank you for the idea, which I'm thankfully not going to use. FDJK001 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I keep forgetting to check the "minor edit" checkbox. I'm sort of a masochist. FDJK001 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Keep this up and you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. Consider this your only warning. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you gave me a loophole, a question: don't we here in Wikipedia follow the rules by letter but not by spirit? FDJK001 (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly providing a textbook example of violating the spirit of the restriction. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, Acroterion, because if you were thinking that I was going back to that page on Gamergate you are deathly mistaken: admittedly you scared me out of that one (and the Gamergate community in general). And even if this were to be disruptive editing, I would be doing it stupidly because it is my own talkpage!

But no, I'm not doing it for privilege or anything.

Now that you're here I have question regarding the Fallout 4 article out there. Willing to answer it? It has to do with placing the e3 videos in the article. FDJK001 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for returning to the pattern of disruption that you started with when you attempted to explain away your offensive username. Your latest attempts to deny that you were gaming editing restrictions and your claim that recent offensive statements about other editors were "a joke" (and weren't recent) are not credible and are disruptive. Since you've not lived up to the expectations for constructive editing set when I unblocked your original account, your editing privileges have been revoked. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

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).

FDJK001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I must be very unintelligent to see that none of the reasons above for which I have been blocked match my actions if rational beings populate the world. I see the same user who's been picking on me for several months now not only exaggerating what I've done, but straight up lying about me returning to trolling (maybe that truthful message he deleted from his talkpage didn't fit his forced beliefs and so deleted it to try and prove an empty point). When he said "gaming sanctions", I think he's talking about me practicing my minor edits with me doing (+1) edits on my own talk page. I saw nothing wrong with modifying my own talk page. Also, I didn't know at the time trolls in Wikipedia invaded it, so I must have been labeled so.

And what does he mean by "sockpuppet of Dandtiks69"? Because we share a computer? I go and drag myself to his place, from places far away from internet, fix up edits made by real trolls, and I get treated like this?

This is why an uninvolved editor must come and unblock me. Nobody I knew here in Wikipedia will every hear of me again, I'll just talk to other editors.FDJK001 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Uninvolved editor here, declining your request. What I see in this request is a confirmation of everything you've been blocked for, hence no reason to unblock. Max Semenik (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DATE 2[edit]

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).

FDJK001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The previous "uninvolved" editor was pretty vague when saying I proved myself wrong and deserved every reason to stay blocked, so I'll be kinder this time. What I see people thinking is that my record proves everything about me, and so any mistake I do is an excuse to block me! I am always mistrusted and unwelcome even when I have legitly edited various pages. So what I'm going to say in this e-mail is sorry for my past mistakes, sorry for trying to "troll" people, and sorry for trying to find loopholes in rules (it was doing it in good faith by evading unfair rules, but it's considered otherwise.). Nothing of this sort will happen again, and I won't bother editors again. Only edit pages. Correctly. FDJK001 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you tried to evade a rule because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, then you lied about doing so, and then you claim you acted in good faith? Seriously? Sorry, I see no reason to believe your claims. Huon (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-__-[edit]

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).

FDJK001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already said I was sorry. :When I meant I was evading unfair rules, I was referring to the administrator who blocked me, twice. Why the same administrator can block me again I don't know if it's supposedly against the rules, but his conditions were for me to stop trolling. Apparently his conditions were very harsh considering I got blocked again with reason return to trolling, despite having very little to no evidence of this "trolling" (it's just him saying I was trying to evade some controversial rule, or maybe it was me asking him politely (non-threateningly) why he insists on making personal attacks on me). And when did I "lie" about me breaking the rules? Like everybody can tell here if I was, so there would be no point in me denying it!FDJK001 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please review WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"sorry for trying to find loopholes in rules (it was doing it in good faith by evading unfair rules..." - so you did try to evade the 500/30 rule you didn't like. "I just kept forgetting to add the "=" sign so I was engraving it into my head." - so you claimed that you didn't try to evade that rule but were just "punishing yourself", and it's "just him saying I was trying to evade some controversial rule". Make up your mind. Huon (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"sorry for finding loopholes in rules" isn't related to the "controversial rule" I was accused of breaking. Sorry I made that unclear. FDJK001 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for your original profoundly inappropriate username, which you attempted to defend by a patently unbelievable defense. Since administrators are expected to follow up and maintain contact, I continued to interact with you. When you started to transparently game the system I blocked you. You don't get a new admin with each block. You have expended what limited credibility you gained with your unblock request. I see no reason why you should continue to have talkpage access if you're going to keep up the pretense that your attempt to evade editing restrictions was innocent. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are asking me to lie in my next unblock request or something, but I'll do as you ask. FDJK001 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

FDJK001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So yeah, everything I did 4 months ago was wrong and inappropriate for an encyclopedia and I will never do it again to avoid being blocked this long. FDJK001 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your statement above ("I don't know if you are asking me to lie in my next unblock request or something, but I'll do as you ask"), I think you've run out of whatever credibility you might have had (if any). As I see no chance of this going anywhere constructive, I am revoking your talk page access. Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.