User talk:XMcan

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Philosophy of happiness, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Ben Shapiro. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's note that you also opposed my proposals for the Lindsay page until other senior editors became involved. XMcan (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I reverted one edit, it is true (one which still is not in the article) and was neutral on your other suggestions. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate the canvassing warning. You can't go to selected article and user Talk pages asking for a specific intervention on another article or page from people you believe to be sympathetic to your POV and who might be foolish enough to edit on your behalf. It is legitimate to leave a neutral notification on a genuinely closely related article's Talk page. Your canvassing on Talk:Ben Shapiro was a perfect example of how not to do that. The message was not neutral and the choice of Talk page was only tangentially relevant.

Any more of this and it is going to end up on one of the administrator's noticeboards. Please don't make that necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a 'troll' on Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory is a clear Ad hominem attack, and as an experienced editor, you should know better. My post on Talk:Ben_Shapiro that you keep reversing is neutral and relevant to the LP, and therefore not against WP:CAN. Referring to it as 'tangential' and 'not neutral' reflects your POV, which I question given the Ad hominem. I have contacted three other editors who have been discussing this topic with me recently on a related page; this is also not against WP:CAN.

It's interesting that you threaten me with the administrator's noticeboard. I was actually thinking of reporting you myself if you continue with this personal harassment campaign, rather than engaging with the substance of my arguments. I'm not afraid of the Administrator's scrutiny, so stop trying to silence and intimidate me. XMcan (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, because you will inevitably get a wp:BOOMERANG for wasting everyone’s time with arguments everyone has addressed and refuted in ways you don’t like. Or better yet, don’t, just drop it and accept that it’s not going to happen. In any case people criticizing you for your disruptive behavior or reverting your canvassing campaign is not “harassment”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to tell you Dronebogus that your deletion [1] of User to User messages is inappropriate and a form of harassment? If you think I'm in violation of rules, you are welcome to formally open a complaint. I also see that you currently have a dispute open on one of the noticeboards regarding your disruptive behavior. Do you need another one? XMcan (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this most recent canvassing was as egregious as yesterday's was, I am utterly dismayed to see this stretching into a second day. I think that, this time, it might have been legitimate to have pinged Talpedia, as they were already involved in the thread. The message itself was less egregiously biased towards a specific desired outcome but it certainly wasn't neutral either.

XMcan. Three editors have told you to step back from canvassing so going after Dronebogus is not going to get you anything other than a WP:Boomerang. While I do accept that you have dialled it back to some extent, I really do think that you need to stop it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was it neutral of you calling me a troll yesterday? That said, I'm happy to say that your choice of words today is nicer and less "egregiously biased." Keep up the progress, and who knows, maybe by this time next year we'll be sending each other birthday cards. XMcan (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that going after Dronebogus in a way that spuriously seeks to leverage the other unrelated complaints against them looks a lot more like actual harassment than anything else going on here. Please don't. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you defending him for deleting a post from another user's Talk page claiming bogus violation? Or are you just harassing me with incessant posts on mine? XMcan (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is always sad when a long-standing Wikipedian goes off the rails but I think that I've done as much as I can to dissuade you from shooting yourself in the foot. If you really think that you are in the right here then proceed as you think best. Please don't say that you weren't warned if it goes badly. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern for my feet is noted. Hopefully, your next post on my page will be an apology for calling me a troll.[2] I have feelings, too. XMcan (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DanielRigal, just pinging you to thank you for bringing up WP:CAN to my attention. Prior to this week, I’ve never posted discussion notices anywhere, and I’ve made some rookie mistakes trying to make them sound warm and personal. I’ve learned from my mistakes, and the next time I will use the proper neutral voice and format. XMcan (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that you were neutral in the other thread, MrOllie, but that’s not why I’m pinging you with this reply. I am replying to say that on reflection, I want to thank you for bringing up WP:CAN to my attention. Prior to this week, I’ve never posted discussion notices anywhere on WP, and I’ve made some rookie mistakes trying to make them sound warm and personal. I’ve learned from my mistakes, and the next time I will use the proper neutral voice and format. XMcan (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dronebogus. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Canvassing other users to target someone you don’t like via a totally unrelated dispute is exceptionally lousy behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XMcan. I'd appreciate an apology for the bogus WP:CAN claims you made against me. Since Sennalen is part of our ongoing discussion, it can't be considered canvassing by any stretch of imagination. As for Talpedia, even DanielRigal agrees that they are an interested party in the topic. Posting a canned harassment notice on my Talk is another form of harassment, especially considering you initiated this by removing my message to Talpedia and subsequently posting a threatening message in my Talk. The diffs speak for themselves. Please stop this inappropriate behavior. XMcan (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This my second message to another user you've reverted today.[3] I was simply notifying S. of your disruptive behavior, not trying to have her do anything, certainly not "target" you. You are the one trying to influence S. to do something, namely close the discussion thread I opened. You closed it earlier but she reverted your closure, so you where trying to influence her by calling me "annoying, unproductive and disruptive".[4]. It's all in your diffs, you have no leg to stand on. Stop this harassment now, it has gone too far. No one will back you if you continue on this path. XMcan (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just stop the cultural Marxism thing. Sennalen is in partial agreement with you but her methods are far less disruptive. I’m not trying to stop her canvassing or bludgeoning a bad argument because she’s not. You on the other hand will not stop trying to sway users to your side with non-neutral talk page posts, and will not stop hammering OED like it’s some revelation directly from God on this issue. Let it rest and I’ll stop bothering you about it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I completely understand. You have resorted to personal attacks because you were unable to formulate a coherent response to either my arguments or Sennalen's. Bringing your arguments about 'cultural Marxism' to my Talk page only confirms my claim. XMcan (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a clue from MrOllie and DanielRigal. They are much more subtle in how they harass me. XMcan (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep casting WP:ASPERSIONS against me and other editors some admin might decide to extend your block indefinitely. A measly 72 hours is generous considering how stubbornly you insisted on continuing behavior multiple users told you was disruptive and inappropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Dronebogus, you come to my Talk to level baseless accusations. It is you who have misrepresented my views and cast aspersions here and here. If you have a dispute with me, there is a proper place and format to litigate such disputes. My Talk page is NOT that place. DO NOT POST here. Doing so is considered WP:HUSH harassment. I have already asked you several times to stop; consider this your last warning. XMcan (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs of you reverting to include clearly disputed content: [5][6].

In addition, I see that your recent comment on the article talk page includes this explicit accusation of bad faith:[7]

Some editors want to maintain that CM and CMCT are one-to-one equivalents (fully interchangeable terms) and that any deviation from this orthodoxy is subversive. This is also the reason why some editors are bending over backwards to argue against the applicability of MOS:FIRST.

Article talk pages are not an appropriate place to speculate about the imagined motivations of other editors. Coming on the heals of a 72-hour block, one would expect you to be more circumspect. Please refrain from these behaviors in the future to save us all the hassle of adjudicating this on a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, Generalrelative, I must commend your writing style in the message above. It's challenging to deliver a warning while maintaining a civil tone.

Certainly, your warning might be better received if you were an uninvolved party in the content dispute. However, not only are you involved, but it could be argued that you are one of the instigators of the 'edit war,' as you term it. The page history indicates that the issues began with your sudden deletion of an image that had been part of the article for over a year.[8] Subsequently, when your deletion was reversed, you persisted.[9] Finally, you repeated a similar deletion without seeking consensus first.[10] I only reversed two deletions, not any content, especially not content that had been in place for over a year.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that you mention supposed bad faith on my part while, in the same breath, you post this. That post could be interpreted as engaging in content war coordination. Simultaneously, it casts aspersions against fellow editors, labeling them 'fringe'—a term loaded with implications.

I'm sure someone as articulate and erudite as yourself is familiar with the expression: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." In good faith, I assume you are aware of this expression, which compels me to issue you a WP:HUSH warning. XMcan (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of collapsing your discussion at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Gaslighting, but 14.202.188.111 (talk · contribs) beat me to it, and I got an edit conflict, but they did just what I would have. Since that edit is their only career edit at Wikipedia (at that address, anyway) in case you were inclined to laugh it off as an anon who doesn't know the rules, I came here to let you know that their action in collapsing your comments was entirely correct. Although you've been here over ten years, you have only 150 edits, so I'll give you some newbie slack, and just recommend that at an article Talk page, you stick strictly to the topic of how to improve the article, and avoid discussing other editors, and what their opinions or biases might or might not be. Have a look at WP:TALK (starting with the nutshell) and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, and you should also check out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I see now that you've been taken to ANI, so I'll let it go here, but if you have any questions, feel free to reply below, or you can go to the Wikipedia:Help desk any time. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. In some sense, I'm a newbie; in some sense, I'm an oldie, but none of it pertains to the ANI accusations your refer to. Good luck to you, too. XMcan (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I will establish a connection between the quote and the article. Kindly allow me a day or two for this task. XMcan (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm issuing you this polite courtesy warning that if you open the discussion at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Gaslighting up again, you will be reported to the Administrative Incidents Notice Board, as you are using the talk page improperly. The hatnote closure was made so that people could still be led to Sennallen's talk page should they want to discuss the issues raised. You should complete your statements there, where you are free to.

This will be your final warning, please let's not make this difficult, you're clearly in violation of Wikipedia's policies, and no one here has the authority to act unilaterally against them. The Administrative Incident Notice board is likely to take the fact that you were warned into account when issuing any subsequent actions. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, which policy are you referring to? Secondly, why are you hiding behind an IP? I know you have far more knowledge on a certain subject than an average IP. Why the IP thing? Please enlighten me. XMcan (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A) Using an IP is in many ways less anonymous than registering an account. B) There's no obligation on users to register an account, although that policy is being considered. C) WP:HUMAN covers some of the policies around IP users, as does WP:IP.

If you want to search Wikipedia's policies to become more familiar with them, you can type "WIKIPEDIA:" before a policy name or details of a policy in order to try to find a policy page. 14.202.188.111 (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unfortunate that after all this you decided once more to revert at the Talk page (diff) in order to expose a discussion that you believe belongs there, although four different editors have told you it does not. In your edit summary, you said:

Mathglot and IP, I hear you, and I respectfully disagree. If the talk page is not the place to have an open discussion, where is that place? Please cite relevant rules that prohibit this post, or please stop censoring.

but it is your actions of insisting on your own way in the face of concerted opposition that is disrespectful, contemptuous even. There is no censoring going on, and the policies have already been pointed out to you. Once again, the most basic purpose of an article Talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Your actions violate numerous policies and guidelines, discussing other editors is a violation of WP:TALK, and your fourth edit to insist on exposing off-topic material violates WP:CONSENSUS and amounts to WP:Edit warring. There is more, but that is bad enough already. You may not discuss other editors at an article Talk page, so just don't do it, and that means collapsing your thread. Just from the point of view of courtesy, ignoring the view of everyone around you and insisting on having it your own way is not very WP:CIVIL, and comes off as arrogant and disrespectful, despite your words. I'm at a loss to understand your actions after this was already explained to you more than once. Don't you understand that you are risking a block if you don't rein it in, or don't you care?

I strongly advise you to self-revert your last change at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Gaslighting; you don't have to agree with it, and you can add an edit summary saying that you don't agree with collapsing the thread but that you are doing it temporarily until there's a Consensus to keep it open, or some such if you wish. You are still inexperienced here, even if not exactly new, and it takes a while to get familiar with the numerous guidelines and policies, and so no one expects you to know them all at this point. However, if an editor points out a problem, and you keep on doing it over and over, the slack due a new user evaporates, and what's left is just the impression of a lone wolf going their own way, and everyone else can go to the devil. That is pretty much the image your are projecting; I don't know if you are aware of that. Wikipedia is at its core a collaborative enterprise, so that approach will not work.

Can I just ask what you hope to achieve at Wikipedia? Because whatever it is, if you get yourself blocked, you won't be able to pursue that goal. I've been around long enough to sniff the wind, and I can tell you that you will be blocked soon if you continue on this path. This is in no way a threat, as I have no power to block anybody; it's just a prediction from having seen this play out umpteen times before. It's kind of sad, really, as I think you have things to contribute, but it's like you're driving towards the cliff, and each time somebody yells at you to turn away, you step on the gas instead.

I've spent a lot of time and a lot of words trying to help, but I feel like it isn't helping. This is my final attempt to mediate with you and try to get you on the right path; I'll be looking for you in your next edit to undo your revert at Talk:CMct and I hope you do so. As always, feel free to reply or ask questions below, or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I wish you the best, Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Andre🚐 04:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andre, we've never met. Not sure what you are referring to, but if it's about my CMCT talk post, rest assured that it will be fleshed out, as I've explained in the post. XMcan (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Sennalen (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left you this warning since you expressed that you were unaware of policies prohibiting disruptive and off-topic talk pages. Talk pages are for constructive changes and it is not censorship to remove soapboxing and sockpuppetry. Andre🚐 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been a week, and I find myself still drawn to your colored bus icon. Do you still feel that I've wronged you in any way, whether through my comments or otherwise? XMcan (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't wronged me, XMcan. Sorry if I am living rent-free in your head. In the future, please try to reflect. Have a good weekend. Let me know if you have any questions or follow-ups. Andre🚐 03:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:) I have already too many tenants in my big head. Thanks for your concern ;))) Have a good one! XMcan (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes… my tenants are whispering to me: there is a Marxist conspiracy trying to subvert Western culture into believing that… XMcan is the Emperor of the known world ;)))) Do bow before me, you lowly peasants!!!! Long live capitalism! 😉 XMcan (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in this comment you said that it was nearly a decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns, which I assume means you're saying you were previously involved in the (at the time, fairly rancorous) discussions over the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on Wikipedia; however, your edit history has only five edits prior to 2022, none of them in that topic area. -- Aquillion (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, by now you ought to know that our purpose here is to engage with the content and not with the creator. I understand the temptation, and in hindsight, I’ve often indulged in the temptation myself, but ideally, whenever we recognize it, we should focus on the content and completely disregard the creator, a.k.a. the messenger. XMcan (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion is a very senior editor (2004), and you can be sure that they are well aware of the role of editors, user talk pages, and article talk pages. You are a new editor, and are still acquiring this knowledge. Your comment to "engage with the content and not with the creator" would have been quite right, were this an article Talk page, but it is not. This is a user Talk page, and comments about user behavior are on-topic here. So, your gambit is mistaken, and in fact, since this page is in part about hosting questions and comments about your behavior as a Wikipedia editor, you should answer Aquillion's question as it is an appropriate question for another editor to ask, given the circumstances, and this is the appropriate venue to ask it. So, I echo their concern: Is this your only account? Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my reply above, and feel free to replace 'Aquillion' with 'Mathglot.' Does that suffice, or do you think a WP:HUSH warning would be more appropriate? XMcan (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up at the Sennalen thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which ultimately boomeranged into blocking her, and was surprised to see these contributions there of yours all from 29 November, along with another twenty comments of yours on that page. These comments indicate plenty of familiarity with procedures in corners of the encyclopedia rarely frequented by new editors, lending even more credence to Aquillion's question. Or maybe you're just extraordinarily astute.

I'm at a loss to understand this aggressive bravado stance of yours; why not just lighten up, assume the best of other editors, and be ready to collaborate with anyone and everyone to the benefit of the encyclopedia? You seem capable and intelligent; if only you could channel your abilities into just improving articles in cooperation with other editors, we could really benefit from your contributions. But if you can't get along with your fellow editors, then, sadly, it will never be. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XMcan, you write: "I refer you to my reply above, and feel free to replace 'Aquillion' with 'Mathglot.' Does that suffice,..?" Of course not, and you know it. You are evading and not answering the question, which you must do. Be collaborative. We cannot AGF in you if you are evasive or do not answer proper questions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) XM, in response to your comment of 10:59, 12 December, I shall interpret that as a straightforward question about issuing me a HUSH warning rather than as a backhanded accusation, so I will answer you. In my humble opinion, a WP:HUSH warning directed at me would not be appropriate and could even hurt you. I have neither restored anything to your user page, nor have I issued false or questionable warnings here. If you decide to issue one anyway, please marshal your evidence, as you will need it; per WP:AOHA (same page as HUSH), issuing one without clear evidence "can be seen as a personal attack" and "unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly". Since you have already issued one such warning before, issuing another one now, if viewed by the community as unfounded, could trip the wire of "harrassment themselves" and potentially place you in the position of being liable for sanctions for making personal attacks. Any such pattern would likely be interpreted in the light of your overall behavior pattern, and not just in isolation. In simpler terms: issuing a HUSH warning now could boomerang on you. I hope this answers your question. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you thought you were being helpful, Mathglot. However, I don’t appreciate you messing with my headers, especially coming on the heels of several rather long and repetitive messages that you left on my Talk in a span of a couple of hours. In good faith, I'll assume that you didn't realize that the sheer volume of text (textwall_1, textwall_2) is an annoyance in itself. I see that you are fluent in many languages, which is wonderful. Just keep in mind that sometimes, fewer words mean more. XMcan (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, your use of edit summaries with your contributions is over 90 percent, and that's terrific, keep it up! Edit summaries should specify briefly what you changed; my personal view of is that the edit summary should describe why or how your change improved the article (because every change must improve the article in some way—no matter how small—otherwise you wouldn't have made it, right? Most of your edit summaries are just fine, so keep that going. On the other hand, there was one edit summary which was troubling, namely this one at Talk:CMCT where the entire edit summary was addressed to another editor, calling themin an accusatory way and in a kind of sarcastic or challenging tone. This goes against the purpose of the edit summary, as mentioned at Help:Edit summary#What to avoid in edit summaries, bullet #5:

• Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.

Warning: be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints. This applies particularly to uncivil and deliberately misleading edit summaries.

Please have a look at Help:Edit summary and Wikipedia:Civility, to get some background on this. You'll see that your edit definitely crossed a line, but, imho, as a new editor, you are due a certain amount of slack, but not an endless amount. I think if this is the last time this happens, you'll be all right. But please don't fall into a habit or pattern of addressing other editors in edit summaries like that, or you'll end up having your editing privileges suspended. In conclusion, keep up the good work using summaries, but keep an eye on the content, so that it complies with policies and guidelines. Please feel free to reply below if you have questions, or you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see your revert (diff) at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory of the discussion I just collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM, following a previous revert of yours only an hour earlier (diff). This is not a good look, and does start to show a pattern of your using reverts as a way of insisting on your point of view, in the face of opposition from more experienced editors (previous example here). That's pretty much the definition of edit-warring, and is something that can get you blocked. The collaborative nature of the encyclopedia is paramount, and it's essential that you get on board with that. There's still time to do so, but that time is drawing short. Once again, if you have any questions, please reply below, or try the WP:Help desk. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was recently at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#XMcan stirring up trouble), and broke WP:3RR on the same talk page during that ANI. Disappointing that someone who has been told they are editing too aggressively by their peers is still editing aggressively. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also at AE, here, with a couple dozen comments indicating a lot of familiarity with that board, and principles in general. Given that, I'm not sure how much more "newbie slack" is due them, but I note from the section below that they've been blocked from one article, so maybe that will be a wake-up call to good effect. I hope so. Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To: @ScottishFinnishRadish, @ErikHaugen, @Novem Linguae, @Future Perfect at Sunrise, @Valereee, @JPxG, @Bradv, @Thryduulf

I was recently banned from the CMCT page and its Talk section after I opened this discussion there. Therefore, I will communicate with you here. I kindly request that only pinged editors leave comments in this section; others can use alternative sections or the CMCT talk.

Regarding my offending post referencing this 2014 Slate article, in retrospect, it could have been worded better. However, bringing the article up is not off-topic for many reasons, including but not limited to these:

• The Slate article was already listed in the Press section of the Talk, along with two other articles that I highly recommend you read, as they highlight the problems with CTOPs and with CM/CMCT article in particular.

• Here is the relevant quote from the 2014 Slate article, hardly a right-wing magazine: Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on 'Cultural Marxism,' which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from Lukács to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor.

• In a nutshell, the above is the genesis of all the problems with the current CMCT article and the ongoing disputes about the lede and related issues that have persisted for years. Banning me and @Sennalen will not address the root problem. These discussions will continue, as evidenced by recent posts from @Novem Linguae, @ErikHaugen, and @Future Perfect at Sunrise.

• Even though my post and a part of the discussion was hatted by @ScottishFinnishRadish, the discussion continues, and editors like @ErikHaugen do not want it to be shut off.[11]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: For all of the above reasons and more, I ask that you to reconsider hatting my discussion. Once the comment is unhated, if you wish, I can clarify why the discussion is relevant today, as I’ve done above. In the same vein, I ask @Valereee to reconsider my indef ban from CMCT on the grounds that repeated deletions of my Slate post and previous Gaslighting post were unwarranted. If anything, the censors should be sanctioned for silencing dissent and quashing discussion. I've already asked @Valereee to reverse the premature closure of the "Gaslighting" discussion, so I will not ask that again.

@ErikHaugen, regarding your comment [12], individuals who have attempted to propose such changes have faced backlash and bans. The most recent case was Sennalen, one of the few people with in-depth expertise in this subject area. She was indefinitely banned in what I perceive as an unfair and biased manner under vague accusations of “pushing fringe ideas.” In reality, her views on CMCT and a couple of other CTOPs she was involved with were the exact opposite of what she was accused of, as succinctly explained here.

@Novem Linguae, as you've experienced in your Antisemitism discussion, I encountered similar issues in my first post to the article about a month ago, where I raised comparable concerns: I. Antisemitism insinuations, II. Contemporary use. There is a common pattern: first, they revert your article edit without a cogent reason, and then when you open a discussion about it, it quickly devolves into incivility and bad-faith aspersions, or other forms of SQS.

The way I see it, there is a local consensus of ideologically motivated editors who resist and stonewall any attempts to separate CM from CMCT or change the lede away from emphasizing CM=CMCT. They have been emboldened by their success at silencing or demotivating those who challenge the status quo. Not only do they revert well-sourced edits, but they also shut down talk page discussions. When you try to reverse their censorship, they throw the rule book at you, while tolerating far worse behavior from their own circle, including incivility, bad faith aspersions, personal attacks, and user space harassment. How is one supposed to contribute when they revert both your article edits and the talk page posts?[13]

If my case is not the best example of how this circle operates, take a close look at Sennalen's AE case; losing her voice was an even greater loss for this encyclopedia. XMcan (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've been here for five minutes, picked one of the most contentious articles in the entire project, and started a fight. I see you still haven't given a straight answer to whether you've had any other accounts, but if you're truly new here and interested in helping write an encyclopedia, find something else to work on. This article can do without your help. – bradv 21:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo, bradv. I invited you to this talk because you've seen with your own eyes that some of the outlandish accusations leveled against Sennalen were blatantly false. On one hand, you have a user with one minor prior infraction who gets an indef siteban. On the other hand, you have someone like ජපස who has so many priors that they fill 4 screens on my computer [14], and yet they walk away scot-free. Let’s be straight with each other. I will share details about my alleged other accounts if you explain to me why Sennalen, who has no major priors, deserves a siteban, while ජපස and the other user walk away without even a slap on the wrist. Where is justice in that? XMcan (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement with Sennalen was to receive her alternate account disclosure and determine whether it violated WP:SOCK. I remained neutral on the rest of the conversation. I'm happy to do the same thing for you, or you can pick another checkuser, but now that you have admitted there are details to share you had better share them quickly. – bradv 12:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have dodged my questions, I will not fulfill my side of the bargain. Instead, I would like to point out that you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word alleged in my previous comment. XMcan (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, XMcan. Just for clarity, are you saying you believe closing/hatting the talk page discussions and blocking you from the article/talk was ideologically motivated? Valereee (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know your politics, Valereee, nor do I care to know. I was referring to editors who make their politics blatantly obvious in their comments or in their user spaces. If you want me to name names, Newimpartial is one of the editors for whom the double standard that I was alluding to seems to apply. Newimpartial has a site-wide anti-bludgeon restriction [15] that they have been repeatedly breaking without consequence. For example, on December 12, 2023, they made a total of 15 contributions in the CMCT Talk that they did not mark as minor (although a few appear to be). My understanding is that they are limited to 2 posts per topic per day. I have only looked at their last 50 contributions, and even in that limited scope I see a couple of other Talks where they are in breach of their 2 per day limit. How come no one has reported them, yet I get instantly the rule book thrown at me? Is it an oversight or a double standard? XMcan (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my question was just clarifying that you weren't saying the closing/hatting themselves, or the block, were ideologically motivated.

The question about NI isn't really relevant here, but from a very brief look, most of those contributions look like copyedits to compliant posts. That is, NI makes a post, then edits it several times over the next couple minutes. A couple of other times, I saw them answer a question in a 3rd post on a single day in a single discussion. It's a fairly complicated type of editing restriction to assess, but (as I said, from a brief look) NI appeared to be trying to comply. So, no, likely neither an oversight nor a double standard. I can almost guarantee you someone is watching NI's edits looking for a gotcha. But again, not really relevant here.

As for getting the rule book thrown at you...you were disruptively editing at an extremely contentious talk, including edit-warring and ignoring warnings about FORUM. And I blocked you from that talk (and the article it's attached to, which obviously is also required in such blocks). That's hardly instantly getting the rule book thrown at you. Valereee (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why an indefinite ban rather than a milder or timed punishment? Also, please see my comments above about Sennalen vs. ජපස. It certainly seems like some people get off easy while others get the rule book thrown at them. XMcan (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XMcan, an indef of this type is liftable immediately by any admin, so it can literally last five minutes. All you need to do is convince an admin that you've understood the issue and are willing and able to stop the behavior. A timed block, many admins are reluctant to lift. So generally a 1-week block ends up being just that: a full week.

A block is never a punishment. It's always purely to prevent further disruption, and IMO it's always best if we use a block that is the least restrictive possible, which in the case meant blocking from that one single place you were actively disrupting. If it were a punishment we'd be blocking from everything instead of leaving you free to edit 50 million other pages.

I don't know enough about the Sennalen situation to try to comment, but again it's not really relevant to this discussion. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the person who issued the ban is the only one who can lift it. My mistake. If I had known that, I wouldn't have been working you so hard ;)

Does the same principle apply to AE bans? XMcan (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Often an admin responding to an unblock request will ping the blocking admin to get their opinion on unblocking, but blocks are lifted by someone else very regularly. AE blocks are a different case; if the blocking admin does not actively give their approval, an appeal has to be made to the community at a noticeboard. I strongly recommend you do not court an AE block. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could easily be classified a Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/American_politics. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been blocked from a discussion or topic you have exactly three options:

1. Appeal the decision using the proper process - see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
2. Edit anywhere else on the encyclopaedia
3. Leave Wikipedia.

If you choose to do anything else, such as pinging admins to an extended diatribe on your talk page about how you are right and everybody else is wrong, then you can expect either no action or increased sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, pardon me I wasn't aware of the topic ban when I wrote that; apologies. You pinged me in my capacity as an admin: but I must of course recuse myself from acting as an admin in any way related to this article, since I've expressed editorial opinions and been in a behavioral dispute. Also I don't think there's really any admin-related thing an admin can do; see Thryduulf's note for the paths forward.

Navelgazing: Sure, that dynamic happens all the time to one extent or another; human nature. (I don't know all the background to Sennalen's block; I certainly hadn't witnessed anything block-worthy from her, but I'm also not familiar with her edits that the block messaging says the block is for; so no comment from me about that.) However, I think your style of discussion at CMCT is generally not constructive: for example the vague reference to jimmy disapproving of something 10 years ago as a rhetorical entry to start a whole new section was a bit much. I mean, I agree with you that Cultural Marxism shouldn't redirect to CMCT (the main problem with that article IMO); it's just that there are ways to conduct yourself on talk pages that lead to less heat. (I'm by no means perfect; if you look in the archives of the talk there you'll see I got sucked into several useless side-threads where people kept confronting my personal opinions and I kept trying to rephrase them; I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. While my recent encounter at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Antisemitism was frustrating, I can also read the room. If the regular editors of an article are resisting a change, then I trust that they have their reasons. Sennalen was not good about this at all, and would keep pushing, making hundreds and hundreds of talk page edits even after being told her views were fringe. If you do that in a WP:CTOP, you will end up sanctioned. Just gotta read the room sometimes. As a newer editor, I would suggest adopting an attitude of constant calibration and self-improvement. When an experienced editor tells you something, instead of fighting it, make a change to your approach instead. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice, Novem Linguae. I'd like to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, CMCT is not designated as a CTOP, at least according to the 2022 ArbCom case that Sennalen brought against Newimpartial. Take a look at that case to see if her experience reminds you of your own frustrating encounter. XMcan (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like potstirring. XM, please either create an unblock request or go do something productive somewhere other than Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Valereee (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Sennalen's activity in the covid-19 origins ctop. COVID-19 lab leak theory has been on my watchlist for a couple years. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I thought you were referring to me. I also seem to have mixed up AE with ARC in reference to the 2022 case. XMcan (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of enthusiasm for exploring broader issues, let's wrap up this discussion with a simple poll. What key lesson should I draw from my recent experience?

• A) Acknowledge that bringing up Google SERP and referencing the 2014 Slate article was disruptive. Similarly, questioning the redirect from CM to CMCT is disruptive, as this has already been decided by the majority/community/consensus.

• B) Dial down the rhetoric. Avoid language that is too provocative. (Nevertheless, questioning the status quo and referencing the Slate article are generally acceptable, despite opposition from a vocal group of editors).

• C) Adhere strictly to technical rules, including the maximum number of reverts per time period, under all circumstances.

• D) Do something else with my life.

Thanks to ScottishFinnishRadish, ErikHaugen, Novem Linguae, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Valereee, JPxG, Bradv, and Thryduulf for their attention, especially to those of you who have left comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan (talk • contribs)

I don't think this is a good use of time. Please use the established unblock procedure, which involves placing the {{Unblock}} template. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such discussions at Talk:James A. Lindsay and/or the archives of that page. But since you are still page blocked from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, I would suggest instead that you find some other topic. Continuing disruption around that topic on another article is deeply unwise. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Ollie. I shall endeavor to interpret your message not as a threat but as advice. XMcan (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last time, you reverted my contrib in under 2 minutes.[16] That must be some sort of a record! 😉 I don’t want to start a content discussion here; I'm just curious if you've had the time to read and consider the Talk posts explaining it? [17][18] XMcan (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James A. Lindsay. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article. Thank you.MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, edits in Article space have nothing to do with WP:BLUDGEON. And the expectations for BLPs are that they follow the best sources accurately and with respect to policy, not that they take on the mealey-mouthed voice, overly deferential to the BLP subject's opinion of themselves, that some editors seem to prefer. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. When you get a chance, please move your reply at AE to its own section, instead of as a reply to someone else. This is a rule on many of the arbitration pages at Wikipedia, for anti-bludgeoning reasons. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like somebody has beaten me to it, but I made a slight adjustment to the statement given the changed context. I hope that's okay. XMcan (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks for the response. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (permanent link), the following topic ban has been enacted:

XMcan is indefinitely topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, broadly construed.

Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement.

Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. This topic ban will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 21:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ternera. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to User talk:Bishonen—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ternera (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ternera. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Bishonen. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Ternera (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll assume for the moment that your post to Bishonen's talk page was intended as a joke of some kind, but - unless you two have a history of such "banter" - it definitely comes off as you being a rude asshole. At this stage, she will no doubt see what transpired, and can restore it if she wants to. So you will not restore it yourself. If she doesn't restore it, consider the likelihood that your idea of what constituted a joke is seriously fucked up, and you should avoid that kind of thing in the future. Alternately, consider that insulting someone and then saying it's "just a joke" has a long, pathetic history, and will works, at most, once. If you do it again you'll be blocked. If it's me doing the blocking, it will be forever. Clear? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, F, I didn’t read any of the comments on my Talk until now. That said, I don’t feel bad about anything I’ve said in my prior summaries. I would only feel bad if T or B were offended by something I’ve said. So, until we hear from them, your argument is moot, as is your ban.

  I do appreciate you standing up for B, which is admirable. However, I think she can stand on her own and speak for herself. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think she and Teward do share a sense of humor. Perhaps it is wrong of me to assume that I share in their dry wit, too. XMcan (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Floquenbeam. I can't discern any wit, dry or otherwise, in the repeated posts on my page. Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  OK, I take back everything I've said, whether dry, wet, or otherwise. I would self-revert my original comment if I could, but that is no longer an option. Best wishes @Tewdar—often mentioned, seldom pinged ;) XMcan (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it’s inappropriate of me to mention this, but how do you feel about Floquenbeam labeling me as a "repeated sexist harasser" in the site ban justification? [19] XMcan (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was definitely repeated. It was definitely harassment. Calling someone a "pussy" has a sexist connotation whether the target is a man or a woman, but maybe "sexist harassment" is a stretch; I could have gone with "repeated harassment using sexist language", I suppose. That does not seem to be your biggest problem right now. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder how you would feel if your neighbor was a "repeat sex offender"? That sounds awfully close to what you labeled me. And that label is going to show to anybody who checks my contribs. Given this inescapable prejudice, why should I endeavor to contribute anything? Is this what you intended, to thoroughly discourage me? XMcan (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop acting like a victim of some kind. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny, I think if Tewdar was here to witness all this shit, he would fucking laugh at it. XMcan (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, given our prior discussions and the current circumstances, Doug and Thryduulf may well consider taking away my TPA. This is surely an appropriate punishment for a "repeat sexist harasser." ;) XMcan (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]