Topic on User talk:HLIAA14YOG

@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl, you were warned by @Looney Toons in this tread that "you do not get to declare policy, you do not get to tell other users what they may or may not do when editing an article. Do it again, and you get a tempban."

You chose to "tell other users what they may or may not do when editing an article" again, here; that was is clearly a passive-aggressive attempt to get the editor to undo the edit in question.

You are thus blocked from editing the wiki for two weeks, and your autopatrolled privileges are revoked.

You are free to appeal this decision to any other admin, all of whom are listed below.

@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I'm sorry if this came up like an attempt to coerce anyone to do anything, I just found it weird.

Stating this as civilly as possible:

I would like to think my summary regarding the King Richard edits, followed by my response when you queried me on my talk page , were both pretty clear about the nature of the audience reaction I noted. A disagreement would have been fine in a vacuum, but the immediate presumption is what stuck in my craw and led me to wonder where this passive-aggressive streak came from.

I personally find it amusing that you decided to start on this after I caught out a dishonest presentation of information in your attempts to stake a claim on the Bridget character entry. Given the timing of that, I genuinely don't think this veneer of innocuousness is going to go over well - though I also genuinely hope I'm wrong about this being the case.

Setting aside the possibility or lack thereof of there being a connection, the two cases were reviewed by different admins, and I did not reference the earlier case while making my ruling on the later case. If there does happen to be a connection, we did not consider it.

I did not do it because of the Guilty Gear page. I created the entry for "overshadowed by Controversy" and you edited it later, and I found the edit a bit weird. The probability of me questioning you editing things I wrote is very high because we both wrote a lot of pages and this is a small wiki. Today I questioned you again because you edited over my entry of the Bowser's Fury entry.

Comparing our activities, it's pretty clear why exactly this kind of circumstance happened to you both times: I tend to create work and YMMV pages, and you tend to edit things someone else wrote. By example, my very first edit was to create the sub-page for Euphoria, a work and you very first one was trying to reconcile an argument on the Demonization.

and this is a small wiki

This is the largest wiki hosted by Miraheze, by two orders of magnitude. Your definition of "small" is odd.

and you tend to edit things someone else wrote

Quoting from the text displayed between the "Summary" box and the "Save changes" button on every edit page on the wiki: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

"you tend to edit things someone else wrote."

...That is precisely what people do on wikis by design, yes.

I've created several trope articles, works pages and subpages myself, so you'll hopefully forgive me when I say I don't get the point of you mentioning that. As you said, it's a small wiki, and this already happens with me and other users: I tend to follow-up on other users to see if they missed something or if there's another piece of the page I can work on, and I appreciate others doing the same for me in return - that's what wiki editors do, and you're the only one trying to make a whole deal out of this, much less by pulling my editing history like that non-argument's supposed to weigh against me.

And you're pulling my editing history on that Guilty Gear page to weigh against me, when the incident which triggered this ban happened on the King Richard page. You did this first, I followed thinking you would find this valid, but apparently you do not find it valid.

Tempbans on All The Tropes are not triggered by a single incident, as is made quite clear at All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here.

Look, I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but if it's not clear, you've had a consistent pattern of behavior that made us decide, by collegial consensus, a cool-off temp-ban was in your best interest and the wiki. Consider this a good time to step away, calm down, do something else, this place will be here when you get back.

Yes.

I am pointing to a set of specific and recent incidents while you had to dig back several years - that speaks for itself, enough that I feel no need to weigh in on this further.