Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Elizium23. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Elizium23, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Elizium23 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Elizium23 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Elizium23 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Elizium23, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:
I can and will remove derogatory comments about myself. This is my right as a Wikipedian and as a human being. Theknightwho never warned me about any block. Theknightwho claims I acted against policy, but has not linked any such policy. CIVILITY is the policy which we shall abide by here. CIVILITY is necessary and my edits/redactions were made to preserve CIVILITY and the innocence of all commenters. Theknightwho became personally INVOLVED with the discussion and personally restored the personal attacks against myself. Theknightwho is defending a third party on yet another third party's user talk page. Theknightwho did not need to get involved. Theknightwho owes Elizium23 an apology, because Elizium23 sincerely believes the truth of his statements.
My entire contribution to that discussion was to revert your attempts to change another user's comments: , so I was not personally involved.
Civility extends to not editing another user's comments in a way that meaningfully changes them, even if you don't like them or feel attacked by them, because that knowingly misrepresents what they said. Two wrongs do not make a right. Rule of thumb: unless it's fixing an outright template error, don't do it; not even typos.
After I blocked you, it transpired that you had also been editing other users' comments elsewhere, which were not made about you (), so evidently your behaviour was not purely motivated out of feeling personally slighted, but by a more general intention to redact comments you felt were personal attacks.
Given you have stated your intention to keep doing this, I will make the situation very clear for you: if you do this again, I will block you for a week the first time, a month the second time, and indefinitely the third time. I note your indefinite block on Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour () after making over 60,000 edits there, so I have come to this decision based on the fact that you are a seasoned contributor who is fully aware that what you are doing is unacceptable. Pinging @Chuck Entz, Koavf for full transparency. Theknightwho (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho, @Koavf, oh pardon me. I am not accustomed to projects where editor communication is achieved via edit summaries. That is highly irregular, and must be part of your idiosyncratic Wiktionary regime. I did not feel that an edit summary is a sufficient warning; on enwiki and other projects, for example, we must use User talk page postings, escalating in severity, to warn a user. In fact, editors are not notified in any way of edit summaries, and so an editor would need to go looking for them. User talk page postings are a standard communication, which notifies users unambiguously, and transparently, communicating something directly to that user in a way that begins a conversation, and the user can respond in like manner. Communicating via edit summaries is one-sided, uneditable, non-transparent, and doesn't constitute a conversation in any way.
Furthermore, if you support editors who comment on the alleged mental disorders of people they don't know, and editors who suggest that behavior on-wiki is the result of alleged mental disorders, and furthermore that you support editors who recommend medical treatment for disorders (this is giving of medical advice by unlicensed persons) then I want no part of your project. Your support of such derogatory and presumptuous and judgemental comments is the height of inciviltiy. You are violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Code of Conduct by condoning such behavior. You're restoring comments in violation of this Code of Conduct. I will persist in removing incivil comments, especially those which allege mental illness, and I will take down all incidents where you and yours restore such comments as violations of Code of Conduct and I shall report all commenters to Trust & Safety on the grounds of harrassment and behavior unbecoming an administrator. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Leave deceptive message to admins"? "Don't be coy"? I honestly have no idea what you're on about, now, @Koavf, what sort of deception am I engaging in? I am dead serious: I will report such actions to Trust & Safety, because it is a clear violation of UCoC to speculate on someone's mental conditions, and restoring such derogatory comments is arrogant, unnecessary, and demonstrative of incivility that goes beyond Wiktionary's mere policies and procedures, regardless whether or not y'all have enacted a "No Personal Attacks" policy.
lol, you're going to report me? Wow. I can't wait to see where that goes. Have a nice life. Leave me alone: I don't want messages from you on my talk page or pings. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is in fact required, on other projects, to redact comments that contain personal attacks; it's done all the time, and it's upheld by the administrators there. I'm sorry if y'all object to me changing others' comments where I wasn't involved, but to restore them? THat's fucking nuts! I mean your behavior, not you, you're not nuts; well I wouldn't dare speculate on your sanity. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Elizium23 I also warned you that I would block you if you did it again in direct response to your message on my talkpage (), and pinged you in that comment, so you have no excuse. Plus, you and I both know that you will have received a ping with the edit summary which warned you, since you were tagged in it. Your new complaint is therefore completely unfounded. Given that we know you are a very experienced Wikimedia editor, you are either lying, or don't care to read the responses you receive, which means you have no right to complain that you weren't told something (especially when you were, twice). Theknightwho (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Block
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've blocked you for two weeks, as you're wasting everyone's time. If I see you do the same in two weeks it will be one month, then indef block. PUC – 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:
We're at a loss, frankly, to understand the policy which informs your blocking practices here. PUC has not only blocked Elizium23, PUC has also revoked talk page editing and email access, thereby removing any avenue which Elizium23 may seek to contact an administrator or request an unblock. PUC claims that Elizium23 was blocked for being a "time waster" and "wasting everyone's time". It is not Elizium23's responsibility how other editors allocate their time to certain issues. It's your decision to read his talk page posts, or not, and respond to them, or not. Perhaps PUC determined that Elizium23 would continue disruptive activity if he wasn't blocked. The only actions taken by Elizium23 were posting to User talk discussions. Elizium23 didn't edit anyone else's comments. Elizium23 didn't make any mainspace edits whatsoever.
It's quite unclear what disruption was ongoing that warranted any kind of a block, much less a punitive one which revoked all avenues of communication. Administrators on Wiktionary seem unanimous in upholding the rights of editors to make derogatory comments, to speculate on mental illness of others, and to recommend treatment for those alleged mental disorders. Those comments must be kept on record and visible at all costs, even to the extent of blocking someone who dares to question your authority. This does not seem to be a desirable policy. Elizium23 made no other transgressions, other than editing talk page comments. In particular, Elizium23 targeted someone's comments about Elizium23 himself. Elizium23 deserves civility, just as any other editor, and Elizium23 resents being called "some rando" or "some random editor" which demeans and debases his dignity. Whether or not he should carefully remove such epithets, that's germane to a healthy debate, but if restoring them and then blocking him as an offender is your only remedy, then perhaps some introspection is warranted.
And if Elizium23 is blocked a second time, for no disruption whatsoever, but a subjective "time waster" opinion, that is grounds for appeal to the highest authorities. Elizium23 has emailed the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding the central question of whether editors should be permitted to speculate on others' mental health, and whether those edits must be defended with the full authority and power of administrative actions.
Elizium23 knows for a fact, that derogatory comments can and shall be edited by others, for example, on enwiki and Commons, and this is standard practice, accepted by all administrators and the ArbCom, as a remedy for personal attacks and incivility, which is not permitted to stand in discussions on enwiki. This is in-line with the WMF Universal Code of Conduct. If the policy of Wiktionary is at odds with this UCoC, then perhaps again, a sitewide debate is warranted, and some introspection, in terms of what a respectful and collegial environment looks like, and how that can be achieved.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Elizium23 might not have used the best methodology, but they ARE correct that users' comments accusing other users of mental illness are inappropriate. Purplebackpack8914:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
