User talk:CanadianScotNationalist

Following up[edit]

Hi CanadianScotNationalist. I see that you left a message on my talk page which has since been reverted. I can also tell that this is a frustrating experience, for which I apologize.

Earlier you wrote: ask a checkuser to see all the accounts that used this IP, there have been 3 to my knowledge : RandomCanadian, CanadianScotNationalist and the weird string of numbers called an IP and because my brother used the same IP (and still occasionally does, but never for the same topics).

What is your relationship with RandomCanadian? Are you saying that RandomCanadian is your brother?

This is the kind of question that we prefer to ask privately. I know you have previously written post it here, I don't care, but you are still welcome to reply by email to the Arbitration Committee (Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee or arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is correct, that is the kind of question I don't care about, also yes I did write an Email-like message to several members of the committee, you're encouraged to read the new posts on your talk page you know... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you just block this particular account? (not the IP, just the account), I am sick of dealing with the swarm of lawyers/hyenas. Seriously, you people are f***ing annoying and I do not have the energy or the slightest care to give about y'all and your godforsaken, poorly managed website, you folks love to write all about how you care and you think this website is great and how you're sorry about offending anyone, truth is you couldn't care less, you just want to feel powerful and useful, well play make-believe judges all you want, I'm outta here, don't contact me again, I WILL IGNORE. Also you love to complain about "declining user-hours", but you'll literally investigate a new user over an obvious unintentional mistake, and the fact that I was in an argument with a well-known, powerful user had NoThInG to do with it, of that I'm sure, Worst, Annoying twats 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up your disruptive editing and you'll be blocked[edit]

I'm adding content on Tiff Macklem and Stephen Poloz, which is why it doesn't need consensus. On Stephen Harper, you removed content, which is why it needed consensus. Please don't go around every single one of my edits to illustrate a point.

Also your talk page history shows you have a lot of controversies and warnings regarding your edits, so I believe it's your behaviour that's the problem, not mine. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing disruptive editing, I'm merely disagreeing with some of your edits, you have the right to disagree but calling it disruptive is wrong, also you don't have blocking authority to my knowledge. And regardless of whether you are adding or removing content you need consensus (or are you saying that I can casually add as much nonsense on any page without others' support?) CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also accusing me of vandalism is a) breaking good faith assumptions and b) seriously impolite CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you show to me individual instances of the alleged lout socking? Thank you CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to have a discussion on multiple pages. Izno (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well do please show such instances, whether it be here or on my IP adress' page, I'll let ya choose CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]