Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
My username does not contain profanity. It does not threaten. It does not attack. It does not impersonate. It is simply an artistic and creative choice on my part in the form of a statement of fact. My intention is only to correct spelling and grammar, as evidenced by my edits. JosephSmithMarriedA14yearOldGirl (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
Your artistic and creative choice, whether or not you intend so, will be and is perceived as disruptive and inflammatory. Feel free to select an acceptable name and continue to correct spelling and grammar. But this username will cause nothing but unnecessary discord. --jpgordon::==( o )00:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Note to reviewing admins: I blocked this account because the clearly disruptive intent of this name drew two people to report it to UAA. Perhaps we should amend the UHB template to state this for cases like these. I can't imagine a name like this not attracting unwelcome attention from other editors, particularly those of the LDS persuasion. I can't imagine that not being the intent, especially given the disingenuously coquettish "Who, me?" tone of the unblock request (in which the user does not deny that he is a troll). Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, it may not be an intent to troll LDS editors, but rather a misguided ministry of some kind by disseminating a common anti-Mormon trope throughout Mormonism related articles via edit history. It's actually quite a clever tactic regardless of the intent, but it's obviously a misuse of Wikipedia mechanisms in order to advance a non-encyclopedic agenda, despite the actual benefit of the constructive copyedits the account has made. alanyst00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I still don't get (technically) why I'm blocked. The name I chose is simply a fact. I could have chosen "TheSkyIsBlue" or "JaneAustenWasAWoman". Both examples, and my username, are facts. They are stated using plain, inoffensive words. Tell me what is profane, threatening, attacking, or impersonating about my username? What part of my username suggests I will not contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia? These are your own rules that I have not broken, yet I am blocked. And how could my username offend the LDS community when it is a historical fact that is referenced many times in wikipedia's own LDS-related articles? Should this fact be scrubbed from all articles to keep from offending LDS people? The same logic applies. It seems like you are violating your own rules here. I know I won't convince you to change your minds. However, just know that you are hypocrites for not standing by your own rules and moving the goalposts when most convenient.JosephSmithMarriedA14yearOldGirl (talk) 3:47 am, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia's username policy clearly states that "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible" are not permitted. Since your username is clearly designed to give offence to LDS editors, it does not comply with the policy, and you will therefore not be unblocked without agreeing to change it. If your next unblock request does not contain an appropriate new username suggestion, you will lose your access to this talkpage. Yunshui雲水10:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Per Yunshui, I would like to change my username to iEditArticlesWithSugarAndSpiceAndAllThingsNice. That said, my username was not blocked because it would "give offense to LDS editors" as Yunshui claims. It was blocked because Daniel Case claimed it was "obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that [my] intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia". It is clearly none of those things, so now it's just labeled as generally offensive and the goalposts are moved. Yet no one has been able to say how a simple fact can be inherently offensive or disruptive. How can my username be so offensive that it has to be blocked when the fact that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old girl is present on many articles here, and yet those articles are in full view of LDS editors? Can I report those articles as being offensive for stating the same fact and then have that fact removed?JosephSmithMarriedA14yearOldGirl (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
One last question-- Would the usernames HelenMarKimballExisted or ThereIsAnArticleOnHelenMarKimball break any rules? Seriously wondering what could be offensive about this...
