User talk:AH999

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CSD. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Mr X 00:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been away for a year, and I haven't used Wikipedia since last year, someone must have got into my account, as it wasn't me AH999 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if this is true, we don't unblock compromised accounts. Max Semenik (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@MaxSem: What am I supposed to do then? AH999 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, stop lying to us? Max Semenik (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When can I start editing Wikipedia again? AH999 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: AH999 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a successful unblock request and we unblock you. Suggest starting reading with WP:OFFER. By the way, you're not hacked anymore? Max Semenik (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: Do you know of any willing admins? AH999 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunt. First, I don't believe your "hacking" story. Second, it's amazing how you were aware of the block but not aware of the edits the "hacker" made. Finally, this block cannot be reversed except by me or by another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Are you or another checkuser willing to accept the WP:OFFER? AH999 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to return six months from now and request again to be unblocked, it will be considered. However, it's highly unlikely it will be accepted unless at a minimum you come clean as to your socking, and that includes dropping (now better than later) the hacking story. Even if you do all that, no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Ok I wasn't hacked and yes I was socking, but when I created the Sociable Computer account my intention was not to deceive but for a fresh start, I shouldn't of created that account as I cannot clean start when a block or ban is in effect, if am unblocked I promise I will do my best to become a good editor. P.S. am I still able to visit Wikipedia and read pages? AH999 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about TeaLover1996 and ComputerTechGuy?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Yes and those. And my other question. AH999 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages." (WP:BLOCK) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: So basically, if I don't attempt to edit, create any accounts or evade my block for the next 6 months, I stand a good chance?, also could I opt to not submit an unblock request for longer than 6 months? AH999 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it differently: If you attempt to edit, create any accounts, or evade your block, you stand no chance. Yes, you can wait longer than six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Okay well see you in April or subsequently from then. I hope you don't hate me for this. Happy editing AH999 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have had 6 months away and am ready to start afresh, I will frequently read Wikipedia's policies, at least twice a week in case of changes to the policy, I will try and not to get into conflicts with other editors, and if it happens I will discuss any problems with them calmly to find a solution. AH999 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

@Bbb23: @SQL:. I left this request alone because it seemed to be under investigation. It now appears to have fallen through the cracks. If any admin who previously considered this request feels otherwise they are welcome to undo this review of mine. AH999, your previous unblock requests seem to be an attempt to say whatever is needed to get back. Your false story about your account being hacked and your use of multiple accounts has damaged your credibility. We rely on trust here, and I just don't see it. HighInBC 15:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Bbb23: AH999 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AH999 - please note that User:Bbb23 has not edited since 15 March - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arjayay: any idea how long I need to wait for a response? AH999 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never having been blocked, I am afraid I don't - I understand that some admins only consider lifting blocks that they imposed themselves, as they are familiar with the background, and are not "treading on anyone elses toes". However, with Bbb23 being away, that means there could be a delay. Your request appears on the list at Category:Requests for unblock although I do not fully understand that table. I suggest patience - after 7 months another day is no great deal - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Okay cheers. AH999 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by a checkuser - and only checkusers can unblock in this case. You will need to wait patiently for one that has free time to review this block. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Are you recommending an unblock?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: AH999 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: AH999 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the blocking admin is welcome to reverse their own action, unblock requests are handled by uninvolved admins. If you only want Bbb23's consideration then stick to pinging and avoid the unblock template(I think you already figured this out). I will defer to Bbb23's wisdom on this matter. HighInBC 01:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Any clue as when I will receive a reply? AH999 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. HighInBC 03:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to say. Based on your history, I would not unblock you. Although only I or another CheckUser can unblock you, that doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to the recommendation of another administrator, which is why I asked SQL when they put the unblock request on hold, whether that's what they were doing (there's usually no reason to put it on hold otherwise). If they had responded positively, I would have asked for their reasons. As you know, that didn't happen. It also doesn't look like any other administrator wants to intervene, so I'm done here. You can wait longer and try again, or you can seek relief either through WP:UTRS or the arbitration committee.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: I have participated in the standard offer previously, what does this mean for me now? AH999 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Doesn't every one deserve a second chance? and I give you my word it won't happen again. AH999 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed

Since you have had you unblock requests reviewed and you are now basically begging and pinging people every day I have removed your talk page access. You may appeal you block at WP:UTRS if you like, or if you prefer you can find another website. HighInBC 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16827 was submitted on Nov 01, 2016 00:59:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16829 was submitted on Nov 01, 2016 14:25:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16830 was submitted on Nov 01, 2016 17:02:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AH999. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17721 was submitted on Mar 10, 2017 02:34:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not attempted to make any edits or other accounts, I am fully aware that my actions were not justified and I will not continue to disrupt Wikipedia with my edits, my intentions are to only make useful edits where needed. If my appeal is successful I will accept the standard offer to avoid making edits or creating false accounts. --AH999 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AH999/Archive, we are not convinced you have waited six months yet. As such, the standard offer does not apply at this time. Yamla (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Just Chilling: What next? AH999 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait a full six months and then decide whether you feel that you can justify a further appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18431 was submitted on Jun 04, 2017 11:28:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully understand that my actions were not acceptable, I intend to refrain from such actions in the future, my only intention is to make constructive edits on Wikipedia where necessary, I will work collaboratively with other editors to avoid edit wars something I was blocked for previously AH999 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been told repeated to wait the six months for the standard offer. Those 6 months have not passed. You need to wait those full six months first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@RickinBaltimore: When will the 6 months have elapsed? AH999 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your /minimum/ 6 month waiting time does not expire until 28 June 2017. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the information you have sought that I posted before your question!! Just Chilling (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The timings are crucial here. According to the archive pointed to above, the last case of conformed socking was- what, September 2015? This needs some clarification. Just Chilling, where is your July date from? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the date from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AH999/Archive. However, after the User:FootballFanMan case was closed because of inactivity I see that they have made two subsequent edits. Consequently, FootballFanMan may need to be reexamined. @JMHamo: in case he has a view. Just Chilling (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FootballFanMan is technically between

Unlikely and

Possible. I wouldn't decide this other than on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18478 was submitted on Jun 09, 2017 16:33:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not attempted to create new accounts, nor have I attempted to edit anonymously, my only intention is to make useful edits. AH999 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have already been told that you cannot re-appeal until June 28th, so what do you expect this appeal to achieve? You seem to think that you will be unblocked if you are sufficiently persistent, but all you are doing is wasting our time. I have removed your talkpage access again, and would advise other administrators to consider the standard offer applicable from this account's last edit; i.e. the earliest date that an appeal can now be made is 9th December 2017. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admin note The recent closed UTRS appeals were not closed as declines, they were closed with direction made to AH999 to make their appeals here. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Do I have a chance of being unblocked? AH999 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18497 was submitted on Jun 12, 2017 10:41:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TeaLover1996: There is no point in submitting further appeals by UTRS- Ponyo says above that your previous oes have already been procedurally declined- and your talk page access here reinstated- specifically so you can lodge a usual appeal here. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per the above unblock decline, I've removed talkpage access - though I would consider the immediate appeal via UTRS to be admin shopping, and recommend that it is declined with no action (indeed, a ban from UTRS might not be a bad idea). ~~I will further add, for the next reviewing admin, that AH999 has (perhaps inadvertently) just confirmed to me by email that they were behind the FootballFanMan account.~~ Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC) A subsequent email insists that AH999 has nothing to do with FootballFanMan. I therefore offer no opinion either way on this specific matter. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, @Ponyo and Yunshui: Apologies for seeing the former comment but not the latter! I have inadvertently misled TeaLover1996, so, to clarify, they may not request an unblock before 21:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)? Incidentally, regarding removal or TPA and UTRS- that might actually be beneficial to them, as it would remove the opportinuty for them to extend their SO waiting-period through frustration, and thus avoid accusations of friviolous requests. Just a 'IMHO', of course. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per the resetting of WP:SO from the last edit (today), I make it 12th December 2017. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm a bit lost. I understand where each of you is getting your dates from: Yunshui from today and FIM from the last edit date by Football on May 22. I wouldn't have thought that edits on one's Talk page or UTRS appeals affect the standard offer date, so I would have concluded November 22 also as the correct date. On the other hand, we are not bound by the six-month period, and based on the deceit by AHM99 here, I would suggest that delaying the date beyond six months would be justified. Regardless, I strongly urge that we decide the date now so we aren't having this discussion in the future. Of course, whatever the date is, that doesn't mean an automatic unblock as of or later than that date. Finally, FIM, why are you calling AHM99 TeaLover1996? The latter is a sock not the master account and the blocked individual has been handling this under the master account, not TeaLover1996, unless I missed something.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct, Bbb23, apologies- it's just that I interacted with the TeaLover1996 account, rather than any of the others, so without meaning to, I kind of defaulted to that one. Perhaps because, looking back even now, it was rather an unpleasant experience. In any case, I'll leave the SO dates to you guys of course. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

I'm happy to go with another date if there's consensus here to do so, but I have always taken talkpage comments (excepting unblock appeals) to be edits warranting a reset of WP:SO. However, given that AH999 has been emailing me persistently (14 exchanges so far) and apparently other users and UTRS since I removed TP access this morning, and given the lack of a good unblock reason in the above requests and UTRS appeals (beyond, "I waited six months, please unblock me"), I'm inclined to invoke the second paragraph of WP:Standard offer#Variations and say that this editor is not eligible for SO at all. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20531 was submitted on Feb 04, 2018 16:27:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been away from wikipedia and havent attempted to create any other accounts, I am ready to start afresh with a clean slate and have read up on the rules and guidlines here. AH999 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AH999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not created any more accounts, I have read up on wikipedias rules and guidelines, I am fully aware my actions were unjustified and I will not continue to cause disruption and will only make constructuve edits in future. AH999 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Of course you have. You are Confirmed to ChocolateRabbit, RemoteXbox and ManUnitedFan7. I'll be revoking talk page access so that you don't waste our time further. You may file an appeal six months from now.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

February 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Appeal

Due to an issue with the UTRS system, your appeal may not have been filed correctly and your appeal key may not work properly. If you still wish to appeal, please file again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AH999, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jalen Folf (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]