Jump to content

User talk:AnotherEditor144

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for improvement can be submitted here. WikiProject messages can be found here. News can be found here.

SPI

[edit]
RESOLVED
Bad advice removed. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I've noticed your comments here. To be frank, I think you're giving bad advice there. Checkusers will not ever run checks on IPs due to an SPI and encouraging a user to request CU in this case is a bad idea. Excessively pinging checkusers is also not necessary – if checks are needed, a clerk will endorse and a CU will have a look as soon as they find time. I also want to note that letter codes for CU requests haven't been in use for a long, long time.

You created your account yesterday; I think it may be a little too early for you to comment on SPIs. I suggest focusing on mainspace edits until you have gained more experience. Best, Blablubbs|talk 19:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: Ok, I didn't know that. There was also no clerk there. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks will review the case in due time. There is no reason for non-clerks to clerk cases just because no clerk has chipped in yet.
On another note, have you had any previous accounts on Wikipedia? It's rather unusual for a one-day old account to be interested in SPI. Blablubbs|talk 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: No. I was reading SPIs extensively before I registered. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's curious, because I'd assume that anyone who is interested in SPI would know that letter codes haven't been in use for around 10 years. Blablubbs|talk 19:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: There was no information about them, so I just assumed that they were only revealed to clerks. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, User:Martopa made a comment on my comment. Something about previous CU action. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs:: For some reason, User:Martopa commented on my comment. Something about previous CU action. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Govvy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi AnotherEditor144! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How should I include contribution links in my signature?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

The chances of you being a new editor and also somehow writing all of this and making a bunch of edits to SPI are almost nothing, so I've blocked you. If you want to be unblocked, please appeal your previous ban/block through your main account. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI help 05:01, 21 February 2021 (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).

AnotherEditor144 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I am ready to come back in good faith. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 10:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please request unblock from your original account or otherwise address the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2021 (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.

331dot, I am a not a sock or undisclosed alternative account. I don't see anyone I could reasonably be connected to. -- AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 14:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should make another unblock request and explain your intricate knowledge of Wikipedia practices despite you being a new user, and the reason for your interest in SPIs and other areas that are unusual for new users to take an interest in or even be aware of. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, okay. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 15:27, 27 February 2021 (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).

AnotherEditor144 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My intricate knowledge of the Wikipedia facts and obscure areas that 331dot mentioned was from my time as an anonymous user (no editing, just watching. In other words, I was interested in Wikipedia and was preparing to edit during those years. -- AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2021 (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.

 Comment: I came across this user at Wikibooks. Just to say I find their excuse for this somewhat plausible, and they seem to have done good work at Wikisource: see s:User:AnotherEditor144. I think blocking for WP:SOCK should not be done lightly, and ideally should be done with some sort of SPI to connect accounts. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) What do you plan to edit if unblocked? Majavah (talk!) 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Majavah, nothing in particular, just general cleanup. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 19:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mrjulesd, you said that "blocking for WP:SOCK should not be done lightly, and ideally should be done with some sort of SPI to connect accounts". There is no SPI. So no real reason for the block. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what disturbs me about this block. I hope an admin might be able to see it too; SPIs aren't required, but they're extremely helpful. Also, I've deeply immersed myself in projects without contributing, so it could have happened to me too. But if you do get unblocked, I would strongly advise you to stick to content, otherwise suspicions could be raised again. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mrjulesd, you appear to be an admin, because in your first reply, you used {{Comment}} instead of {{nacmt}}. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 11:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not an admin here (although I am on Wikibooks). Yeah, maybe I should have used {{nacmt}}, I'm sorry if it caused confusion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mrjulesd, thank you. 331dot told me to make another request, so I have, and I don't see the point in this block. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 12:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose any unblock. It seems quite clear to me that there is trolling going on (see here for a more extensive write-up), including on this very talk page. --Blablubbs|talk 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blablubbs, what exactly constitutes trolling on this talk page? AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 16:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blablubbs' writeup convinces me this is at least a WP:NOTHERE case if not socking. I too oppose any unblock here, and think that WP:SO is the way here, if there is any. JavaHurricane 07:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. See you later! AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 07:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC) (9 Sep)[reply]
Moneytrees, please reconsider this block, taking into account this discussion. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 10:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnotherEditor144&oldid=1017049419"