User talk:BE172-08

Please click here to add a new message!

Restoring AFD-deleted articles

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BE172-08, in utrs:54757 you were told your only pathway back to editing is the standard offer. Do you realise how the standard offer works? Per Wikipedia:Standard offer#How does it work?:

Contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via your user talk page, email, #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect or WP:UTRS).
If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (ideally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard).
Wait a few days for the discussion to conclude

Simply waiting six months and creating a new account isn't following the terms, it's sockpuppetry. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:16, 28 October 2022 (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).

BE172-08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, this is an outrageous accusation with no proof whatsoever and with no kind of discussion. I will not stand for this violation of the Wikipedia policies, and I ask that I be unblocked immediately, as there is no proof of Sockpuppetry. BE172-08 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Likely sockpuppetry based on technical data. Yamla (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2022 (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.

Yamla, how do I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? BE172-08 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The technical data, combined with your behavior makes it abundantly clear that you are indeed evading a block, so there's no real point in trying to "prove" that you are not. In your UTRS appeal in October one of your pledges was to "...completely ignore the page I was edit warring on Seneca Ridge Middle School and I will never try to edit that page again." That and your dishonesty here doesn't bode well for a WP:STANDARDOFFER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 28 October 2022 (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).

BE172-08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I ask that this block be removed considering that the evidence of sockpuppetry is very weak and is based on an edit that was made almost one year after another edit. I ask that it be removed unless you have further evidence than what you have currently, or you have solid proof of sockpuppetry. BE172-08 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You created another sock puppet, User:Breellis178. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2022 (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 isn't a court of law. The technical evidence plus WP:DUCK behavior is quite sufficient here. Also note that I've protected that redirect to prevent future attempts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 3 November 2022 (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).

BE172-08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request that OhNo It's Jamie does not review this unblock, as they obviously have a vendetta against me. I admit to Sockpuppeting as Breellis178, and that I am a sockpuppet of Ellidon 217. I ask that you give me a second chance on this account. I just want to show that I can make productive edits, and I am not as bad as everyone thinks I am. I have showed on this account and Breellis178 that I am capable of making helpful, constructive, edits. While I have had a bad past, I believe that I can have a bright future as a Wikipedia editor, and I will leave the Seneca Ridge Middle School issue alone, realizing that there is no point in continuing the dispute. If unblocked, I will make constructive edits related to Transportation, Politics, History, and Northern Virginia. I will copyedit, add links to pages, add citations, and even expand articles. I just need a second chance to do what I didn't do before, to actually be a good Wikipedia editor. I apologise for all of my previous offenses, and I promise that I will never sockpuppet, block evade, lie to administrators, edit war, or remove notices from my talk page again. I sockpuppeted because I waited for 8 months, I made the standard offer, and I was completely ignored. That does not excuse my actions in any shape or form, but I request that you have mercy on me, and unblock me on some kind of probation. I will tread very carefully, and not get involved in controversies and disputes, knowing that doing so will get me blocked with no chance of unblocking ever again. To conclude, I will change my actions and be a constructive editor to Wikipedia, but I just need a second chance. If you don't grant me a second chance, I will completely understand, and I will not try again for some time, but I ask that you do seriously consider my request.BE172-08 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to request unblock from your orignal account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 4 November 2022 (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.

Having multiple unblock requests open from different sock accounts (as well as an now-closed UTRS ticket under Ellidon217) is not a good strategy. Now that you've dropped the silly pretenses, I suggest you close both of these and appeal from your original account. I will also note here (and in future unblock requests) that in February of this year you declared "I, Ellidon217, do hereby promise and declare the following. 1. I will completely ignore the page I was edit warring on Seneca Ridge Middle School and I will never try to edit that page again," so I'm not particularly confident in your ability to drop that stick. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: I request that if you unblock me, you unblock this account specifically, as it is the account I have the most progress on. I have closed my appeals on other accounts. Also, I could not "pick up that stick" so to speak, now that the page has been restricted to admin only access. Thanks, BE172-08 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please have my talk page access returned as Ellidon217 then? BE172-08 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're familiar with WP:UTRS, as you made an unblock request their earlier this year where you promised to stay away from the Seneca Middle School page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]