User talk:DL6443/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for unblock on 27 December 2016

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).

DL6443 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Coffee and Huon: I will help build an encyclopaedia by joining discussion and seeking consensus, and making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. Furthermore, I believe my conduct was disruptive because I went against consensus by changing the color schemes and posing WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, and I will not change the color scheme again. Per User:Redrose64 I now know about WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:WORLDSEND, and I think that has helped me a lot to go with consensus, not against it, and stay with it. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately I have to decline this request after all. There are several reasons that in combination make me doubt unblocking you would improve the encyclopedia.

1. You said above that you will not change the color scheme again, yet despite my explicit question never mentioned what you would do if unblocked.
2. While everybody deserves a second chance, you were blocked and came right back to continue with the same problematic edits (I wasn't aware of the previous block when I pinged Coffee).
3. Coffee's instincts also carry weight.

The standard offer may be the best way forward at this point. Huon (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

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.

---

I think you'll need to comment on what you will contribute if unblocked. I also can't quite tell whether you understand why your conduct was disruptive; if you don't, it seems likely that you'll run into the same problems again on other topics. Huon (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Done. I've edited the unblock appeal. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, any objections? I'm inclined to unblock. Huon (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: I have two questions. Number one: Why don't you post on Coffee's talk page? Number two: If you are an administrator, why didn't you just unblock me? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

One, because it's helpful to keep the conversation in one place. And two, because discussing an unblock with the blocking admin is somewhere between a suggested courtesy and a requirement, particularly in non-obvious cases. Huon (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: But then I'll keep receiving unnecessary notifications every time you or Coffee posts on my talk page! SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Huon: My intuition says no on this one. (The final line on his unblock request isn't comforting either.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I have fixed my unblock appeal. Surely now it is comforting, isn't it? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think everyone deserves a second chance. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/SlitherioFan2016, 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.

DAJF (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016, I've blocked your sock account along with the IPs you've been using to edit anonymously. You may not, in any way, edit the project until you clear the block on this main account. Deceptive actions like this make it very unlikely that even a "standard offer" will be accepted in the future. Kuru (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kuru: How do I contribute constructively, though? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You do not. You are not welcome to edit here, with out without an account. Kuru (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked back at several of your target articles. It appears you've edited with 17 different IPs in the last week, and managed to get blocked 16 times causing several of the articles to be placed in protection. That's amazing. Given that the blocks are for harassment and simple vandalism, it would be fair to say you've used up a large allotment of second chances. Kuru (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kuru: That wasn't my doing. I am (in the words of Betty Logan) "an SPA whose sole agenda is altering the color schemes at content ratings articles such as "[[Motion picture content rating system]". Someone else must have been vandalising the page and I just happen to get blamed for it because they are the articles I edit. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock on 10 January 2017

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).

DL6443 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, now after my sock account 'ThisUserLikesCats2017' has been indeffed, I feel as if I have REALLY learnt my lesson. If unblocked, I will edit articles outside of Motion picture content rating system, however nothing will stop me from being bold. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. You're only making this request because you were caught. Your actions show very clearly you have no intention of adhering to Wikipedia's policies. The best you can hope for is to stop editing at all for six months and then apply under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

• Now Yamla, I DO have an intention of following Wikipedia's guidelines. However nyou are right on the fact that I was caught commiting WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, and I think the block is suitable, but I just think being indeffed is a bit too "harsh"! If unblocked I will make lots and lots of useful contributions! --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. You can demonstrate that by staying away, making zero edits, for the next six months and then applying under WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Why six? Why not three? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Six months is a minimum under WP:SO. You've been wildly abusive in your time here, so your only hope is to wait six months and then clearly show that you wouldn't repeat any of your behaviour so far. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Help me

I don't mean to interrupt my six months of zilch-editing, but I have a question. What happens if my WP:SO is rejected? Do I just wait another 6 months? Am I banned forever? What do I do if my standard offer gets rejected in July? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If the SO is rejected, you can attempt it again six months later. Beyond that, your final level of appeal is the Arbitration Committee. Note that the SO clock resets from the message above; you may not now request an unblock under the Standard Offer until July 18th, 2017. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I am doing it again, but i want to ask how I ask at the ArbCom. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You can contact ArbCom via email. The email address is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Huon (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The timer resets due to this edit. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Can you please 30-500 my talk page for 6 months? I know I reset it again, but I don't want to do it yet again. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/SlitherioFan2016, 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.

SummerPhD^v2.0 22:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)