User talk:JohnT122

Archives of this page
1 2 3 4
5

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).

JohnT122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made zero attacks on editors of Wikipedia. I understand why my edits have been assumed to be attacking, but I am helping to make Wikipedia a safer place for all. JohnT122 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 20 May 2020 (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.

Do you still deny that this is your account?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That account is not mine. JohnT122 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does creating an autobiography, then filing a spurious SPI report against the admin who declined your spurious AIV report make Wikipedia a safer place? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and 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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Prove that I wrote an autobiography.

The user was a sockpuppet, and yes, quick deletion counts as vandalism for me. JohnT122 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove that, but I can't imagine anyone else besides the subject creating such an article. The likelihood of a biography being created by the subject of the biography is inversely proportional to the actual notability of the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading and viewing his content, as well as other publications mentioning him, I had determined that the subject was noteworthy enough to write an article. JohnT122 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS #31032

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31032 is now closed. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin on UTRS: user has continued to sock as recent as yesterday (see deleted contributions). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]