User talk:LookSeek30

Welcome!

Hi LookSeek30! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

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.

-- ferret (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2024 (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).

LookSeek30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay can we figure out a way to resolve this issue instead of you just constantly blocking me, despite me making good edits and causing no issues and significantly improving articles? My "suspension" was over 2 years ago. How am I supposed to even prove I can make good edits again if I just get banned automatically. Can we just fix this, like seriously? Thanks, ferret.

Decline reason:

Every single edit you make is in bad faith; see WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. To demonstrate you wish to start acting in good faith, unlike what you've been doing, read WP:SO. This requires six months with zero edits. At that point, you'll need to follow the steps outlined in WP:UNBAN and put your case to the community. No sooner than six months since your last edit, though. Yamla (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2024 (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.

To add to Yamla's comment, you have to make that appeal on your original account. You need to address not only your socking, but the reasons for your original block. Because you have socked so often, you are currently community banned, meaning the appeal will go before WP:ANI, so keep that in mind when you write it. Blocks are against a person, not an account. It's you who are blocked. Making new accounts is defacto disruption. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can I appeal the ban now on my original account? Or do I have to wait 6 months irregardless,Yamla / Ferret ? --(LookSeek30) (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely have to wait 6 months. You literally just got checkuser blocked for like the 15th time. Prove you can follow our rules. Also, please do not edit my signature. -- ferret (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was an accident moving a parentheses. Also, your initial block of me was for an unjust reason. It was over a Rumble article and it included bias in the lead. And you took my removal of it as “bias” when it was clearly bias on other’s part. That was never addressed and I never got to defend myself. Then a year later, after no behavioral problems, another account was blocked randomly. I’ll wait the 6 months no problem, but I think the initial ban I want to appeal regardless, as it was always unjust, as I believe I was attacked for some political reason, when it had nothing to do with that. So I’d like to appeal the initial ban as well, regardless of the “sock puppets” situation. I had over 1,000 edits and was an extended user, who created and improved several articles, with several big articles created by me. I have no mal-intentions. LookSeek30 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good start. You had every opportunity and ability to appeal your original block, and chose to sock instead. Socking while blocked always results in the sockpuppet accounts being blocked. I'm not sure how you're confused on this point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you appeal your original block, I'm telling you you must. I can promise you "It was unjust" isn't going to go far though, nor will claiming it was politically motivated. Recommend before you appeal, you go review the history of your original account's talk page, and the warning after warning after warning that you blanked. They'll tell you what you were doing wrong. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did appeal the original block at the start. I don't know if it was you or someone else but they were extremely rude and just told me to take a hike essentially.

Your "block" was because of this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rumble_%28company%29&oldid=1112834160 - which removed an untrue statement in the lead of the article which mentioned "far right users" when the vast majority of the users on the site aren't politically affiliated, with much of the site's users leaning left, so it was just an untrue statement, (and not even needed in the beginning of an article, it's irrelevant to the whole article altogether) and you blocked me after that, after I was unable to defend myself. That's the truth of the matter. It's ironic that you banned me for not following NPOV, but I was the one trying to preserve it. And don't just say everytime you respond to me "that won't go far," this isn't an attack on you or I'm not trying to start a problem with you or even say I have a problem with you (I don't), I'm just saying I shouldn't be blocked anyway as the reason for my original block wasn't "just." LookSeek30 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was simply the final straw. My block was because of the pattern of issues, going back for years, and the never ending stream of warnings you ignored without any change or improvement to your editing. Blocks are almost never for single edits, unless you're just being exceeding disruptive with cursing and slurs. I'm telling you "That won't go far", because you are hyper focused on the final edit that earned your block, ignoring the literal dozens of warnings you got over the years, and claiming you had no change to defense yourself when you could have posted an appeal just like you did here, but never did. That's the last I'm going to say though. We'll see how things go in six months. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2024 (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).

LookSeek30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin ferret stated I needed to have to wait 6 months from my previous suspension with no edits to begin my unblocking process. I would like to request an unblock now, as it's been over half a year now, and I'd like access back to editing. I'd appreciate it and have learned from my previous mistakes. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Stop trolling and contest the block via your original account. You'll need to be massively more convincing there. It looks like you mistakenly think just waiting six months is sufficient to address your bad behaviour. However, counting in your favour, and you are free to quote me on the following. No CU evidence of recent block evasion. Yamla (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2024 (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.