User talk:Pegasussy

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Then I apologise for continuing when I was given the advice to stop. I acknowledge that it was disruptive to continue debating and digging the hole. I realise now that the person I reported was not in the wrong, something which I truly believed at the time. In the future I will refrain from calling anybody a "wokey" or anything else, and will not get involved in Tommy Robinson, or other political pages on wikipedia, and will stick to creating military and boxing articles like I have been doing. I would like a second chance as I am a new wikipedia user and did not fully understand the rules like I do now. I agree with what user Xxanthippe said also "I am sorry to learn that my esteemed colleague User:Martinevans123 has been tempted to behave in an unWikipedian manner, as in my few interactions with him I have found him to be knowledgeable, intelligent and congenial, even when we have not agreed. It looks as if the two editors have been goaded into making remarks that they might have regretted. I think that a boomerang would not be a good look as it would give the impression of Wikipedia cronies guarding each other's backs. It might be best to let the matter drop and hope that lessons have been learnt" Pegasussy (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to BritishSpaniard and others. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2023 (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.

If you want to be unblocked, you have to agree with what the administrators say and apologize. Even if you think you're in the right, they're not going to unblock you unless you admit that you were wrong, you're sorry, and that you won't behave the same way again. If you try to justify why you're correct, all that will do is make the administrators not want to unblock you. And they'll eventually make you take the standard offer which means waiting 6 months without editing. Just saying this from my own experience. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 00:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic6811, not helpful. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologise for continuing when I was given the advice to stop. I acknowledge that it was disruptive to continue debating and digging the hole. I realise now that the person I reported was not in the wrong, something which I truly believed at the time. In the future I will refrain from calling anybody a "wokey" or anything else, and will not get involved in Tommy Robinson, or other political pages on wikipedia, and will stick to creating military and boxing articles like I have been doing. Pegasussy (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should put that in the unblock request and remove what you had previously written. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I think it's more than likely I have identified the suspected sock based on behavioural evidence (as has the blocking admin, I imagine), and personally speaking I will not be satisfied with an unblock until it is confirmed that this user is not a sock, given the audible quacking. Even then, I still have concerns that this editor is not here to build an encyclopaedia given their polemics and general incivility towards those who don't exactly have much support for a far-right individual known for his Islamophobic views. Patient Zero^talk 01:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I never said I supported Tommy Robinson Pegasussy (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you removed my reply? Pegasussy (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to, sorry. There was an edit conflict, ie. we both responded at exactly the same time, and I forgot to resolve it by including your response under mine. Feel free to reinstate. Patient Zero^talk 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What do you mean by you have identified the suspected sock? Pegasussy (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you outright if you are BritishSpaniard, or whether you know them personally and have worked together to disrupt Wikipedia, but I think that's best left up to a CheckUser to verify and determine. Pinging blocking admin Bbb23. Patient Zero^talk 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is embarrassing to be found showing sympathy for a sock, but I did not know that at the time. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2023 (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.

GeneralNotability (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]