User talk:PeopleEater143

PeopleEater143, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PeopleEater143! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kellymoat (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not using multiple IPs, and if I am, prove it. PeopleEater143 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at I Am (Leona Lewis song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. And several other articles. You are removing/changing sourced information. Continue, and you shall be reported for vandalism and potentially blocked. — Calvin999 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Note

Made a quick move to your comment here and appended a ping to Bbb23 for you (so that he knows you replied to his message). --JustBerry (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18519 was submitted on Jun 14, 2017 12:35:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2017 (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).

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was told to submit my appeal here. I honestly forgot the reason why I was blocked in the first place, but seeing as it has been nearly a year since I was blocked, couldn't I be given a second chance? PeopleEater143 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Second chance? No, not any time soon, seeing as you've been evading your block as recently as today. —DoRD (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (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.

But how long was the original block supposed to be? I thought it was over. PeopleEater143 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2017 (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).

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please tell me how long the original block for this account was? Because I keep getting told that because I've evaded my block, I can't be given a second chance, but if the original block has ended, why does it matter? However, it seems that this account has been blocked indefinitely, so telling me that I can't get a second chance because I've been evading my block is kind of dumb, because am I supposed to wait indefinitely before asking for a second chance? And if not, can someone give me a set time to wait? PeopleEater143 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is, and has always been, indefinite. As you have engaged in block evasion as recently as today and therefore should not be trusted at this time, the earliest we would consider unblocking you is six months from now, under the terms of WP:SO. That assumes no more edits between now and December 14, 2017. Zero edits. Yamla (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2017 (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.

Ok, so if I stop editing after this until December 14, you will unblock me? PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. What I said is if you stop editing, you can apply under WP:SO. You'd still have to convince us you understood why your behaviour so far has been totally inappropriate and convince us you'd never do anything like that again. And we'll check to make sure, unlike today's unblock requests, you haven't been engaging in block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20497 was submitted on Jan 31, 2018 23:26:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20498 was submitted on Feb 01, 2018 00:14:39. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20499 was submitted on Feb 01, 2018 01:37:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

Discussion closed. PeopleEater143 engaged in naked block evasion even with this discussion about unblocking them still open. I don't think I seen such brazen IDGAF behavior in at least a week. I'm done and will be resetting the block to noon on the day after the Second Coming. Also shutting down both TPA and email access. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved from User talk:Ad Orientem

– Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am PeopleEater123. Before you go ahead and block me for the umpteenth time, please let me explain what is going on. So I was blocked a long time ago (like, years). I talked to someone about when I could come back, and they told me to wait 6 months, then put in a request to be unblocked. I did this, but my request was ignored. I'm not sure if this is because during the 6 months other people made accounts that people thought were me, but I swear on my life I did not edit for 6 months. At this point, there's no point in using my PeopleEater123 account, because I can't do anything with it. What would you suggest I do? I have been trying to make factual edits, but people like Ss112 keep reverting my edits even though my edits are correct. AmIAGirl3 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It basically feels like I've been lied to. Like, even though I did what I was told would get me unblocked, it didn't, and no one cares. I've never tried to do anything that could get me blocked. The thing I got blocked for in the first place was violating the 3RR rule, but I didn't know about it, and no one gave me any warning; they just blocked me. I don't know many of the rules here, but I am willing to learn, and if given a warning I would stop doing whatever I'm doing that is wrong. I genuinely mean that. I have good intentions, it just seems like people are against me for some reason. AmIAGirl3 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok block evasion is never an acceptable recourse. I am going to move this to User talk:PeopleEater143 and we will continue the discussion there.

It was not "years" ago they were blocked, it was 2017. They very clearly edited during that time; there's a long trail of socks that were reported and blocked because they just couldn't stay away from Wikipedia. PeopleEater143: your request being denied doesn't mean you get to evade your block. You just edit warred on several articles earlier today and have clearly expressed an intention to continue evading your still-existing block and doing what you like because you think you have a right to edit. You don't, unless you are unblocked. And that's unlikely given your long history of socking, disruption, abusive edit summaries, and edit warring, all of which you have done again today (proof you have not changed). You were very clearly warned over and over on various IP addresses before you used PeopleEater143 not to make more than three reverts. You know your way around here, don't try and feign ignorance like a newbie to get sympathy. You will not be unblocked basically ever with your behaviour since you were blocked, so yeah, nice try. Ss112 20:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proof you did not wait six months is partially listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143/Archive, all the way from January (when this account was unblocked) to June 2017. After that, if I discovered socks, I reported them at WP:ANV or straight to Ad Orientem's talk page. I could pull up all the ones from late 2017 and 2018 you've used and abused 3RR, disrupted and been snarky in edit summaries with if I needed to. Editors blocked for edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppeting will not be unblocked because they have proved they cannot edit without disrupting articles. Ss112 20:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok I am going to ping the previously involved admins so we can have a discussion about this. Courtesy ping Widr, DoRD, Yamla. My own take is that given the level of socking that has indisputably occurred I would view this as a de-facto CBAN, which means I would not support unblocking w/o the community's consent. But I would like other opinions on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already been a huge waste of everybody's time with the amount of sockpuppets they've used that have had to keep being reported (mostly by me). Admins would be doing a huge disservice to Wikipedia if they ignored such a long history of a bad attitude, harassing others, breaking 3RR and using accounts to get around their block and thought it was time or right to unblock this user. I'd honestly love to see what uninvolved admins and all those at ANI would say if this was taken there. They'd be laughed at for even thinking they'd get unblocked. Ss112 20:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a certain point, users have indisputably proved they cannot get along with others and cannot edit without disrupting articles. This user with all their sockpuppet accounts has proven that beyond a doubt. I urge any admins to deny any requests outright. Ss112 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of capital punishment either in the real world or on Wikipedia and have only rarely supported the Bell, book, and candle response to editors. As far as I can tell their editing has not been deliberately malicious. So there is that. But given the very real and extensive history of block evasion I can't see an unblock request going through w/o at least 12 months of staying away from here that would have to be affirmed by a CU. Again though that's my for the moment take and I am open to any input from other admins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't knowingly breaking 3RR, disrupting articles to get their way and socking be considered "deliberately malicious" by some? Just because they didn't insert vandalism doesn't make their editing not malicious—there's different types of malice. This user would never be able to stay away from Wikipedia for 12 months. Any time a pop music project comes out or makes the news they pop right back up with their inimitable bad attitude and characteristic edit summaries. Ss112 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is a difference between disruptive behavior, which that certainly is, and malicious editing which is more along the lines of deliberate vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their being able to stay away for 12 months or any period of time will never happen—they'll just try to get better at not being detected if they say they will stay away. As it stands, I don't see any reasonably informed admin unblocking them as is—their appeal has now been denied, anyway. Ss112 21:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23150 was submitted on Nov 05, 2018 20:46:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access has not been revoked. You can edit your talk page. The UTRS unblock request is unnecessary given that we are talking about this here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Your UTRS appeal has been closed only on the basis that your talk page access remains in place. The correct place to lodge your unblock request is here. Please don't file anymore unblock requests via UTRS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PeopleEater143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23153 was submitted on Nov 06, 2018 00:42:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. I think it's time for chronic liar/incurable sockpuppet PeopleEater143 to have a (temporary) UTRS ban. Nobody is going to unblock you without reviewing your case, "dude". @Ad Orientem: Check this out—they're still going! Ss112 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user has been engaging in continued block evasion, including in April, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]