User talk:S63caustakenmydude
January 2024
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
Oh hey there, traveler! Are you looking for an example that displays how Wikipedia admins have become really retarded? You are in the right place!
[edit]
S63caustakenmydude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I just created this account yesterday I have absolutely no idea who this "Donalduck13" or whatever is. It also says that "there's obvious behavior" for the person who blocked me to suggest that I'm this "Donalduck". If so, then what would this "obvious behavior"? be, cause the only thing that I've done is edit some articles yesterday, and that's literally ALL of it. Nothing wrong has been done in the edits I've made, nor have I done ANYTHING ELSE, apart from just those edits. I see no reason for the user who blocked me to do so, since I'm simply not who you are looking for, or have anything to do with whatever is going on, I'm just a dude, that made an account yesterday, and made some edits, that's all. What, out of anything I've done since I created this account, would make you think I'm this donald, it just doesn't make sense at all, I simply edited some articles that needed to be edited, that's all. You can literally check all my activity by yourself, and prove anything I'm saying. S63caustakenmydude (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed to {{no need to disclose}} at least, so I'll go block that account, too. Yamla (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2024 (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.
- It's perfectly allowed to have another account in Wikipedia, and yes, in fact I can confirm that the other account you mention is mine {{No need to disclose}}, but the thing is that I'm not the person you're accusing me of being "Donald" so per the Wikipedia rules, you must not block me, cause I'm not the same, and I have NOT used multi accounting to bypass a block, cause again, I'm NOT him, and everything's perfectly fine with both of my accounts, so you literally are prohibited from blocking me, given the facts I just mentioned. What's even more ridiculous is that you can't even provide one reason why you think I'm him. It's clear to me that you have reviewed my IP in one way or the other, so it should be easy, shouldn't it? You should be able to check the IP of Donald, and compare it to mine, and it must be impossible that we have the same IP, cause we are simply not the same. You are acting without reason, and based on extremely poor judgement, accusing me of being someone I'm not, so there's literally no reason to block me. The fact that you can't even provide a reason to decline my request, means that you straight up don't have enough gray matter to figure out a reason I should be blocked. I was reviewing the edits by the person you are accusing me of being, and it's rather extremely stupid, that if someone edits the article that person has relationship to (which in this case they apparently are any articles related to Colombians descended of several ethnic groups), then it must mean that everyone who edits them is an alt of his? What if it's someone that doesn't have anything to do with him? It doesn't make any sense, and it's not even remotely a way to figure out who's an alt of his, also his English is horrid, you can't even think on analyzing and comparing that, can you? Your person could very well be a synonym of uselessness. If this is how the new Wikipedia admins execute judgements, then you might as well go make some paper folding since it requires the same intellectual ability you, and the person who blocked me initially, are showcasing: none. S63caustakenmydude (talk)
S63caustakenmydude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Is this how the new admins behave? Acting entirely without a bit of reasoning? S63caustakenmydude (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2024 (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.
- Oh really? You don't know? maybe you would know if you were able to READ just above you.
S63caustakenmydude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Just so in case the admin who looks at this is too lazy to read just like the examples above. If whoever read this, DOES read what's above, well, congrats, you are an exemption, and a much more needed one, unfortunately I'm not taking any chances after the ridiculous lazy response above me, so here it goes: I just created this account yesterday I have absolutely no idea who this "Donalduck13" or whatever is. It also says that "there's obvious behavior" for the person who blocked me to suggest that I'm this "Donalduck". If so, then what would this "obvious behavior"? be, cause the only thing that I've done is edit some articles yesterday, and that's literally ALL of it. Nothing wrong has been done in the edits I've made, nor have I done ANYTHING ELSE, apart from just those edits. I see no reason for the user who blocked me to do so, since I'm simply not who you are looking for, or have anything to do with whatever is going on, I'm just a dude, that made an account yesterday, and made some edits, that's all. What, out of anything I've done since I created this account, would make you think I'm this donald, it just doesn't make sense at all, I simply edited some articles that needed to be edited, that's all. You can literally check all my activity by yourself, and prove anything I'm saying.
2. Reply to "admin" Yamla who is definitely not up for the task of being an Admin, unless you all have accepted this sort of "Admin" behavior. Which is absolutely crap.
This is my reply, as you can see just above, in this talk page:
It's perfectly allowed to have another account in Wikipedia, and yes, in fact I can confirm that the other account you mention is mine {{no need to disclose}}, but the thing is that I'm not the person you're accusing me of being "Donald" so per the Wikipedia rules, you must not block me, cause I'm not the same, and I have NOT used multi accounting to bypass a block, cause again, I'm NOT him, and everything's perfectly fine with both of my accounts, so you literally are prohibited from blocking me, given the facts I just mentioned. What's even more ridiculous is that you can't even provide one reason why you think I'm him. It's clear to me that you have reviewed my IP in one way or the other, so it should be easy, shouldn't it? You should be able to check the IP of Donald, and compare it to mine, and it must be impossible that we have the same IP, cause we are simply not the same. You are acting without reason, and based on extremely poor judgement, accusing me of being someone I'm not, so there's literally no reason to block me. The fact that you can't even provide a reason to decline my request, means that you straight up don't have enough gray matter to figure out a reason I should be blocked. I was reviewing the edits by the person you are accusing me of being, and it's rather extremely stupid, that if someone edits the article that person has relationship to (which in this case they apparently are any articles related to Colombians descended of several ethnic groups), then it must mean that everyone who edits them is an alt of his? What if it's someone that doesn't have anything to do with him? It doesn't make any sense, and it's not even remotely a way to figure out who's an alt of his, also his English is horrid, you can't even think on analyzing and comparing that, can you? Your person could very well be a synonym of uselessness. If this is how the new Wikipedia admins execute judgements, then you might as well go make some paper folding since it requires the same intellectual ability you, and the person who blocked me initially, are showcasing: none. That's all. I hope you guys don't keep blocking people who have got nothing to do with whatever you are accusing them of. And just to let you know, there was a time in which Wikipedia admins where able to judge fairly alright, and with honesty. What a shameS63caustakenmydude (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests with personal attacks are not considered. Insulting the people you are asking to unblock you is not a good strategy. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2024 (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.
- Mad because you got 2 neurons left?
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.