User talk:Shitooz

April 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is Wikipedia, a collaborative and verifiable body of work. I am speaking for it. Someuser Sitush (talk · contribs) is deleting citations on kayastha page in the last 24 hours and vandalising. He is putting out his opinions. He has massively modified a long standing version. He is cherrypicking only citations that support his opinions and deleting many many others. He is not discussing on talk page and terrifying other other editors with blocks treats. Administrators should interfere. The page must be restored so that all citations must stay and the reader form his own opinions. Some of the vandalism are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952415403 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952110938 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952111076 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952142058 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952110187 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/952116428 Since then he has edited close to 100 times.

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 22 April 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.

You cannot participate by proxy; you must get unblocked first. You are allowed to edit this page only to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have understood. I must disengage with other editors. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. But also investigate my serious concern.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reason for your block. See WP:GAB to understand how to write an acceptable unblock request. Any further instances of you complaining about other editors in your unblock requests and you'll lose access to your talk page. Yamla (talk) 13:13, 22 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will only contribute usefully, I amy be blocked in case I do not. Shitooz (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not even mentioned the reason for your block yet, never mind addressing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 22 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I dont know the reason. No reason forwarded. I just cant edit. Can you inform me.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:30, 22 April 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.

Shitooz (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I dont have multiple accounts, only this account. I will not abuse, if thats a problem. Block me if I abuse again.

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:10, 22 April 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.

Shitooz (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not listening to us, I have decided to remove your talk page access. Your appeal is still open, but if it is declined, you will need to use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how socks blatantly lie to us. This one is part of a sock farm of around 10 at least. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]