User talk:Slykos

Nomination for deletion of Template:Endorsed-user

Template:Endorsed-user has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. You can use CheckUser to confirm. I am new, I just spent the first 4 days getting familiar with how Wikipedia works. As GeneralNotability said here, Clerk note: The evidence provided isn't sufficiently conclusive to justify checkuser, much less a block. We don't checkuser people for "looking suspicious." Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC). There is no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts here. Also, there was no block notice, and that is mandatory in WP:BLOCKING. -- Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This doesn't address any of the behaviour for which you were blocked. Cabayi (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (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.

@AmandaNP: Pinging AmandaNP as they are the blocking admin. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for "disruptive editing", I apologize for that, am requesting a second chance. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 22:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per your discussion with ToBeFree below, you are either outright trolling or not able to contribute productively at this time.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 10 December 2020 (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.

Hm; that's very unspecific. I guess I'd decline it, but perhaps I'm too involved. I'll ask, though:

A second chance to clerk SPI cases? A second chance to tell users to contact the WMF when they have a concern about your reverts? A second chance to request permissions without meeting the requirements? Or perhaps a second chance with a topic ban from anything but non-reverting article editing and content discussion?

And I'll note that the standard offer exists, and that your block is limited to the English Wikipedia.

No comment regarding the sockpuppetry concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: A second chance to clerk SPI cases? A second chance to tell users to contact the WMF when they have a concern about your reverts? A second chance to request permissions without meeting the requirements? Or perhaps a second chance with a topic ban from anything but non-reverting article editing and content discussion?

I never did any of that. I would like the standard offer, although a speedier version of it, if at all possible. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 21:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess the following links will be more helpful to the next reviewer than my hopefully understandable expression of astonishment.

1. Special:Diff/992717359, Special:Diff/993122122, Template:Endorsed-user, Special:Diff/993095752, Special:Diff/992754799 (debatable common mistake, but the checkmark goes further than most accidental replies in the wrong section), Special:AbuseLog/28348356 (Archiving? I hadn't even seen this), Special:AbuseLog/28347332, Special:AbuseLog/28347301, Special:AbuseLog/28329098
2. Special:Diff/991946197 regarding Special:Diff/991940173
3. Special:Diff/991464001, (Special:Diff/991815830), Special:Diff/991866238, Special:Diff/992115430, Special:Diff/992714993
4. I had hoped this would stick out as a proposal, but I take the idea back.

"I never did any of this" is as accurate as "impeccable track record", and requesting a "speedier version" of the standard offer is perhaps the most counterproductive imaginable proposal after a block for doing things too early. On the contrary, I'm not sure if an entire year would be sufficient to learn proper self-evaluation in such a severe case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree and Ponyo: I'd like to think that it's the latter, that I don't know how to contribute well. I probably should have waited, and requested an Adopt-A-User. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 23:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:PhilCoulson20 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilCoulson20. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)