User talk:BlackWidowMovie0

This user has alternative accounts named

PhilCoulson20, BlackWidowMovie0000Editor, Slykos.

Request to edit from this account[edit]

Per your note here, if you have lost access to your master account (i.e. User:PhilCoulson20), you can use this account as the block on your main account has expired. Due to the history of disruption with your previous account, and your failed clean start, I strongly suggest that you provide a link to your former account on your userpage as described at WP:ALTACCN (These are userboxes you can use).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Last thing. If you check my userpage, I'm a Wikipedia Admin hopeful, and the guide says to ask to be adopted by a more experienced user, through WP:ADOPT. I was wondering if possibly you'd be open to the possibility of you adopting me? You have experience, and I'm pretty sure you don't take on many adoptees, but I think you can help me, I can learn, and we can work together. If you don't think this is a good idea, could you propose an amendment, or something different, rather than immediately shooting it down? I just want to be successful here on Wikipedia. Thanks, BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia plate is full with admin/checkuser/oversight duties. My advice though, is that you need to put your pursuit of adminship off entirely until you have a significant history of constructive editing under your belt and are able to demonstrate a depth of knowledge in admin areas. Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates speaks to this more.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo There are several areas of Wikipedia editing. Counter-vandalism, creating and maintaining pages, technical stuff, creating bots (in progress), etc. Which should I focus on? I'm thinking counter-vandalism, at WP:CVUA, but I could be wrong. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I happened to be on WP:RCP, and followed the TP link to here.I think that joining the CVUA is an excellent idea! However, you probably won't be adopted for a program until you have at least 200 edits to the mainspace. Hope this helped! Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 20:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Since PhilCoulson20 has autoconfirmed, and extended-confirmed, could I have those rights as well, since if I had resumed editing on that account, I would have had those permissions? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 20:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added confirmed, but you only had 316 edits with your PhilCoulson20 account and were not extended confirmed. If you believe you should still be given the extended confirmed permission, you can request it at WP:PERM, but I advise against it. Just concentrate on making good edits that improve the encyclopedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I was thinking not ext-con right now, but if I reach 500 edits before 30 days, then possibly. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 16:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Also, I am not confirmed, or it's not showing up in the log, and not in preferences. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 16:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, BlackWidowMovie0 seems to have accidentally confirmed that they are Slykos on their user page, an editor blocked by for CIR issues, including creating a pseudo endorsed but-not-clerk template for SPIs, applying for SPI clerkship when clearly not ready, applying for autopatrolled having created 0 articles, reverted an IP removing unsourced content and then telling them to contact the WMF if they want the material to be removed for privacy reasons. This is no longer a proper clean start because they once again socked on Slykos and they are now block evading from there with two declined unblock requests in which they denied socking. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I took some of their JS, and some of their userpage. That doesn't make them me. In addition to that, I did none of this. "Creating a pseudo endorsed but-not-clerk template for SPIs, applying for SPI clerkship when clearly not ready, applying for autopatrolled having created 0 articles, reverted an IP removing unsourced content and then telling them to contact the WMF if they want the material to be removed for privacy reasons." I researched any and all users affiliated with the CVU, and the SVT, then settled on copying a bit of what their user and subpages were. I have a bit from a bunch of things. And, if you haven't noticed, I was here first. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you just confirmed it again with your edits on User talk:SD0001, it couldn't be clearer, and now you're trying to deny it? Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: That was encouraged by other users, and the RfA was submitted weeks ago, as I am creating a bot. If you looked deeper, you will see that there is reasoning for every one of my actions. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 23:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg, fuck, sorry, you said Test Wikipedia, and I thought you said The Test Wiki, I still think it's suspicious, however. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, Dylsss, I have just been accused of creating and operating 61 accounts on Miraheze, and 5 accounts on Fandom, both of which have proven to be false, so you'll excuse me, if I come off as irritated. In reviewing SPI guidelines, I have found that there needs to be more proof that it being suspicious, as anyone can claim that. I have read, re-read, and re-read yet again Wikipedia policies since my block on October 22. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 23:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this account, created an hour and 40 minutes after Slykos was blocked, which has a copy of their user page on both Wikipedia and Meta and their common.js, you've now gone and applied for global rename, showing the same over enthusiastic nature, it's kinda hard to believe. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I had a calendar on my Notes. When I felt I was ready, I would enter back and request this. I can provide proof of such a calendar, if you would request it. I don't have the same exact userpage, different, actually. I don't have their same userboxes, as you can see, I am lacking of quite a few features. I won't note them, as that would take too long, but I might point out that Slykos isn't active on Miraheze or Fandom, neither on the Test Wikipedia. We have very different styles, as they try to assume good faith, whereas I do, but I don't give out 4-5 warnings, as this user does, from studying their contributions. We have different writing patterns, and I applied for Global Rename, as I have experience in that field. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 23:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slykos also had I'm a fan of all things Disney on their user page, you seem to be interested in Disney/Marvel, and they randomly added {{Unsigned}} to a three year old discussion on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 5), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. pages seemed to have been heavily edited by your accounts. Maybe this is all a coincidence, but I think there's enough evidence to run CheckUser here. Apologies if I sound overzealous, I couldn't help but see the similarities between these accounts. For context about the Test Wiki thing, it was that Slykos had created a request for adminship on The Test Wiki, it sounded like you were asking someone to review it, but this was not the case as you were referring to Test Wikipedia. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I wasn't aware "The Test Wiki" existed until now. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 5, now that I check, seems to have been them patrolling pages, so that's that. I am a fan of Disney, but not enough to publicly broadcast it on my userpage. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I would also like to point out that even if this is an alt of PhilCoulson20, it's not abuse of multiple accounts, nor sock-puppetry, for any account, as PhilCoulson20 wasn't blocked at the time of account creation, per the log. It would be an alternate account, as the "master account" wasn't blocked. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 01:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what I am saying is that if you do own the Slykos account, the use of this account is now evading it's blocked, blocks apply to individuals, not accounts, and you may not use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny. Arguably, the use of the Slykos account in itself would have avoided scrutiny because it was not disclosed and your previous accounts were under scrutiny, and it would appear as another clean start, however you cannot conceal clean starts. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 15:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: That's what I'm saying. I have disclosed all previous accounts to WP:ARBCOM, and I was under the impression that users are allowed to edit if the "master account" is not blocked. This needs to be clarified, as it's incredibly confusing. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I'm saying, that in the end of all this, it may just boil down to a lack of clarification in Wikipedia policy. There is nowhere that says you are "required" to disclose all previous accounts, although it's strongly recommended. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BADSOCK, you cannot evade blocks with alternative accounts, if you do own the Slykos account, the use of this account now constitutes sockpuppetry, regardless of whether the main account is blocked or not (though if a sock was blocked indefinitely and the master blocked temporarily, creating an alternative account after the master block has expired would be fine). You cannot create Slykos, not disclose previous accounts, have it blocked, and then create BlackWidowMovie0 and not disclose that Slykos is your account, this process is in itself evading scrutiny and evading the block of Slykos. No, you do not strictly have to disclose alternative accounts if the use is legitimate. Here, not disclosing has allowed you to evade scrutiny, therefore the use is not legitimate. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 17:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: You're confusing me here, as you said "though if a sock was blocked indefinitely and the master blocked temporarily, creating an alternative account after the master block has expired would be fine", and then said "if you do own the Slykos account, the use of this account now constitutes sockpuppetry, regardless of whether the main account is blocked or not". Is it that if the main account isn't blocked presently, even if socks are, then you can create another account, or is it that if Slykos is blocked, then it's a sock, because if I own Slykos, then it's a sock, and would fall under "though if a sock was blocked indefinitely and the master blocked temporarily, creating an alternative account after the master block has expired would be fine". Can you clarify? This, this is why people get confused. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Slykos was blocked to prevent disruption, and they said that they were supposedly a new user, there was no master to block and the block was aimed at the person operating the account. In the case of your old account BlackWidowMovie0000Editor, it was blocked indefinitely in violation of WP:VANISH and for continuing previous disruption and the master account was blocked for 1 week, the 1 week block was aimed at the person operating the account. I should clarify that this is more about the avoiding scrutiny part of sockpuppetry rather than the block evasion part as not disclosing previous accounts from Slykos or now is what makes this block evasion. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylsss: I wasn't aware of that. I don't remember seeing that in WP:SOCK, but I'll check again. I am always editing in good faith, but with the cases of PhilCoulson20 and BWM0000Editor, I didn't know how to edit, and people didn't reply to my talk page messages asking them to adopt me. Even in the case of this account, I asked for adoption from an admin, and they just referred me to WP:TASKS. I ask for help in guiding me through Wikipedia for a little bit, but I've had users decline me everywhere, so I'm left to trudge through it on my own. You can see how this would be an issue, right? Even, Ponyo above declined (although in good reasoning), and I have nowhere to figure it out, as policy will never compare to human interaction and help. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 18:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the bot you operate[edit]

Which one is it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: BlackWidowMovie0-BOT. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it's just not that often that someone only 3 months into editing has a bot going. I noticed that it's not gone through any approvals yet. What did you have in mind for it to do? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: Counter-vandalism. I'm working with Miraheze System Administrators on developing the bot right now, so it'll be put through trials when done. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

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)[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).

BlackWidowMovie0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was initially blocked for disruptive editing, but I didn't know how to edit, and I got declined everywhere for adoption. I request unblocking on the conditions here.

1) Before editing further, I request adoption from a user, for them to help me conform to Wikipedia guidelines. I have requested it in the past, but have gotten declined, so I tried to push through (see discussion with Dylsss above. I will edit in my personal sandbox only, until adoption is complete, or if the adopter requests me editing in a mainspace page.
2) I will not request permissions anywhere on enwiki for at the very minimum, (45) calendar days, so that would place me at Thursday, February 4, 2021. For adminship, (377) calendar days, which is Saturday, January 1, 2022.

2a) I will clear it with at least (2) administrators on enwiki before posting an official request.

3) I am indefinitely restricted to 2 accounts, BlackWidowMovie0, and BlackWidowMovie0-BOT (for bot purposes ONLY, when approved).
4) (optional) Before unblock, I am subjected to a (5) question long quiz on Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:EDIT, WP:SOCK, and WP:DISRUPT.

Any restrictions wanting to be added here by administrators can be posted below.

5) If restriction 1 is violated more than (3) times, I am subjected to a (90) day block. If restriction 2 is violated, I am subjected to blocks from all permission pages for an indefinite amount of time, with appeals not allowed for (30) calendar days. If restriction 3 is violated, I am subjected to a indefinite block with no appeals for (60) calendar days. Any complaint for a violation of rest. 3, has to be confirmed by a CheckUser, to confirm, and not unfairly block me, or another user.

I submit my appeal, in the hopes that instead of immediately declining this request (if not good enough), proposing an amendment to this. Thank you. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 18:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 20 December 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.

Added Comments By Admins/BlackWidowMovie0/Dylsss[edit]

Pinging @AmandaNP:. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 18:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping me, but no, and I won't be responding further. You actively evaded a block I put down for good reason, you won't even take responsibility for the sockpuppetry and you are trying to set the terms of the unblock. This is not how this works. Try WP:SO. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: It's what I did on Miraheze, and to that point, I am setting proposals for unblocks, as I think that otherwise admins would decline. I am not "setting terms", just proposing something. I take responsibility for the sockpuppetry, and everything. @Dylsss: You are also welcome to participate in the discussion here, even though you're not an admin, since you are involved. If an admin has an objection to this, then post a message here, and that's that. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Miraheze, and admins will have no problem declining even with your overcomplicated terms. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: I realize that, but I hope by putting forth ideas, they might see that I am trying to be helpful, and grant an unblock in good faith. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 18:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't unblock you, therefore there is not much use in commenting here, I will say that I think the WP:Standard offer is the best route to being unblocked. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

BlackWidowMovie0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I've been blocked for, as illustrated above, in disruptive editing, and sockpuppetry. I won't cause disruption or damage, and will make useful contributions, such as recent changes patrolling. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia because I have learned, and with this account I have only made constructive contributions. I would request adoption from an admin, if they have time, as they have the most experience. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've indicated you'll pursue the route of WP:SO no sooner than six months from today. That's probably your only viable option at this point. Yamla (talk) 20:05, 20 December 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.

@GeneralNotability and Primefac:. Can you review this? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, GeneralNotability, and AmandaNP: I'll go with the WP:SO route. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 19:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I need to speak with you immediately, on Discord or IRC, in confidentiality. This matter concerns a possible abuse of multiple accounts by an active CheckUser, and it's crucial this be resolved as fast as possible. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 00:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Could my user subpages be restored as well, as they contain my common.js, and my twinkleoptions.js? They were deleted in error. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually have evidence of abuse of multiple accounts by an active CheckUser, please email the Arbitration Committee. Once you're eligible for the standard offer, that will also be your best option for getting unblocked too (at which time your subpages can be restored). For now, I've revoked your talk page access, as this conversation is having diminishing returns. – bradv🍁 05:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For prosperity: This user claimed they lost access to their original account, which is why they needed to registered a new one. They were already known to have a previous sock that had been blocked. In good faith by Ponyo, this new account was allowed, and when I questioned that (not seeing the interactions with Ponyo), the master was requested to be blocked as abandoned (Which Ponyo did). What the user didn't disclose, was that they had been blocked (just before registering this account) on an undisclosed account by Amanda, who later checkusered and confirmed all four accounts. The idea that the user has lost access to the master should now be considered untrustworthy, and I recommend that any SO attempt be required to occur at the master. The user's issues with honesty should be severely questioned at that time. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]