User talk:TheUrbanKhan

Clearing things up[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).

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

Request reason:

To be clear, I am not a sock - at least not by the definition implied by WP policy. Admittedly, about 8 or 9 years ago I had an account while I was in school but I haven't used it in donkey's years and as far as I recall it wasn't blocked. I don't even remember what it was called, Dark_Knight or something along the lines possibly - I went through a lot of change in my life so it's not on my list of priorities. I've been an IP editor (albeit on my phone) on and off for months - so not sure what I've done that's so egregious that I just get blocked indefinitely - I know I spoke with the guy who RV'd my Nvidia contribution but we buried the hatchet afterwards and cleared things up. You've just rolled back all of my contributions - why? You actually reverted the edit I and another user made to the Handheld gaming consoles article to reference the Steam Deck, does that not seem a little self-defeating? They contributed to the project nothing harmful, they improved the subject articles. It just seems like you're throwing your weight around - I've been an IP editor for months and seen this behaviour on your end and had plenty of people warn me against trying to contribute to WP because of this. I'm not here to be disruptive, I just want to make the occasional contribution where I see potential value. And, to my credit, I'm trying not to get angry here - but you're making it hard not to be. I gave my personal time to add this stuff in, not it could be thrown away for reasons I'm not entirely clear of (as I'm not a sock). To me, it feels like just another example of WP:AGF and WP:BITE disregarded and being thrown out the window.

Decline reason:

You've made the exact same edits, on the same articles. Apparently, from the same IP range. Kuru (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2021 (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.

Please, explain to me what was wrong with any of these contributions - it's just needlessly removing content. Yamlamismanagement.png

Banned editors are not welcome to edit here. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a banned editor. I haven't had an account on WP for years for crying out loud! So from my perspective, I don't see the problem with editing where appropriate - I'm not harming anyone or the project here. It only seems to be a select few who have a problem despite all the work I undertook being constructive. I feel like I'm smashing my head on a brick wall here dealing with you people. So I'll give you one more chance - what do I need to get the benefit of the doubt here?TheUrbanKhan (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here, I haven't been on WP with an account for many, many years. Please, humour me - what do you stand to lose? I haven't done anything troublesome. I am asking for the benefit of the doubt, how is that too much to ask for? I'm on a dynamic IP range that's shared with quite a lot of other users - it's the only access I have. What do I need to do to convince you here? Just explain this to me - blocks are supposed to be a preventative measure, not a punitive one. What are you trying to prevent me from doing that is harmful to the project? Because all I see are contribution rollbacks for good content. The only one being disruptive here is the administrator who reverted those works

Decline reason:

I've just blocked another rather obvious sock on duck behavior. If you are previously blocked, it is you, the individual, that is blocked, not the account. Any and all new accounts are sockpuppets and forbidden by policy. You are not allowed to edit until you successfully appeal from your original account. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Are you even reading what I said? I'm not Zombiedude! Just explain this to me - blocks are supposed to be a preventative measure, not a punitive one. What are you trying to prevent me from doing that is harmful to the project? Because all I see are contribution rollbacks for good content. The only one being disruptive here is the administrator who reverted those works

Decline reason:

First, this does not address the reason for your block. Second, even if it did, getting angry and boldfacing everything is not going to impress anyone. Third, and most importantly, as a sock of a banned editor in the eyes of the community, you must request such unblock from your main account, which we deem to be Zombiedude101z. Fourth, you are not just blocked but banned, and therefore no admin may unilaterally unblock you. Fifth, and most importantly, none of this matters since you have been told you may not appeal your ban again until 2023.

To help you with keeping to this, and also to help you stay calm, I am revoking your talk page access since this conversation can not only serve no further purpose, it never could have to begin with (sort of like, yes, I agree, smashing your head on a brick wall. So we're going to take the wall away, so you can find better things to do with your head than smash it.) — Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2021 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 47104[edit]

UTRS appeal #47104 declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]