User talk:Youngodin

Youngodin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Youngodin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfair block

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).

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

Request reason:

My account was unfairly blocked. I seem to have been targeted for harassment by User:Atlantic306 and administrator User:Bbb23 because I voted to delete an article. This administrator blocked my account and reversed most of my edits; you may not agree with my edits, but they clearly weren't anything that would be grounds for a block. The reason given for the block is the false accusation that I'm a sock puppet of User:Sdc3000; I'm not associated with this account. I'm a victim of an abuse of power so my account should be unblocked. Youngodin (talk) 1:20 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Technical and behavioral evidence confirms that you are SThompson. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2017 (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.

@Bbb23: I can't see any behavioral evidence of connection. Are you positive about this? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: See this. There's more, but that's more than enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I missed that. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair block

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).

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

Request reason:

My account was unfairly blocked. I seem to have been targeted for harassment by User:Atlantic306 and administrator User:Bbb23 because I voted to delete an article. This administrator blocked my account and reversed most of my edits; you may not agree with my edits, but they clearly weren't anything that would be grounds for a block. The reason given for the block is the false accusation that I'm a sock puppet of User:Sdc3000; I'm not associated with this account. I'm a victim of an abuse of power so my account should be unblocked.

There is clear evidence of collusion between User:Atlantic306 and User:Bbb23 to influence the outcome of Afd discussions. Here [1] Atlantic306 asks Bbb23 to block my account because I voted to delete an article and nominated another for deletion and Bbb23 obliges. Apparently anyone who wants to delete an article about someone with autism will be said to be 'following the same pattern of being a SPA for nominating articles about people with aspergers/autism for deletion' and be blocked. On this article [2] that I nominated for deletion Atlantic306 voted keep and the block on my account damaged my credibility causing others to vote keep; there is a clear ulterior motive here for the block. On this one [3] I voted delete and Atlantic306 voted keep; Bbb23 removed my vote. After blocking my account Bbb23 reversed most of my edits; this is not standard procedure and is evidence of a personal vendetta. In the last unblock request Bbb23 said that I was User:SThompson yet I was blocked for supposedly being User:Sdc3000!? You can't even keep your story straight! This is clearly bogus and my account should be unblocked. Youngodin (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Conspiracy theory. Bbb23 merely pointed at technical match with another sock of Sdc3000. Max Semenik (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account was unfairly blocked. I seem to have been targeted for harassment by User:Atlantic306 and administrator User:Bbb23 because I voted to delete an article. This administrator blocked my account and reversed most of my edits; you may not agree with my edits, but they clearly weren't anything that would be grounds for a block. The reason given for the block is the false accusation that I'm a sock puppet of User:Sdc3000; I'm not associated with this account. I'm a victim of an abuse of power so my account should be unblocked. :There is clear evidence of collusion between Atlantic306 and Bbb23 to influence the outcome of Afd discussions. Here [4] Atlantic306 asks Bbb23 to block my account because I voted to delete an article and nominated another for deletion and Bbb23 obliged despite lack of evidence. This is not standard procedure for WP:CHECK. Why wouldn't Atlantic306 follow standard procedure and instead specifically request that Bbb23 do it? Maybe because they knew Bbb23 would comply and another administrator probably wouldn't? Apparently anyone who wants to delete an article about someone with autism will be said to be 'following the same pattern of being a SPA for nominating articles about people with aspergers/autism for deletion' and be blocked by Bbb23. On this article [5] that I nominated for deletion Atlantic306 voted keep and the block on my account damaged my credibility causing others to vote keep; there is a clear ulterior motive here for the block. On this one [6] I voted delete and Atlantic306 voted keep; Bbb23 removed my vote. After blocking my account Bbb23 reversed most of my edits; this isn't standard procedure and is evidence of a personal vendetta. This is clearly bogus and my account should be unblocked. ::Contrary to claims made in the last request, this is not a conspiracy theory; look at the evidence! There isn't any other explanation for this unusual behavior that benefits Atlantic306's agenda. It also seems to be claimed that I'm a sock puppet of a sock puppet? How is that even possible? :::I should at least be allowed to make an arbitration request, seeing as there is evidence of abuse by Bbb23 and Atlantic306 that resulted in my account being blocked. Youngodin (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request is just not plausible. Nothing is stopping you from contacting WP:ARBCOM, however. Yamla (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2017 (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.

I've revoked your access to this page because of repeated abusive unblock requests. See WP:UTRS for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]