Sheldybett

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idles (band)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idles (band). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 29476

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #29476 was submitted on 2020-03-16 03:33:22. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 35034

This user has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #35034 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

restoring TPA

after discussion with blocking admin and check user at UTRS appeal #35034 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to editing

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ladies and Gentleman, I would like the community to repeal the block. Since I have the talk page restored, I would be sorry for socking which I promise to never do that again. Sincerely. Sheldybett (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This doesn't come close to addressing the problems. At a minimum, I'd like to see you apologise for and denounce your homophobia. You also haven't agreed to any sort of topic ban, as discussed at UTRS. Nor have you indicated what constructive edits you'd make. I'll warn you, you should make your next unblock request count because given your history of disruption, you'll likely only get one more chance to make a compelling request. Yamla (talk) 13:07, 2 October 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.

@Yamla: I am so sorry for being disruptive too much on editing and sockpuppetry that lead me to a checkuser block about a year ago which I was in limbo for a year until my talk page being restored at UTRS, plus I will criticise for homophobic views on Wikipedia for being silly and not creditable, and finally I will agree on my topic ban on AfD which I promise until I appeal it at WP:AN someday. Sheldybett (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere near sufficient. You are welcome to make another unblock request but I have to warn you, there's basically no chance of it being accepted, based on what you've written so far. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: What does suffient mean? Sheldybett (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the definition of sufficient. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Sorry for inconvenience that has caused, but I have promise to not creating anymore sockpuppetry accounts. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere near sufficient to address the multiple problems here. You are free to request an unblock. I will oppose it, but it will be reviewed by another administrator. --Yamla (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If I may bring up a side issue... I've had this user on my watchlist for a long time and one significant problem is that competence is required. Have a look through the talk archive. I have long concluded that the user's contributions are not a net benefit to Wikipedia. That may be a harsh assessment but that is how I see it. Sorry. Schwede66 02:24, 5 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was just entering Wikipedia and I found out that Checkuser blocked me for sockpuppetry. I did not mean to do it purposely. I did not know that my IP address was used outside of my home which I did logged out vandalism for homophobia which can destroy your Wikipedia career that I did. I could have got the additional user rights. But creating multiple accounts for vandalism. It lead me being blocked from editing and leaving me in limbo. I would have a second chance. Sincerely. Sheldybett (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Schwede66 above makes a very relevant point - I am simply seeing no evidence that unblocking you would be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Your understanding of the issues that led to the block in the first place is questionable (you admit that you did the edits, but not on purpose?), and there has been no mention of any actual constructive edits you wish to make. I see every indication that unblocking you would just generate more work for others. ~ mazca ^talk 22:19, 5 October 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.

@Mazca: I did mean not to purposely log out to being a IP vandal, I have made some construtive edits which guys cannot be bothered about. Sheldybett (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: @Mazca: I promise to understand the issues and trying my hard to not to create work to us if I am unblocked through sussessful WP:AN request you thought like to take up. Sheldybett (talk) 08:37, 8 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I promise to not create work for others, so I would have healthy contributions since I understood the issues that is going on. Yours sincerely Sheldybett (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not come anywhere near addressing the issues of sockpuppety, competence or any of the other concerns raised above. If it wasn't for the fact that your talk page access has recently been restored by UTRS, I would remove it to prevent you wasting any more of our time. Another admin may choose to do so if you cannot come up with convincing reasons that you would be a benefit to Wikipedia. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:41, 14 October 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.

@Voice of Clam: What does rasing the issues of sockpuppetry mean and what is a net benefit? Sheldybett (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In your UTRS appeal, you promised you would not create any more sockpuppet accounts. Why did you claim this if you don't understand what sockpuppetry is? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear if Sheldybett is trolling here or lacks sufficient competence. But either way, this is going nowhere. Nothing here comes close to addressing the concerns raised initially or during the UTRS process. I'm therefore revoking talk page access again. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS appeal #35989

is now closed. User is banned from UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Sheldybett, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Orphaned non-free image File:Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)