User talk:Sheldybett: Difference between revisions
→Return to editing: decline |
Sheldybett (talk | contribs) →Return to editing: reply |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
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 [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|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. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 02:24, 5 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 [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|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. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 02:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=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. [[User:Sheldybett|Sheldybett]] ([[User talk:Sheldybett#top|talk]]) 01:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC) | decline = {{u|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. ~ [[User:Mazca|<span style="color:#228b22">'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|talk]]</sup> 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed | 1=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. [[User:Sheldybett|Sheldybett]] ([[User talk:Sheldybett#top|talk]]) 01:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC) | decline = {{u|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. ~ [[User:Mazca|<span style="color:#228b22">'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|talk]]</sup> 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)}} |
||
:{{ping|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. [[User:Sheldybett|Sheldybett]] ([[User talk:Sheldybett#top|talk]]) 00:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:20, 6 October 2020
This is Sheldybett's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 days |
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Please comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- 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
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
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
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
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)
- @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)
- This is the definition of sufficient. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Yamla: What does suffient mean? Sheldybett (talk) 11:25, 3 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)
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)