The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I've noticed your comments
here. To be frank, I think you're giving bad advice there. Checkusers will not ever run checks on IPs due to an SPI and encouraging a user to request CU in this case is a bad idea. Excessively pinging checkusers is also not necessary – if checks are needed, a clerk will endorse and a CU will have a look as soon as they find time. I also want to note that letter codes for CU requests haven't been in use for a long, long time.
You created your account yesterday; I think it may be a little too early for you to comment on SPIs. I suggest focusing on mainspace edits until you have gained more experience. Best,
Blablubbs|
talk19:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
That's curious, because I'd assume that anyone who is interested in SPI would know that letter codes haven't been in use for around 10 years.
Blablubbs|
talk19:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi AnotherEditor144! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, How should I include contribution links in my signature?, has been
archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion
here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
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).
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.
Then you should make another unblock request and explain your intricate knowledge of Wikipedia practices despite you being a new user, and the reason for your interest in SPIs and other areas that are unusual for new users to take an interest in or even be aware of.
331dot (
talk)
15:01, 27 February 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).
My intricate knowledge of the Wikipedia facts and obscure areas that 331dot mentioned was from my time as an anonymous user (no editing, just watching. In other words, I was interested in Wikipedia and was preparing to edit during those years. --
AnotherEditor144talkcontribs15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
Comment: I came across this user at Wikibooks. Just to say I find their excuse for this somewhat plausible, and they seem to have done good work at Wikisource: see
s:User:AnotherEditor144. I think blocking for
WP:SOCK should not be done lightly, and ideally should be done with some sort of SPI to connect accounts. --
Jules(Mrjulesd)15:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Well that's what disturbs me about this block. I hope an admin might be able to see it too; SPIs aren't required, but they're extremely helpful. Also, I've deeply immersed myself in projects without contributing, so it could have happened to me too. But if you do get unblocked, I would strongly advise you to stick to content, otherwise suspicions could be raised again. --
Jules(Mrjulesd)11:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I strongly oppose any unblock. It seems quite clear to me that there is trolling going on (see
here for a more extensive write-up), including on this very talk page. --
Blablubbs|
talk15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)reply