Zombiedude101

collapsing numerous unblock requests, unblock discussions, UTRS notices, and discourse.-- Deepfriedokra 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  BencherliteTalk 20:33, 5 February 2013 (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). Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I'll admit that I make some trolly edits when I'm in that kind of mood, but they always get undone so no harm done. But I do make constructive contributions sometimes. Like with the Melissa Hutchison page. Please? I'm sorry, alright. Decline reason: That's not exactly assurance that the behavior won't recur. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (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. Excellent, just what we need, someone who likes to troll articles such as Hebrew language with charming edits such as this and the creation of LHS 1070B. Can't think how we'll manage without you, frankly. And Melissa Hutchison is an unsourced BLP of someone who appears to fail WP:ENT, so it really is a win-win situation for Wikipedia if we unblock you, isn't it? Do you want to try and write a more persuasive unblocking rationale for the admin reviewing your request? BencherliteTalk 21:00, 5 February 2013 (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). Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I'm sorry, it was stupid of me. And just to note I wasn't the one who added 'Negro', that was someone else, I just added the German flag. You said Melissa Hutchison was unsourced, but you're wrong. It has one source, and it's p damn obvious she exists anyhow. I'll admit that I have made edits/contributions which I shouldn't, but it's never been done with malice so much as a joke. I've made a good few contributions, however small, and if given the opportunity I can prove that I can make further contributions. Decline reason: I think you've shown us the type of edits we can expect. You've ignored many warnings and made racist/anti-Semitic edits. I don't see any reason to think you can control you "jokes". Kuru (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2013 (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. 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). Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: What happened previously was in the past, very much so into the past - I don't have any intent of stirring shite up here and want to make some constructive edits. It's a non-issue as, admittedly, I have another two accounts which I have periodically used over the years to make edits where needed, but I feel that for the sake of principle and setting affairs in order I would get this smear removed. I apologise. Decline reason: Your honesty is appreciated, but requesting an unblock whilst admitting to violating one of Wikipedia's core policies to evade that block... just.. no. Yunshui 雲水 09:29, 13 February 2018 (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. 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). Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: So that's it - 'no sell'? I just made a fairly honest point and admitted I used to be a shite, that I want to make things right. I haven't really been evading the block - I've had new machines, addresses, moved around etc over the years so it wasn't as if I went out of my way to circumvent anything - I merely made a point that I'm doing this on principle because it seems like the right thing to do. I apologise - and as I said before I'll not be causing further grief, I want to do something decent with this account. I even take responsibility for the people who 'borrowed' (I say this with air quotes because they never actually asked my consent) my account to plaster the more anti-semitic/REICHLAND type content that cropped up. What is there to lose? If I make a point of being a problem you can easily smash me down. Decline reason: So in addition to openly admitting to evading your block with multiple accounts, you now admit this account was compromised. There is not a chance this account will be unblocked at this time. I'm removing talk page access, you may request an unblock at WP:UTRS in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (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. This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #20671 was submitted on Feb 19, 2018 11:40:58. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #20719 was submitted on Feb 23, 2018 09:55:06. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC) This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #26079 was submitted on Jul 25, 2019 12:29:02. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC) This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #26082 was submitted on Jul 25, 2019 15:33:01. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Utrs, talk page access This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #28741 was submitted on 2020-01-29 08:07:24. This review is now closed. . I have restored talk page access so user may request unblock here.-- Deepfriedokra 10:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC). Well that's intriguing-- TPA wa not removed on this account. Well, we will see.-- Deepfriedokra 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Unblock discussion Let's talk about your sock puppets- please list them all for the last 6 months. Before I start, I do not recall all of the accounts I've used over the years so just listing off what comes to mind. If I remember anything else I'll throw them in. UrbanScion EidolonTheHighPriest AntaresTheWaste SpeedyGonzales148 Let's talk about your compromised account.-- Deepfriedokra 11:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Thank you for hearing me out. Just to clarify, the account isn't compromised any more. I was in school at the time and had left it logged onto one of the machines there and left it, so someone had jumped on used it to make a few DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES-themed edits. To be frank, I was a little pissed off when I was told flatly that "there is no chance of an unblock at this time" and that firmly put me in the mindset of being on the defensive. So to be clear - nobody else has the login credentials, it's just me. I think part of the confusion is well has been that I've edited from communal/shared IP addresses where there are many other users who access WP. So if they make any questionable edits, it looks as though I'm reverting to vandalism. That isn't the case for me. If I wished, I could go to the effort of changing my IP and creating a new sock and forgetting anything that happened after a few months. I don't want to do that. I honestly want to get things cleared up so I can contribute without having to act like a wanted fugitive and with a fairly clean conscience. If I was unblocked, the first thing I would probably do is return to the articles I had attempted to edit under the above aliases and restore my contributions, provided they didn't overlap with any current content. IE, the RCT articles, Steve Ward, Neall Ellis, the nVidia Maxwell controversy, Worm (and its sequel, Ward) etc. I'll be up front and admit I'm fairly abrasive but partially because I feel like I've had to be on the defensive, a little bit - if you refer to my earlier unblock appeals I was trying to be honest and up front and because of what looked to me at the time like a blind adherence to the rules with no regard to the context of the circumstances behind them. Even though I hadn't done any wrong in my appeals, I was told talk page access would be removed and I would have to go to UTRS which is a one-way system and very frustrating to use. Because I had admitted to editing on various different IPs in the many years in between, I was told no. And again shut down when I said someone else had accessed the account without my consent back in 2013, then five years ago. The only major breach of WP policy I can really view on my part is the "sockpuppetry" though, again, I didn't edit articles in a malicious manner. You can check the accounts referenced above, I genuinely made an effort to contribute. I just got frustrated when those contributions were reverted blindly even though it could've been argued that at least some of them improved the content and quality of said articles. Zombiedude101 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 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). Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The original reason for my block was vandalism, far back in 2013. As you can imagine, seven years is a long time and plenty enough for someone to come back with a change of heart. YES, I have been on WP between then and now making a few contributions. I don't recall what accounts these were all made on as it was a long time ago and I've had other things on my mind to be quite honest. I am not here to commit vandalism, I am here to contribute. I'll discuss above, preferably as the unblock template doesn't let you format properly, just makes a massive wall of text. Decline reason: Per below. This doesn't even come close to addressing the numerous issues with your past conduct, including recent block evasion. Huon (talk) 23:43, 9 February 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. Not eligible for unblock I very strongly oppose unblocking this user. They've made a death threat against a sitting U.S. senator, see User talk:Zombiedude101z. They've engaged in block evasion in September, 2019 (at least), and are well aware WP:SO requires at least six months with zero edits. I suggest they are deliberately choosing not to address the many other problems raised over there. And finally, NinjaRobotPirate noted they are banned by the community; see here. No administrator is free to unilaterally lift a community ban, and they are not free to appeal for at least one year since their last edit. That would have been September 2020; if this current request fails, that will be February 2021. And to appeal, they must follow WP:UNBAN, so their appeal can be discussed by the community. --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC) I never made a death threat against anyone, Yamla. If you want me to address any problems, raise them to me here and now. I'm bloody trying to do the right thing here, else I wouldn't be even bothering to appeal. In fact - what is the specific process I'm even supposed to follow? I explained before UTRS is a horrifically limited medium due to the character limit and the fact it is one way only, with no way to respond to administrators answering appeals or get further input. It feels a little like I'm talking to myself - you say I'm deliberately choosing not to address issues, well I feel the same can be said in reverse sometimes. So with all due respect - you shouldn't get to solely decide whether or not I'm eligible for an unblock. Bring me before the arbitration community and let me speak my case, or before the community or however it's done. It makes no difference whether I am unblocked now, in September or in September 2021, I am here to contribute. I'm not asking for much - what is the risk here? Is there a genuine fear I'm going to do countless damage to the project when a simple 2-click motion would revert any harm done, just as easily as the contributions I made in the past were reverted? If I'd kept a level head at the time of my original appeal in 2018 and managed to get through(what seemed like) the byzantine unblock process, I'd have been eligible to edit by now, no? Because I haven't committed vandalism since 2013. The only real offense was the block evasion, which I thought at the time was for justifiable reason. Zombiedude101 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC) I'm also concerned about unblocking this user, and cannot support it at this time. Looking at the UTRS request of theirs that I had declined, they were clear they would keep returning to make edits; "I will continue to come back until I am able to make edits once more. I will not be bullied away from wikipedia, the pronect will get contributions and like it or not I'll see to it that any reversions of my contributions are undone", so I am doubtful that they now want to play by the rules. They say in their request "If I wished, I could go to the effort of changing my IP and creating a new sock and forgetting anything that happened after a few months." I also second the issues Yamla notes above. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Yes and I admitted just half an hour ago that my attitude hasn't necessarily been the best about it, but I still stand by what I said. I said I would come back, which is what I'm doing now - and I'm playing by the rules, am I not? The point I'm trying to make is that I am making an effort to do things properly, that INSTEAD of making a sock I am coming here to make an appeal. I don't understand why people can't give me the benefit of the doubt on this, especially when the edits I had made previously in violation of the block were not vandalism, rather attempts to contribute - surely that if nothing else is evidence I am not here with malicious purpose. Zombiedude101 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC) In any event, since you are community banned, you will have to make a statement for the community to evaluate and discuss- but you can't do that for a year. I looked at the statement about the US Senator; I don't wish to recount what it says here, but it was at least a wish for the person's death, which isn't that much different from a threat. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) You are decidedly not playing by the rules, even now. You are not eligible for unban consideration because not enough time has elapsed, yet are attempting to get your ban lifted. Nor, for that matter, are you following WP:UNBAN, though it's at least possible this is because you think you are blocked; you aren't, you are banned; see WP:CBAN. Note that I am tired of dealing with your chronic abuse. I will respond to no more than one more post from you, here, so make it count. To the reviewing administrator, if you decline the unblock request, please remove talk page access for a year, which will be the next time this person is free to request their ban be lifted. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have protected this page from all except admin edits for the next year. You are next eligible to request your ban be lifted on 2021-02-09. WP:UNBAN explains how to make this request. --Yamla (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

UTRS

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

Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #29010 was submitted on 2020-02-17 01:26:35. This review is now closed.

Plus UTRS appeal #39916, UTRS appeal #39701, & UTRS appeal #40020. WP:IDHT much? Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And UTRS appeal #40022. --Yamla (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And UTRS appeal #40024 and UTRS appeal #40038. --Yamla (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I made these appeals to get answers to certain questions since half of them were closed before I got the answer I wanted - ie, why WAS the 'clock' reset because of my earlier appeals? That seems fairly unreasonable, to be honest. I'll make a more comprehensive unblock appeal later, it's midnight here and I've got other business to attend to. Zombiedude101 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2021 (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).

Zombiedude101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

TL;DR I was blocked a long time ago for acts of vandalism. I accept that, I was a little shit in school. All's fair. HOWEVER, when I came back 5 years later to get my account unblocked I admitted that in the years in between I'd made edits on various IPs and alt accounts, which automatically got my appeal denied. I got angry and, frustrated, began making alt accounts (socking) so I could make constructive edits whether or not WP wanted me to. Which eventually led to the issue below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiedude101z#Let's_talk I feel my point above illustrates the grievances I have, to be honest. The only reason I'm blocked and banned is because I refused to go through the channels and get unbanned and decided to keep socking with constructive edits. So I've given it time, I've waited a year if not longer and I'm taking one more shot at coming in via the appropriate channels. I'm here to be civil, I have no intent of causing trouble. So you can let me return to making constructive edits as I had with Neall Ellis, Worm, etc and we can end this dispute. My attitude hasn't always been great and part of that was because I felt (and, to an extent, still feel) I was ignored and dismissed as a vandal without looking at the context of my situation. I got angry ans frustrated that legitimate edits I made were reverted solely on the basis I was 'socking'. To be clear, I am not trying to shift blame, I am simply trying to explain that the actions/attitude of others didn't mesh well with me at the time and the way certain things were done (such as how appeals would be locked, preventing me from responding to certain comments, or points that I raised being ignored rather than getting addressed) - that left me frustrated and inclined to push back. And, since it's a consistently recurring point put to me - I didn't make any death threats. That certainly wasn't me. So when I make comments like "I feel like every other point I raised was ignored with WP admins just pointing blindly at legislation and not using their heads to understand the context of the situation" I feel like this never gets addressed fully, like being treated like a bad faith editor when I was trying to show I was only interested in being useful. As an example of a good faith edit that was treated as bad faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neall_Ellis - this was recently restored for me and I don't see what's wrong with the content here. And ultimately - what harm is there in allowing me to return to making edits? One misstep and it's a few mouse clicks (or screen taps) to revert and block me.

I also question why I had to wait until now to appeal. I didn't commit further block evasion in 2020, to what I recall. At least nothing to warrant waiting another year, I know that! Think it was a misunderstanding. The only thing I actually recall doing was reaching out to Yamla to talk to them about my ban, which should not have reset the clock.

To cut a long story short - let's start on a clean slate. I've come across the wrong way (and some have misunderstood my intent) and should've been less hostile to people over how certain things were done. I do intend to clean up a few things, ie game affiliated articles, emulation, Wildbow's Web Serial Ward etc. Edits such as those made on my 'sock' accounts that were rolled back on the basis they were sockedits, since they were intended as constructive - not disruptive.

Decline reason:

By community consensus, your unban request is declined. You are free to make another unban request no sooner than 2023-02-12. Any violations (sockpuppetry, ban evasion, early unban requests via any venue) will reset the two year timer. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2021 (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.

Remember, you are banned, not blocked. No admin is permitted to unilaterally lift your block. Is this the request you wish carried over to the noticeboard for discussion? --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - why'd you advocate for my banning though? I thought we had an agreement - I hold off on the edits. But then you went and asked the community to ban me. Furthermore, will I get a chance to speak my piece? It irritates me when someone has a point against me but doesn't offer me the opportunity to speak for myself, yknow. Zombiedude101 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Throwing in another comment since I've seen you oppose my unblock - please allow me to speak for myself on the noticeboard, or give me the option to provide input. The MULTIPLE UTRS appeals I made were to get questions answered - ie, why was the clock reset when I had only reached out to get questions addressed? I only kept remaking them because they were closed and locked before I got the information I had asked for. Why was the appeal window pushed from 2020 to Feb 2021? Etc. I have nothing to do with racism or death threats, I assure you. And as I said - any single mis-step would allow me to be immediately rebanned. That I am here, appealing my ban, rather than making another sockpuppet and changing my IP - surely that's a show of good faith that I am trying to work with the process and do it properly? Zombiedude101 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You have the ability to leave comments here and request they be copied over to WP:AN. Evading your block was not a sensible decision, today. I'm sticking to one venue going forward; WP:AN, so won't be responding to any points here. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

But surely it isn't such a crime to 'sock' my own appeal, if I am being honest and openly stating my intent? What's the problem there? If I was here in bad faith I wouldn't have bothered making an appeal, I would have simply just made a sock, changed my IP and started over. Instead, I am here and TRYING to work with you. Even when I did make sockedits in the past, it was for a constructive purpose. There was no MALICIOUS intent - why can't people see that? Please, I am asking for a clean slate. I am not asking for a lot. One mis-step and you can give me the boot. Zombiedude101 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is a "crime" here, as Wikipedia is not a government with authority over you. But no, you may not sock to make an appeal, as that shows you are willing to disregard Wikipedia guidelines when you find them inconvenient. As noted, you are welcome to comment on any AN appeal here and your comments will be transferred; editors who comment on appeals usually look at this page as well. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying that my actions were not against the spirit of the rules. There was no malice in my intent - I just wanted to make sure my comments were seen and not overlooked. I'm not entirely familair with the process, so allow me that one error. I don't see why I should wait yet another 2 years for an unban when I've only attempted to make genuine contributions since coming back. My intent has always been good faith. Zombiedude101 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone who breaks a rule honorably and for a good reason still broke a rule. It demonstrates good faith to abide by guidelines even when we don't like them or find them inconvenient. Hypothetically, if you are just going to do what you wish without regard for guidelines like those against sockpuppetry, even if you have a good reason, this is all just a waste of time. If you want to work with us and make a good faith appeal, then show it. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is what I am doing by making this appeal. It's what I intended in the first place. Blocking me for another year or two won't change that. It serves no good. What is the risk in giving me another chance that can't be undone in seconds? I just want a reasonable opportunity to show I'm here for good purpose and yhe continuous stonewalling just made me angry. Zombiedude101 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see no value in being made to wait another 1-2 years and it's clear nobody is willing to hear me out - all because I made a few sock edits (which were meant to be constructive, I mean you reversed the edits to Neall Ellis and basically took out half a page's worth of adequately sourced content! for what purpose?! spite?!) and came across harsher than I intended, which wouldn't have happened if people hadn't been so obstructive and ignored my comments. I made many UTRS appeals to get answers to questions which YOU would not adequately answer, why is that terrible? Why is that impatience?! I don't want to have to go outside the framework of the rules for a clean slate but people aren't really giving me a choice. I gave you the option of provisionally unbanning me - ie, one misstep, you give me the boot. The whole 'fool me thrice' comment is laughable - you never gave me a chance to begin with.

I came back for an appeal back in 2017/18 and you shut it down and directed me to UTRS all because I admitted to making a few edits in the project in the 5 years between my (justified) ban and appealing. If you had given me a chance then, we wouldn't be here. And yeah, this does not reflect well on me either - but I'm tired of waiting. I've been blocked for years and since then I've tried to come back. Even if it has not been within the framework of the project, the contributions I have made were not vandalism - you reversed amendments I made to articles on the sole basis of socking and then you wondered why I was so angry and pissed off, like wouldn't you be unhappy if someone blindly cited policy as justification for pissing away an hour of your work?

Answer me this, or I will keep coming back until it IS answered (and that is not impatience but just a simple request to understand your logic on this, because each time you have dismissed and ignored me when I've brought it up) - what harm are you so afraid I will do that can't be reversed, that it is so unreasonable for you to give me another shot with the provision that one misstep will see that I am thrown back into the abyss? Zombiedude101 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should we believe you would be willing to abide by a one-misstep-and-you're-gone sanction when you don't wish to abide by other policies? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Because for one, I wouldn't have a choice. You could block, reban etc - take any measure against my account. Yes, I COULD come back on an alt and change my IP - and 'Socked on my own appeal' I outright stated it was me, and only did so to add comments because I was afraid they wouldn't be reflected from my talk pageI'll admit it's something that I have considered in the past - but the fact that I am reaching out, on my original account to correct this - that is enough of a show of good faith in my view. And again, I want to ask - I acted in the spirit of Jimmy Wales himself when I made these contributions, ie WP:PACT and WP:Ignore all rules - it was administrators who reverted those contributions just because they were 'sockedits'. Tell me, how is this rv of 2869 characters an improvement over the edit I originally made waaay back in 2019?! It's a pointless, spiteful activity to undertake. Can you understand why I might have been a little frustrated, angry and unwilling (in the past) to work within the framework when it led to such instances as this? This on top of having to deal with some personal issues in my own life - I've been to 4 separate family funerals in the last eighteen months and had to deal with a number of pets and family suffering from serious illness. It erodes at my patience for this. Zombiedude101 (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course you would have a choice. You have a choice now. You already have measures against your account, and socked on your own unban appeal. WP:NOTIAR. I'm truly sorry for personal losses you have suffered. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

'Socked on my own appeal' - I outright admitted it was me, and that I wasn't there to sock - I only did what I needed to make sure that comments from me were on the appeal, because I was afraid that people wouldn't see what I was trying to convey on my talk page. You know as much as I that it wasn't in bad faith - I was acting with good intent and even you said 'honourably'. As for your sympathies, I appreciate it - and I'm not holding that up as an excuse for bitterness, but it is something constantly pollutes my thought process and capacity for patience and one I'm trying to work through. And yes, I'm aware I have a choice - to try and work within the framework (which is what I'm doing now) or to not. That I am here should be a reflection of that - why else would I bother making an appeal on this account? You know as much as I that there isn't anything (technologically/physically) preventing me from trying to circumvent existing sanctions, only the fact that I am here trying (and that's a keyword here, because my end goal is to be able to restore good elements of the contributions I did make as 'socks' and keep working to imrpove the project) to ask for another chance the right way.

I am asking only for a second chance, to be allowed to make contributions to the project - and any harm that I could do could be heavily mitigated by an immediate reversion of my edits and rebanning/blocking of my account. What have you to lose aside from a few minutes' worth of effort? I wouldn't be here unless I was trying to do it the right way. If you refuse me this, you are denying me a second chance. I'm trying to meet you halfway here. If you want me to wait, make it a few months - six months even, but not a year. I do not ask for a lot and you have yet to explain what great harm i can cause when I've stated I'm willing to work with you and know any misdeeds will see me out on my ass. Zombiedude101 (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

″In my interactions with this user, and their socking in this very appeal, it's clear that they will disregard the rules when they find them inconvenient or disagree with them. There is no reason at this time to believe that they will abide by a one misdeed and out sanction any more than they have abided by other policies. It's pretty clear that, once this appeal is rejected, that they are likely to return to socking to do what they wish. If that is true, then this appeal just wastes everyone's time(including them). I want ever willing user to be able to participate, but they have to meet us halfway, and I don't see a sincere effort to do that here. Regrettably I must oppose lifting the ban at this time″ - what is this, if not trying to meet you halfway? I have no interest in wasting my time as you have no interest in yours. I want a way forward. I want this to go somewhere, not be stuck in limbo. Zombiedude101 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

2 years?

What a fucking joke. 2 years for what, I tried to play by your terms. Just remember, if you hadn't been so obstructive to me in the first place, I'd have never gone as far as I did. And nice to see that, as usual, half my points got ignored - but what the fuck could I expect? I'll have a think on whether or not I'll be willing to wait that long - might be I'll make another appeal in six months, or a year, with a cooler head - unless you can justify a 2 year waiting period to me when I've already been waiting long enough, since 2018 for fuck's sake. If not, you'll never see me as this again and just have to decide for yourselves whether or not I'll ever come back and make contributions from another IP or account - either way, you won't know if I do If that's the hill you want to die on, so be it. Zombiedude101 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2021 (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.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Timer reset

User engaged in ban evasion. The two year timer is reset and they may not make an unban request until 2023-08-17. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, 2024-11-15 as per UTRS appeal #65359 and  Confirmed sock, TheBigMIM. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Now 2025-07-18 as per UTRS appeal #76262. --Yamla (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This user on #wikipedia-en-unblock has disputed that the account Srodgers1701 is a sockpuppet of theirs and they also asserted that their latest UTRS appeal was to just note this and not appeal the block. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a note from Yamla which I cannot read. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for evidence of recent block evasion and (thankfully) didn't find any. Still, the abuse of UTRS renders this moot. :( --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The possible connection with Srodgers is noted in 2021 and please see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LicentiaA, so has no current bearing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #76262

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that Zombiedude101 is banned from UTRS for six months. However, they are still under an unblock request ban that extends much further than that. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

See User talk:HailHortler44. --Yamla (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)