User talk:Iliketrains125

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Iliketrains125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked as a mistake. I don't know who 2backslashes is. I tried to submit a request before but my IP range was blocked.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was blocked as a mistake. I don't know who 2backslashes is. I tried to submit a request before but my IP range was blocked. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked as a mistake. I don't know who 2backslashes is. I tried to submit a request before but my IP range was blocked. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was blocked as a mistake. I don't know who 2backslashes is. I tried to submit a request before but my IP range was blocked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Not a sockpuppet

User:Barkeep49 I was blocked by mistake. The page shouldn't be deleted because the block was invalid. Iliketrains125 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this to another CU to look at but from what I've already seen (from before I closed the article) I think the evidence of socking is strong enough to support a block. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be something wrong. The reason I was blocked was because I was a "likely" to 2backslashes because I used "identical devices" but that can't be possible because I change devices a lot. It was a 64-bit Linux machine that I posted my original post in, and now I'm using a 64-bit Windows 10 machine. I'd be greatful if another Check User could check this for me. Iliketrains125 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it means anything, I found the AFD because I was an IP editor and I had it in my browser bookmarks. Iliketrains125 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only requesting an unblock because I saw that your deletion of the 15.ai page was because of the socking. I wouldn't have cared too much because accidents happen, but now that this mistake has big repercussions that got the page deleted, I care about proving that I have no association with 2backslashes. Iliketrains125 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector If you're the Check User admin who blocked us, could you please check again? I'm 100% confident I have *nothing* to do with the person I'm being accused of being and I believe we were both caught in the crossfire. This is really important because the basis of the deletion of the 15.ai page was because of our block. Iliketrains125 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the basis of the deletion of the 15.ai page. The page was deleted because experienced editors largely felt that the sourcing was insufficient to demonstrate notability in the Wikipedia sense. Un-striking your comment is extremely unlikely to have changed the outcome. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier checkuser results were inconclusive because both 2backslashes and iliketrains were using open proxies; this block is for tag teaming. Other users have admitted that there was an off-wiki forum (I have heard both 4chan and Discord) where users were being recruited to vote to keep the 15.ai article, which is a subversion of our consensus model and explicitly forbidden by our multiple accounts policy under the section "creating an illusion of support", the very first bullet under illegitimate uses of alternative accounts. This account was one of several accounts which were created only to participate in that discussion and vote to keep the article, and they have been blocked as meatpuppets.

I will not unblock you to continue challenging this deletion, but otherwise this is not a checkuser block and any admin is free to unblock you if they see fit to do so. I suggest you read the guide to appealing blocks and say what else you intend to edit if you are unblocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]