User talk:Renameduser024

±

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

February 2016

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: block is temporary, not indefinitely. I have blocked User:Mrfrobinson, your previous account, indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your sock User:OverAverageJoe. It kind of begs the question of why I shouldn't block this, the main account, indefinitely, but who knows; perhaps you will not give us any more reason to consider that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Renameduser024 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am unsure why I was blocked for a week for reverting edits on my former username while the other party who has a LENGTHY block log received 24 hours. Additionally, I don't have a sock account and disclosed my IP at the time of my complaint. I feel like the tone and action taken by this admin are ridiculous. I attempted to have my account vanish but QuackGuru kept re-adding links to the renamed username essentially trying to out me. Renameduser024 (talk) 12:09 am, 5 March 2016, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

The block has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You cannot WP:VANISH if you go right back to the topics you edited before. Vanishing is a courtesy that is offered if you are walking away from your former topics and arguments. You lose the vanishing if you go back to that stuff. Which you did. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I walked away from Wikipedia, that is the point. It was quite clear that the IP that QuackGuru was on about WASN'T me. Thanks for being a talk page stalker please leave my talk page alone. Renameduser024 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, i'll just record this, and say no more. I wanted to see if what you said was true. You renamed your account here on feb 20th. You were blocked for socking 7 days later. The contribs of the sock account were in new fields; this account's contribs were all reverting QuackGurus's edits. So those two accounts were not in the old fields. That leaves only the IP addresses, which no one can discuss publicly, since we don't discuss those publicly. Those are where the question is, I guess. However, you clearly didn't "walk away from Wikipedia" as you were still editing from the SOCK account, and monitoring your pages and arguing with QG about them through this account; so the "walking away" part is not true regardless of if you were also editing while logged out. Anyway, I will leave you alone now. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Renameduser024. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]