User talk:Snugglebear123

Can I talk to an admin please?

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).

Snugglebear123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey. So, yes, I am smoore95GAGA. I would just like to say that I know I've given people here a lot of trouble in the past, but if I could be given one last change to prove that I've learned from my mistakes, I would greatly appreciate that. As I've said before, I sometimes speak based off of how I feel, and I don't think straight. It's a problem that I'm still working on, but I have made progress with it. So yeah, if an admin could at least talk to me about this, that would be great. And again, if I could be given one last chance, I promise I won't let you down. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This would be a lot more impressive if I hadn't blocked a sock of yours a few minutes ago - one that claimed to totally not know why they might be blocked. That reduces your credibility. Huon (talk) 00:31, 9 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.

Also, socks will not be unblocked. Request an unblock from your original account, via WP:UTRS if necessary. Huon (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, because that account was blocked from editing it's own talk page. Trust me, I would've done that if I could. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, if you cannot click on a link to find the instructions for the Unblock Ticket Request System, you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's really mean. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (my original account was created last September), so I don't know that much about it. I got banned indefinitely for edit-warring, which I didn't know was a thing for awhile. Please don't make fun of the fact that I'm still relatively new. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I put in a request. Thank you for telling me about that. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know what sock you're talking about. This is my recent sock. Wait. My neighbor said she was going to create an account today. Did her account get banned? If so, that's not fair to ban her too. She shouldn't have to pay for my actions. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So...

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).

Snugglebear123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, so I've been told that sock puppet accounts can't be unblocked, which is fine, but my original account got banned from editing its own page. So what should I do? I'm putting in another unblock request because I can't do it on my original account. Snugglebear123 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been told what your next steps need to be if you wish to edit here again; this account will not be unblocked otherwise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:23, 9 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.

On the off chance that another admin finds this any more credible than me I have repaired the unblock request; however, I also provided a link to WP:UTRS above, which was meant to be clicked and read; I assume you still have not done so. It will lead to a page that explains how to request an unblock via email in cases where talk page access has been revoked. Requesting an unblock here is pointless. Huon (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said that I did that, and I thanked you for sharing that with me. I don't know why you're convinced I'm an incompetent idiot who has no idea what I'm doing. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my friend (ArianaGrandeDangerousWoman) came over to tell me that her account got banned indefinitely as well (which I basically already knew), and we're on out laptops together. She hasn't gotten a response yet, and she's made a few comments. Can someone please respond to what she said? We're not the same person, and if you can't give me another chance, at least give her her first chance. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, your only option is the standard offer, which typically entails no bad behavior for six months. As you have just been blocked for socking again, you probably won't get a favorable response for at least six months. I suggest you step away from Wikipedia for that duration as to not tempt yourself to sock again. --Tarage (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I get another chance, and I have to go at least six months with no bad behavior? Or does that mean I don't get another chance for six months? Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means you are banned from Wikipedia, but you might, read might be unbanned in six months if you stop socking. The onus is on you to learn from your mistakes and to stop doing the behaviors that you are currently banned for. Keep in mind, socking is only one aspect of that. --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so in six months (that's September 8), will my account just be unbanned? Is that how it works? Or do I have to request it again? Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bud in, but I 100% do not believe that User:ArianaGrandeDangerousWoman is not you. On one of your previous socks, you stated your 'friend' was blocked and should be unblocked because they had nothing to do with you. Then you later admitted to being the supposed friend. If you'd quite lying you may receive more respect, and thus receive further opportunities on Wikipedia. Carbrera (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I HAVE stopped lying. When you accused me of being Katycat/Gaga I said I was! And wait, when did that situation happen? I don't recall that. But I swear me and my friend aren't the same person. I'm just saying though, telling the truth never got me more respect. I admitted to being Gaga way before I got banned, and it still got me banned. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also Cabrera, clearly you're not interested in giving me another chance. You said on your talk page that you "look forward to catching me in the future." Wow. So you're now obsessed with catching my future sock accounts, if I choose to make any more. That's just sad. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 6 months, you MAY go to WP:UTRS and submit an unban request. It may be rejected because of your track record. The longer you continue this behavior, the longer that time will take. If you honestly want to get back on Wikipedia's good side, you will cease all Wikipedia activities effective now, and come back in six months. If you get rejected, do not act out, do not return to bad behavior, and follow every and all advice given to you. This is the only path forward to you. Even if your 'friend' got blocked, that's your fault, because you edit under the same IP/circumstances. I suggest apologizing to them, because they are banned right along with you. --Tarage (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized several times. She's been waiting for a response for at least 15 minutes now, and no one's responded to her. She's shocked, upset, and beside herself. If you could see the two of us right now, you'd realize that we're actually both very nice people. I think I deserve one last chance, and I think she deserves to be able to create an account. She's actually considering creating an account from her school because of this, which she shouldn't have to do. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, to each their own. Now here are some quotes from your previously CONFIRMED socks:

14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "Hi, I don't know who Smoore95GAGA is. I can honestly say that I am not the same person as them."
17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "Ok, fine. I'm friends with Smoore95GAGA. He told me that he got banned from Wikipedia, and when he tried to make another account, that one got banned too. He asked me to make an account so I could make some edits for him, however, most of my edits have been for me, not for him. I don't agree with everything he says, but he did tell me that the metcritic score only has to be displayed once. I promise on the grave of my mother that I am telling the truth. I created this account to make Wikipedia better, and have only made a few edits that Smoore95GAGA asked me to make."

Need I say more? You lie here, and you'll lie again. Why should we trust you when you've made at least six sock accounts? Please clarify. Carbrera (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrera, Yeah, that was me, but I never actually said it was me. You said that I said it wasn't me, and then went back on that and said it actually was me, which I did not do. Either way, that has nothing to do with this situation. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason folks are so interested in catching you is because we know your past, and your perchance to vandalize Wikipedia. Imagine someone kept spraypainting your house, and getting caught. Every time you throw them in jail, they break out and do it again. Eventually, you would set up cameras and the like to catch them as fast as possible. That's the situation you are in.

Stop calling other editors liars. You may want to make Wikipedia better, but you are not allowed. You will not be allowed ever again until you stop this behavior. If you got other people caught up in your punishment, that's your fault, not ours. Give up this crusade for justice, you will not find it. --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage, are you reading everything carefully? If you have been reading this carefully, you'd know that it was actually @Cabrera who called me a liar. I never called him a liar. So maybe you should be reprimanding Cabrera. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snugglebear, come on. That was a confirmed sockpuppet. There's absolutely no way that the account wasn't made by you; it's been confirmed for pete's sake. How much more precise does this situation need to be? Also, I do not need to be reprimanded; I have constructively edited Wikipedia. You have not. Carbrera (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this one last time. If you got someone else banned because of your behavior, it's your fault. They will remain banned. If it's actually you, then you know why. If it isn't, better get them an apology cookie. Editing Wikipedia is not a right. The community has decided that you are not fit to edit, so your editing abilities have been revoked. If you EVER want them back, stop this argument, stop editing COMPLETELY for AT LEAST six months, then come back and follow the instructions numerous people have provided you. If you cannot do that, you will never be welcome here again. Now go away. --Tarage (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrera, I understand that it was me, I SAID it was me! However, I NEVER said it was me before it was confirmed. So yes, you have a very good reason to believe AGDW is me, and I wish that wasn't the case. Also, @Tarage called me out for calling you a liar, but it was YOU who called ME a liar. Therefore, she was actually calling you out. You shouldn't call people liars. Snugglebear123 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close ongoing conversations. Tarage misunderstood what was being said. Tarage wasn't calling me a liar; and if he/she was, we can discuss this on my talk page. However, since I know Tarage wasn't, we both know that you are lying. Even an admin thinks you're lying. If it walks like I duck, I report it. Carbrera (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good God, the confusion... I never said Tarage called you a liar. I said that she said that calling someone a liar is wrong, except it was YOU who called ME a liar. Therefore, you were wrong to do that. Now, can we be done with this? Snugglebear123 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what? It takes two people to have a conversation, so I am no longer replying. Therefore, I am taking this down. I am done talking. I will come back in six months and hopefully get my account back. Goodbye! Snugglebear123 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough time has been wasted here. I have revoked talk page access here, too. Wait six months, then go through UTRS. On the off chance that someone else will find your unblock request any more credible than me, I'll leave it for another admin to close. Huon (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See you back in about 4 weeks, I'm sure. --MuZemike 05:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MuZemike, Huon, Carbrera, and Tarage: They are already back, under an IP. This edit and edit summary immediately mirrors the sock's edit summary behaviour. I think it's clear they're unable to handle their block, and it's a safe bet to not allow them back onto Wikipedia. livelikemusic talk! 00:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MuZemike, Huon, Livelikemusic, and Tarage: I'm pretty sure he/she made a new account as well. User:Loverboy156 has been editing the exact same pages as the previous socks. And to top it all off, the account was created yesterday. Go figure. Carbrera (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, just a meddling editor who tried and failed to get a problem editor to stop socking. Carry on. --Tarage (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]