User talk:StopEditorAbuse

This is StopEditorAbuse's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:StopEditorAbuse/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks D.G. for the feedback. I would improve the article and find more reliable sources to expand on the matter, however the sandbox has been deleted. Seems Wikipedia is not a very supportive environment after all... Or some topics want to be kept in the dark... StopEditorAbuse (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StopEditorAbuse! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:StopEditorAbuse/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:StopEditorAbuse/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is an "attack page" or an unsourced biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity, or articles about living people that are entirely negative and unsourced. Attack pages, attack files and negative unreferenced BLPs are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KylieTastic (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylie,

I hope you are fan-Tastic today. You deleted my sandbox based on two reasons. G5 - I am not SkyKingRSA, I do know him. We are not the same user. Did you properly investigate that before making that assumption?

G10 - If you have a problem with my article then why not give feedback or advise. Its a work in progress. I am always open to feedback and to learning. To simple delete something that you do not agree with is the exact definition of what my post was describing. After I heard what happened to SkyKingRSA I looked into the topic and found and amazing amount of people disparaged from using or contributing to Wikipedia because of "WikiNazi's". Thus the reason for creating a page for a term broadly used that is not found anywhere on Wikipedia.

Look forward to hearing from you.

S.E.A. StopEditorAbuse (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good day, I haven't tried to edit anything on Wikipedia. I wrote and article, it got declined and I was busy improving it to re-submit. Meantime I'm getting accused of being a sockpuppet and got banned...How is any of this in line with this communities policies?

Decline reason:

I'm going to assume good faith with this. You have been called a sockpuppet because you, after creating your account, created a draft referencing a particular situation that you would only know about if 1) you were the same user or 2) you have communicated with or read about that user; if it's the latter, this might be meat puppetry instead, but it's treated the same. Sock or meat puppetry violates policy. Furthermore, there is private technical evidence to support the accusation. Your draft was not deleted because people disagreed with it, we're willing to host articles critical of ourselves, it was deleted because it met the speedy deletion criteria it was marked with, G10, a page designed to attack or harass a subject, and WP:G5, a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of the ban/block(which includes sock/meat puppetry). These criteria were clearly met and it wasn't a close call. If you or any user has grievances with other users or how policies are applied, there are proper channels to address that- which do not include writing about "Nazi Admins" which is deeply offensive towards people actually subjected to actual Nazis(or ancestors who were). Furthermore, your draft was improperly sourced and would not have been accepted on those grounds; social media and other Wikipedia articles are not appropriate sources. This should explain things to you, and I see no reason here to remove the block, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Good evening, Thanks for the reply. Id like to address some of what you said in an attempt to regain my faith in this encyclopedia and its administrative processes. (I realize that doesn't mean much in the broader sense of things, but every community member should count right) Sockpuppet - 1 - No I'm not SkyKing. I do know him, I had no interest in Wikipedia on a daily basis until I heard his story and it intrigued me to see if it could be true that there is such a level of harsh administration on such a large public platform. We are very different in many aspects. He is man, he lives in another country and he is hot headed. 2 - I am not a meat puppet as I do not and have not done the following - Wikipedia: "Recruited people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia." OR "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose" I have not edited anything and I have not displayed his behavior. My article. 1 - It is a work in progress and I accepted that without contending it. After Double Grazing denied it I started improving it. My next step was to work with his suggestion of finding more credible sources. 2 - G5 - It's not a G5 and simply stating it is G5 because I used the same word "WikiNazi" as another user, is absolute nonsense. I am sure you can agree on that. The term "WikiNazi" has existed from 2009 or before and is not unique to me or SkyKing. Thus, not evidence of being the same person, we did not come up with it. 3 - G10 - After having read G10 criteria I can see how the article may have met some of those criteria. I am more than willing to correct that. No, I do not know every Wikipedia rule yet, I am new, and I will learn. That is why there are admins to deny new articles. Also, there has been other articles before that have not met G10 criteria and they have not been blocked and deleted. I never used anyone's real name so there is 0% chance of anyone getting harassed in real life. Possibly to an admin, yes, however I'm sure you guys are not susceptible to that after all these years. The information about Nazi style admins is available online, that is where my sources came from. The term Nazi is a broadly used term to describe a totalitarian person or group. "Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system." The term WikiNazi as stated above is used in common English and there are over 330800 results for the use of the term online. By creating a page for it, I am not advocating its use or its effect on the community. I am merely creating a page that defines it in an Encyclopedia. "Encyclopedia - a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." There are many terms, subjects and articles on Wikipedia, that deeply offend many people. Yet we must keep literature and facts separate from feelings. E.g. The word "Nigger" is on Wikipedia and surely offends some readers. Lastly, you state that the draft was improperly sources. I accept that and I did from the first moment. I did not contend that. I only ask that I may work on the draft until it meets acceptable Wikipedia admin quality. Thanks for your time. Please remove my distasteful logo as a meat puppet and allow me to edit in my sandbox. Regards, SEA

Decline reason:

Confirmed to SkyKingRSA. Yamla (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2023 (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.

Someone else will review this, but you absolutely are a meat puppet. You took up SkyKing's cause. And random complainants online are not independent reliable sources with a history of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

How am I SkyKing?? Based on what evidence? If you don't want to unblock me due to personal reasons, then say that. Dont make excuses of pretending I'm another user.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:06, 10 September 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Any admin on here willing to actually do his job and explain what the block is for? How does one prove you are not the same user as another account?

Decline reason:

The block reason is explained on this page. You need to explain why you share an IP address with SkyKingRSA. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2023 (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.

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 for being 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.

Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]