Jump to content

User talk:TWOQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, TWOQ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jonathunder (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

[edit]
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.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? Some mistake surely. TWOQ (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Presumably, there has been a mistake. I was in the midst of fixing some errors in a series of articles about Austrian rivers, which oddly enough, frequently mentioned the names of valleys without specifying that they are valleys (e.g. "It flows through the Ötztal", where normal English obviously screams out for the word "valley" to be specified). Trying to save one such fix, I found myself blocked, with the claim that "this user account has been or may be used abusively". Nothing could be further from the truth. TWOQ (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As a community-banned editor, you will need to address the behavior that least to that ban, and the preceding 500+ blocks. Until then, this is the predictable waste of time. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2018 (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.

...and they are all confirmed to Rbka who is best known as BKFIP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and that has nothing to do with me. I just took the time over the last few days to make some articles better. If you think otherwise, please point out which edits damaged the encyclopaedia. The accusation of abuse is absurd and utterly false. TWOQ (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When checkuser evidence indicates the presence of some seven sockpuppets denial of it achieves nothing for you. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just took the time over the last few days to make some articles better. If you think otherwise, please point out which edits damaged the encyclopaedia. The accusation of abuse is absurd and utterly false. TWOQ (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are a community banned editor. Regardless of how constructive any of your edits are, you are still a banned editor. You ban applies regardless of whichever new account you create or good faith edit you make. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TWOQ, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

ZH8000 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TWOQ&oldid=842364515"