User talk:Mermaid99

Welcome!

Hello, Mermaid99, 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!

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 13 February 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).

Mermaid99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made no disruptive edits. I improved the article, only to find myself attacked by someone who reverted my edits 9 times in 5 days for no clear reason, claiming three contradictory reasons in edit summaries, claiming to have deliberately violated WP:POINT when they mistakenly restored a style violation, used two sockpuppets to further attack me, and deleted my comments on the talk page. Mermaid99 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've read through that talk page discussion. Some frustration when your edits get reverted is understandable. A non-stop stream of belittling ad hominems while, at the same time, not engaging in a discussion of the issue at hand is not. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you are unable to collaborate with others and to bury the hatchet when you're offered an olive branch,that's disruptive. Huon (talk) 21:27, 13 February 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.

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).

Mermaid99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was being attacked by someone who's now used three obvious sockpuppets. There was no "non-stop stream of belittling ad hominems". There was no "issue at hand". The sockpuppeting user was reverting for no reason. They explicitly stated that they didn't care about reasons, they just wanted to revert. And you block me? This is ridiculous. They have received not so much as a suggestion that they shouldn't be sockpuppeting! Why are you in favour of sockpuppetry and against good faith editors?

Decline reason:

You need to focus on what you did wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 13 February 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.

No evidence editor in good standing is using sockpuppets, continued attacks despite being explicitly warned, [1] and removal of legit talk page comment. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. What do you suppose those two IP editors are, both making their first edits to support User:Codename Lisa? Just a coincidence?? Be serious here. And did you seriously not notice that the user deleted my legit comment, leaving me no way to restore it without removing their subsequent one? Mermaid99 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt this is nothing that would concern you either. Three IP addresses popping up to support a named account, oh sure, no evidence of sockpuppetry there! Mermaid99 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you obviously have no intention of stopping the accusations despite being told what needed to be done, [3] I have extended the block to a week and removed talk page access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically indistinguishable to Rbka.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]