User talk:Planethunter91

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).

Planethunter91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for adding youtube sources from experts, this ban is against wikipedia policies

Decline reason:

Re: "I have been blocked for adding youtube sources from experts", no you haven't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2019 (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.

Please return your active block notice. Those are not to be removed while the block is active. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they can remove it, FlightTime Phone — it's only declined unblock requests that mustn't be removed, see WP:REMOVED. It's very foolish of them, though. Planethunter, you have removed my block notice, where I explained what you were actually blocked for, and now you're pretending you were blocked for something else. Do you think that will impress the reviewing admin? They'll simply read it in the page history. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No, you have been blocked for aggressively edit warring at two different articles despite numerous and clear warnings on your Talk page, and for twice removing a discussion of your editing behavior from a noticeboard. Whether or not your Youtube sources are problematic has yet to be determined, and they have nothing to do with your current block. General Ization ^Talk 18:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Planethunter91, 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.

General Ization ^Talk 19:37, 20 January 2019 (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).

Planethunter91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was banned for allegedly supporting a youtube channel that I have no relation to. I used sources from several youtube channels that I considered they were university professors and I wanted to create wikipedia pages for their channels that didn't have any page on wikipedia. An indefinite ban of my network is against wikipedia policies, which state the following: Indefinite blocks - Some behaviour by users, for example egregious threats and harassment, is so extreme that an indefinite block of the user is warranted. There are also some Wikipedia policies, for example Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry where an indefinite block of the user is suggested. These indefinite periods apply to users and not their IP addresses. While the user may be considered indefinitely blocked and subsequently blocked on sight, the IP addresses they use should only be blocked for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same user. Indefinite blocks can apply to users in case of alleged sock puppetry, but not to ip addresses.

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2019 (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.

Once again, you either fail to understand (please see WP:CIR) or deliberately misrepresent the reason for your block. As above: No, you have been blocked for aggressively edit warring at two different articles despite numerous and clear warnings on your Talk page, and for twice removing a discussion of your editing behavior from a noticeboard. Whether or not your Youtube sources are problematic has yet to be determined, and they have nothing to do with your current block. Your block has now been extended to indefinite because it has been determined that you have engaged in sockpuppetry. Please stop wasting our time. General Ization ^Talk 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is against wikipedia policies: While the user may be considered indefinitely blocked and subsequently blocked on sight, the IP addresses they use should only be blocked for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planethunter91 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the situation

Planethunter, you don't seem to understand the situation. This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Alfa0151991. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Planethunter91 and the userpage User:Planethunter91. You need to log in to your Alfa0151991 account and request unblock of that account. Believe me, the Planethunter sock won't be unblocked, but the older (and perhaps original) Alfa0151991 account might possibly be, if you write a good unblock request. I don't understand the IP stuff you keep saying. I'm not aware of your IPs being blocked, and I really don't think you understand the policy you're trying to invoke. The block applies to you — the person — not to specific IPs or accounts. You, the human, have edited disruptively and socked. Come on, move over to User talk:Alfa0151991 and log in there. Your access to this page will be revoked if you keep using it inappropriately. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 21 January 2019 (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).

Planethunter91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the ban to my ip is temporal as it says that in the message wikipedia shows me when I try to create an account. When will that ban expire? Planethunter91 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not welcome to create a new account. The block is indefinite and does not expire until you convince us you should be unblocked. Finally, if you abuse the unblock template again, I will revoke access to your talk page. It is to be used to request an unblock, not to ask silly questions. Yamla (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2019 (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).

Planethunter91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

when i try to create an account wikipedia says: Account creation from this IP address .... has been temporarily restricted. It is TEMPORAL ban, NOT DEFINITIVE. Can any competent and not biased admin please review my request or I will just have to change my IP or continue editing wikipedia from another router and computer. Planethunter91 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The IP will remain blocked as long as it's used by you. If you change your IP to edit Wikipedia, that's block evasion, violates Wikipedia's policies, and will see your new IP (or account) also blocked. You, the person, are not welcome to edit Wikipedia unless and until the original cause for the various blocks you are subject to has been addressed, via a request from your original account. The steps you should take have been explained above. Huon (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2019 (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.

Talk page access revoked. Admitting you are trying to WP:EVADE the block on this account by setting up more WP:SOCK accounts is either trolling or a profound lack of competence. Either way, you've wasted enough of our time here. Another admin will be along shortly to review your request. --Yamla (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]