User talk:Ts4221

Wepwawetemsaf

This content is being discussed on talk:Wepwawetemsaf#Appropriateness of description Please get wp:consensus before removing.Thank you Adakiko (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wepwawetemsaf. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See history at Wepwawetemsaf for 31 August 2022 and 1 September 2022. That follows User talk:Marmo59#Warning and User talk:2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2022 (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).

Ts4221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Ts4221 (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per intemperate comments below; will revoke talk page access. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2022 (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.

Right so how is it fair I am blocked but other user is not? Do those opinions actually matter or are they needed?

Media is watching this they are interested in your totalitarian ways they say it is not good and as bad as censorship. You do not allow other users to flourish Ts4221 (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I want you to answer me how is it fair to block one but not the other. Ts4221 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

God hates you and he is gonna make you feel burn every damn minute over it! FUCK YOU Ts4221 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note Confirmed socking via 9811ASY.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ts4221. 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.

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #62627 }

User threatens to continue socking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]