User talk:Speedcuber1

June 2021

@SQL: Hey, as you know when I got unblocked I wanted to change my username, I put a request in and it got approved and all went well, however since then I have thought of a username which I would rather have as my Wikipedia name.
Would it be ok if I made a new account with that username so that it doesn't get taken? (Keeping in mind that I could of had that name now if I would of requested it)
And then in 6 months when I can apply for a rename request again, would it be ok if I request a rename on both accounts, for example to swap the usernames?
I also have another question - can anyone edit the administrators noticeboard? I'm a bit confused because of it's name whether only admins are meant to edit it, even though it's not protected. Speedcuber1 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God. I don't think all this renaming is possible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can edit WP:AN. I'm honestly not sure on the rules surrounding repeated renames. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know one editor who has been renamed four times - RecentEdits, Super Typhoon Eden, Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz, ModulatedRotation, and RoyceTarantino are is five usernames. So yes, there's probably no limit. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussions

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you can appeal this block successfully, 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 ~~~~}}.

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).

Speedcuber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I clearly don't belong on any admin boards, not at the moment at least, as when I try to help I am involuntarily making disruptive edits. This is what has got me blocked. I'm new to them, and I was trying to post there like an admin or a really high level editor, but unfortunately this didn't work out.
Please change my block parameters whereby I'm blocked from all admin boards, as this will prevent me making edits that people think, and know are disruptive.
I posted this on the administrator's noticeboard, as I felt uncomfortable by that edit. But the responses weren't replying to my post, and the admins thought that I was being disruptive. If possible, change my block parameters whereby I can only make reverts, if that's not possible, then whereby I'm blocked from all of the admin boards and the teahouse.
Reverting vandalism is what I'm here to do. It will be my focus when I'm unblocked. If you, the reviewing administrator, want another person who helps to revert vandalism on this Wikipedia, this is another reason to accept. Just make sure I'm banned from all the noticeboards and the teahouse for atleast 5 years.
I posted this because I was intimidated by the admin, but I know they don't mean anything by it. I also awarded that admin an admin's barnstar, which is deserved as every time I have looked through their contributions, I see that they are constantly reverting vandalism. I will also state here that when I'm unblocked, I will be awarding Admin's barnstars ~~to every admin if I could~~. I will be awarding (if I remember) 1 barnstar each day, to who I think is the "Admin of the day" (This part isn't trying to persuade admins to unblock me, this is just me wanting to show my appreciation to these hard working editors who work countless hours every day to make Wikipedia better).
Speedcuber (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block isn't for your benefit, Speedcuber1: it is to save other editors from having to waste time dealing with your antics. You don't get to dictate its terms and you're not automatically entitled to an unblock. I'm not going to copy this to a WP:AN because we've heard enough from you there recently. I'm declining your appeal because these are the exact same issues that led to your block four years ago, that you assured us were not going to be repeated, and I have no confidence that they will not repeat again. Before you return to this talk page, I strongly encourage you take some time to consider whether you're actually interested in writing an encyclopaedia and not just in 'being a Wikipedia editor'. If you're not, that's okay; editing isn't for everyone and you can show your appreciation for others' work by continuing to read and enjoy Wikipedia. But—and I'm sorry to have to be blunt—we don't need somebody to give out barnstars and you've proven that you're simply not good at vandal-fighting and other maintenance jobs. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2021 (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).

Speedcuber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for disruptive editing to the admin noticeboard and making persistent posts there that i thought were ok at the time, but they were actually disruptive edits and i shouldn’t have posted as much as i did and shouldn’t have kept going back to that noticeboard to post about general things, as it was counterproductive. I was then blocked from my talk page as the edits i was making on there were wasting other editor’s time and weren’t productive, if i was unblocked the things i would do differently include possibly avoiding the noticeboards, as they were partly the reason why I was blocked in the first place, and I would also try my best to not make any disruptive edits and i would think before making edits to make sure the edit is generally good, productive, not disruptive and not an edit that would waste any other editor’s time. I will do this by going over it and thinking about the purpose of each edit.
The constructive edits i would make include going to random articles and linking key words or any important words, fixing any general mistakes such as punctuation mistakes or spelling mistakes, reverting vandalism, and also edits such as adding paragraphs to articles if i find any new info on that article that comes from a reliable source. Speedcuber (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The unblock appeal was unsuccessful (permalink to discussion). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 5 June 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.

Thanks. Will Carry to WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, the things that I would focus on out of the 9 things in the open tasks page that you linked me would be fixing spelling and grammar, fixing wikilinks, checking and adding references, adding images, and improving lead sections. Speedcuber (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: When i put something such as ‘I will try my best to not make any disruptive edits’ i worded it wrong. I should have put ‘I will make no disruptive edits’ and when i put ‘possibly avoid the noticeboards’ i worded that wrong too, i meant to put ‘i will avoid them’Speedcuber (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have updated my unblock request. Speedcuber (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedcuber1, please do not modify your unblock request, now that it's been posted to WP:AN. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please post responses and addenda using the reply button. Someone will see and add to the WP:AN thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 27 May 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).

Speedcuber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am hoping to be unblocked, I know that when you’re blocked you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia on other accounts, and I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I was blocked, I haven’t been on Wikipedia since last year but it came to mind today so I am going to attempt to be unblocked, if this request is unsuccessful, then I will have to try again another time in the future and I am ok with it. I’m not going to beg to be unblocked, I will just have to wait and see if I am unblocked or not in the future and accept it.

I was blocked some time last year or the year before and I think it was because I made to many edits on the administrators noticeboard, I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked or how many edits it was but I think that some of them were disruptive and that this is why I was blocked. If I am unblocked in the future, I will make sure that I don’t post a lot on the administrators noticeboard and I will also make sure that none of my edits are disruptive. I have had some experience in the past with the Wikipedia user gadget twinkle, and have reverted vandalism in the past.

The kind of edits that I might make if or when I am unblocked might include things like adding sources to articles, adding wikilinks to articles if they need them, and going to random articles that have messages at the top of them saying what needs to be done on the article, and doing that, for example if the message says that the article needs additional sources or that the article relies too much on primary or secondary sources, I will probably fix them if I have time.

I also want to change my username and also change some userboxes if possible.

I didn’t think that Wikipedia would have come to mind again but it did so I thought I would post an unblock request. Thank you for reading.
Speedcuber (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Appeal was declined by the community per this discussion Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 12 April 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.

Hey 331dot, Yamla, JBW, Deepfriedokra, I didn't know who to tag so I thought about tagging you as each one of you has helped me out on Wikipedia in the past. I was only going to tag one person but I thought it would be better to tag a more people as it might make things easier, etc.

I wasn't going to post anything on my talk page at first but I have been thinking about it in the past week as I posted my unblock request over a month ago and I haven't had any messages on my talk page yet asking me about the block or anything like that. I know that there's no deadline and that admins have a lot of tasks to do at the moment and I like to be patient and wait for a message or response, but I was just wondering when I was looking at the requests for unblock why most people seemed to be getting messages on their talk pages from admins not long after they posted their request and I haven't had one message since I posted it. I know and have seen admins say that the request has to make the reviewing administrator think you should be unblocked, and I thought I had a good request. Also I did see somewhere that if an unblock request is posted to the administrators noticeboard or maybe other noticeboards and isn't successful, then the user is banned by the community and has to appeal, but I'm not sure if this was referring to unblock requests or not because it might have said something else, and also because I have had repeated unblock requests in the past posted to the administrators noticeboard where the first one or ones were unsuccessful but the one after was successful. Also I know that I ended up being unblocked in the past when my requests kept getting posted to the noticeboard which is good, but I would have preferred it if I would have been unblocked just by a reviewing admin on my talk page instead of having multiple people who were mostly not admins decide it, only because I have seen people get unblocked in the past without having their requests posted to any noticeboards. Also when I have been reading Wikipedia in the past few days I have come across several articles that need to be updated and I have got some edits in mind for these articles that would improve them, and I'm hoping to be unblocked soon as I'm looking forward to making useful contributions if I am unblocked. Speedcuber (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Someone who is awake will probably need to carry this to WP:AN-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will post it to AN. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be posted to AN? I also said in my message above “Also I know that I ended up being unblocked in the past when my requests kept getting posted to the noticeboard which is good, but I would have preferred it if I would have been unblocked just by a reviewing admin on my talk page instead of having multiple people who were mostly not admins decide it, only because I have seen people get unblocked in the past without having their requests posted to any noticeboards.”

And (331dot) the way you have put that you are posting it to AN as a courtesy and make no endorsement in doing so will only make it more likely that people will oppose it rather than support it, as that is the first thing they will see. So now I think I probably don’t have much chance of being unblocked unfortunately. But it is what it is. Thank you though for posting it as I know you don’t mean anything bad by what you put. Speedcuber (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Girth Summit I seen your reply to the post about my unblock request on AN, I can’t edit AN so is it ok if I reply to you here?

The main reason why I didn’t investigate the block and the edits that got me blocked was because when I postsd my unblock request, it was the first time Wikipedia had come to mind in nearly a year, and I remembered I was blocked so I just posted an unblock request without thinking too much about it. When I posted the request I didn’t even think of investigating the block but I am ok with redoing my unblock request and investigating the disruptive edits that got me blocked and addressing them in the new request. I think your suggestion is good.

Could you put my reply under your post at AN so that other reviewing admins can see it? Speedcuber (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile at the moment - that much copying, navigating tabs and pasting is beyond me. Someone else may do so. I'll reiterate here though that you appear to acknowledge having posted this request with very little forethought. The result of that will be a lot of other editors' time being wasted - they will spend time looking into your original block, subsequent unblock and reblock, previous unblock requests, your editing prior to the block, etc. You really should have done that legwork for them, and presented a set of links for them to access easily; you should also have taken time to show that you really understand why you were blocked, and what you will do differently in future to avoid repeating the problems. The fact that you didn't do any of that may make people disinclined to support an unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t even think about it when posting the unblock request but I understand what you’re saying and know that I should have done those things in the request. I am ok with doing them though either today if I have time or tomorrow and will put it as a reply on this page, and then someone could copy and paste it over to AN as an add on to the unblock request. Speedcuber (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Why does it need to be posted to AN?; this block can't be lifted by an individual admin without community consensus, for the reasons outlined here and here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read the discussion at AN and I understand why the request was unsuccessful. If I post another unblock request in the future I will keep in mind what was said in the discussion about what needs to be included in the request.
What I don’t know though, is who that IP user is. The user User:192.76.8.84 doesn’t have a lot of contributions yet ever since I posted to the teahouse in 2019, it seems like they have been waiting on Wikipedia every day for there to be a discussion about me, just so they can oppose it. They have replied to each discussion about me on the same day the discussions were first posted, in 2021, 2022, and 2023. The IP is registered to oxford university, as seen on their talk page, but I highly doubt that there is a student in oxford university who has so much free time that they can be on Wikipedia all the time. If I went to oxford university and went on Wikipedia on one of the computers there would I be editing with the same IP? I think it could be someone who is using some sort of VPN or IP changer or even someone who lives near there who is blocked and goes on their computers every day anonymously. Speedcuber (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really, really bad idea to make an accusation of that kind against a fellow editor when you have no evidence for it. The IP's post to this AN discussion was well-reasoned and factual, and so are the user's other contributions linked from that post. Your accusation about "some sort of VPN or IP changer" makes no sense (it's how non-static IP addresses behave), and your guess that it is a blocked user is a personal attack. Also not sure why you jump to the conclusion that only students use computers at Oxford university, but whether the editor is a student or not is of course irrelevant. Bottom line: your unblock request was declined because of your own actions, and appearing to try to shift the blame to someone else just because they edit using an IP is not a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry if it appeared to you as a personal attack, I didn’t mean for it to be taken that way. I just didn’t know why this IP user seemed to be waiting on Wikipedia for every one of my discussions as they replied to each one within a few hours and also don’t seem to have many other contributions. And I didn’t jump to the conclusion that the editor is a student, I obviously know that there might be people who aren’t students that use computers there, which is why I didn’t say it because I thought it would be obvious. And like you said it’s irrelevant anyway. Thirdly, I really don’t understand what you mean by me trying to shift the blame to someone else? Do you think I’m trying to blame them for me being blocked? I don’t understand as I clearly stated that I know why the unblock request was unsuccessful and I know what I should have posted in the unblock request to have a higher chance of being unblocked, and said I will include such things if I post a request again. Speedcuber (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered Not Saying Things? You could simply stop complaining about the IP, instead of continue to Golbez (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, 192.76.8.84 is The Harvard IP User. A long time anonymous user with a lot of experience and good judgement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 12 April 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).

Speedcuber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked. I have good memories on wikipedia, and I like the project. I know that in the past when I had the freedom of editing, I was silly. The edit to the teahouse was very unwarrented from me, and I shouldn't have done it. I strongly believe that if psydelisto? (don't know their exact name) wouldn't have replied to my teahouse post, and tagged someone else saying that I am their "emancipated minor" then I wouldn't have posted to AN. I thought the edit wasn't needed as iirc i was going to start editing again the next morning which i was looking forward to. I do want to be unblocked and I want to improve the project, hopefully you can support me. I'm sorry about the complaints I made to the anon user, I just want to edit again it's been years. I won't edit all the time, but knowing I can improve the project is good to know. Hopefully I can get atleast one support on this when it goes to AN :) I truly believe I have changed and won't make any silly edits again. Speedcuber (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request was declined by the community less than a week ago. There's no chance you'll be unblocked any time soon. You can make a new appeal to the community no sooner than six months after your last decline or your most recent edit, whichever comes last. Yamla (talk) 14:30, 17 April 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.

User:Yamla why do I have to wait 6 months? why can't i just be unblocked if i know i won't make disruptive edits?

WP:SNOW. You had your chance to make a compelling argument to the community and you failed. We aren't going to let you continue to waste our time by continuing to argue your case each time the community says no. --Yamla (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not the community, it's just a few people who are on the administrators noticeboard at the time it gets posted, you're just unfair..

That's your opinion. No sooner than six months from now, you can try to make a more convincing unblock request. Until then, en.wikipedia isn't the place for you, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 17 April 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).

Speedcuber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked 4 years ago for disruptive editing to the teahouse and the admin's noticeboard. I haven't edited wikipedia in this time and I have only read wikipedia very rarely, until a few months ago when I started to read it more. I wasn't thinking to come back but I looked at my talk page and then thought about coming back after over 4 years.
I made this edit 1 which was completely unnecessary of me and it wasted time. The admin wasn't even harassing me and was only trying to help so I really shouldn't have done that. Then around 3 hours later, someone made this edit 2 about me and even though this edit was annoying to me at the time, that doesn't mean I should have made a new discussion about it on the admin's noticeboard 3 as it wasted time that could have been spent by them on other discussions. I should have tried to resolve it in a different, non-disruptive way.
When I come back to wikipedia, I will probably not edit a lot but I will patrol recent changes and revert vandalism. I have past experience with wikipedia gadgets that can be used to do things such as revert vandalism and make other things easier. I haven't used any of these gadgets in over 4 years, but it shouldn't take long to be familiar with them again. I will also create new articles if I think someone or something should have an article, but doesn't. And I will look at existing articles that have info at the top asking editors to help by doing things such as citing reliable sources, expanding the article, etc.
When I was a lot younger, around or more than 5 years ago, I socked by making new accounts to edit while I was blocked, and even though I was only trying to help, socking isn't allowed as it is classed as block evasion, meaning this request will have to be discussed which I am ok with. Thank you for reading. Speedcuber (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request doesn't address the disruptive editing that occurred before Floquenbeam stepped in to advise you, nor does it acknowledge that in the prior declined request, community members made it quite clear that you have caused so much disruption that at this point you need to tangibly demonstrate your value by contributing to another Wikimedia project if you wish to be unblocked here. I fully agree with this suggestion from the community. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 24 October 2025 (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.

Hi User:Rosguill, why did you edit my unblock request to put some of it in a textbox? If you did it because it’s the bit you were replying to then I understand, but it would be better if we put it back so it doesn’t look like I made it like that. Also, the 2 reasons I haven’t edited other projects are because I wasn’t thinking of coming back to wikipedia until last week, and because I am only interested in the english wikipedia and not other projects, but I could think about it in the future. Would you be ok with a partial block where I am allowed to edit talk pages, to propose edits to articles and to tell people who do vandalism not to. As I would prefer to still edit this project instead of other projects and I know that blocks like this have been done in the past. And then when that goes well and I have been doing that for a bit, would you be ok with me posting a new unblock request?

New discussions

Comment: I believe that in my unblock request from 4 days ago, I shown in that request that I understand why I was blocked, and that I have learnt from my mistakes, and that I will make useful contributions instead (When I said type of edits I will make when I am unblocked). CyclistR (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill, to be honest, hours or a day before the unblock request, I was actually thinking to put in about the suggestion that I should edit a different project before posting a request here, but when it come to typing it, I didn't think of it and was focusing on the other suggestion that in my request I should show/understand the edits that got me blocked, say why they were wrong, and say what I am going to do when I get unblocked. Sorry about that. CyclistR (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PhilKnight, I just seen that you are a global renamer when reading a talk page and viewing your user page, and I think your user page is good. When you have time could you rename my account to CyclistR (it's pending approval) CyclistR (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deepfriedokra: how's it going? I remember talking to you 4 years ago about rename requests. :) Please could you carry my unblock request over to somewhere that it can be discussed, as in the past (over 6 years ago) I socked so it can't be lifted by an individual admin. CyclistR (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as you have not made at least 500 edits over at least six months on another project, you are not unblockable at this time.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been specifically told by anyone to make over 500 edits over at least 6 months on another project, where are you getting this from? A private discussion? Also, if you or other admins can say that about other projects, what can you tell me about all the people who were blocked for the same reason as me, more times than me, and for less time than me? CyclistR (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the above request “I haven't edited other projects while I have been blocked because I only thought of coming back to editing again in the past few weeks and I am used to this project and haven't got used to others and I am interested in this project more and think it's better than others.”

I don’t care about other projects and won’t be editing them. CyclistR (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, Deepfriedokra is referring to the Standard Offer, which would be really beneficial in your case.

Looking through the above, concerns were raised about the quality and competency of your edits on a few occasions.

The best way to prove that you're able to edit productively is for you to bring plenty of evidence - evidence which you can gather by working on another project such as Simple English Wikipedia.

Saying that you don't care about other projects isn't going to help your case - to the contrary, it could easily give the impression that you're not interested in putting in the work to become a better editor. Other Wiki projects aren't any less worthy than English Wikipedia, there's no glory or kudos in editing one over the other.

Being completely blunt, you've had so many failed appeals that you need to take the time and effort to work on a really robust case with plenty of evidence that things have changed.

Without any proof of productive editing elsewhere, you're at high risk of having another declined appeal on your Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Building up a history of productive editing in other projects was suggested in 2022 here and again in 2023 here. It's also at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks on each block notice. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What should I do? I won’t be disruptive again as I’ve already said, I have only been blocked twice, this time for over 4 years. I want to contribute, and believe I could over time get within the top 200 editors of all time by number of edits. It just seems to me that the admins that have got involved with my unblocks are being too strict. I just came across this from Sean hoyland about a user’s unban request to the community, and how a different editor went their own way about it, and never repeated their actions that caused their block.

Sean hoyland said:
“A possible flaw in these oppose arguments that I have no clue how to address is the reality that people don't need to be unblocked in order to edit. Icewhiz, one of the original complainants against TheGracefulSlick, whose account was blocked not long after TGS, has chosen a much more effective path than asking for forgiveness. They don't hand over the power of when and where they can edit to admins by asking for another chance, another opportunity to demonstrate that they can follow the rules. They just edit using numerous disposable accounts when and wherever they want, and they have made tens of thousands of revisions since they were blocked. I think the reality that we do not currently have the tools to prevent individuals from editing, we can only block (some of) their accounts, means that people who choose Icewhiz's path have a substantial fitness advantage over people like TheGracefulSlick who try to return to the community with the community's blessing. This is presumably one of the reasons why the proportion of revisions by sockpuppets is substantially higher in contentious topic areas like WP:ARBPIA than in Wikipedia in general. When the chance of a block/ban review failing is relatively high, choosing sockpuppetry over block/ban review can become the rational choice for some people determined to edit Wikipedia. If someone wants to return to the community and demonstrate that they can follow the rules, perhaps WP:ROPE is the least bad option available.”

Someone then said to him that he implied that socking will happen so it's good, so he replied back:

"It's not intended as an argument that "sockpuppetry is going to happen so it's actually good", although I suppose, depending on what 'good' means here precisely, someone could make that argument based on sock revision bold textsurvival rates (very high), AfD outcomes for articles created or mostly edited by socks (good survival rate), and the benefit to Wikipedia from the 500 revisions required for sock accounts to acquire the extendedconfirmed privilege etc. It's arguing that it can be more effective, that in this system people who employ deception can have fitness advantages over people who do not. Maybe sockpuppetry has a net positive effect on content in some areas. I really don't know. It's possible. What I know is that it's a policy violation, an option available to all blocked/banned people, common, currently unstoppable, and the majority of people seem to prefer to continue socking rather than pursuing the standard offer. So, I'm not sure the 'correct' way for people to return to editing is necessarily the optimal way. I'm arguing that The community's powers are rather limited when it comes to preventing people from editing and this reality should perhaps play more of a role in decision making. Sockpuppetry can be more effective than asking for forgiveness or the standard offer when the desired effect is to edit and create content, as illustrated by the difference between TGS' effect on content since their block vs Icewhiz's effect on content since their block. It is under the person's control, not subject to whims of the community. When someone has used sockpuppetry expresses a desire to reintegrate into the community and offers to demonstrate that they are reformed and can stay out of trouble, it might be better to give them many chances. Or not. Hard to tell. And talking of preposterous, a very nice word, I think it's a little bit preposterous to assume that "six months editing without issue on projects where they are not blocked" tells you anything about future behavior or that it is possible to confirm that a person has gone six months without employing sockpuppetry." CyclistR (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: I don't know what to do. I could've easily evaded the block last month when I first logged into the wiki for over 2 years and had new devices, a different location, etc, but I chose not to. Yet still don't get unblocked. I haven't socked for over 6 years, when I was really young, and don't want to. I see what you are saying in a way.

@Yamla: as a checkuser, what do you think of Icewhiz doing that and going about it his own way, instead of putting his editing in the hands of admins?

@Deepfriedokra: you didn't reply to me when I asked about the people who have been unblocked more times than me, after being blocked for the same reason as me, and also less time than me. Over 1,000 days is easily enough time for another chance. What about the WP guideline that says indefinite blocks are not infinite? CyclistR (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me, "as a checkuser, what do you think of Icewhiz doing that and going about it his own way, instead of putting his editing in the hands of admins?" I'm not getting dragged into that discussion, and I'm not sure why my WP:CHECKUSER status is relevant here. Icewhiz is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, yeah I wasn't thinking of socking anyway. The last time I did was over 6 years ago when I was really young. Maybe another project is the way to go then? Especially since someone mentioned to me about the simple english wiki, what I didn't see or notice on any pictures when searching other Wikimedia projects. Also I've been waiting for my username to be updated, as I have seen blocked users get a global name change before. I submitted the request but still waiting. And as the name "Cyclist" doesn't seem to be taken, I think that's better than CyclistR. -CyclistR (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple is the project that's usually recommended for the Standard Offer - it's a sister project that's (obviously) simpler but close enough to be a good place to work on editing experience. There are plenty of very experienced editors who've taken the exact same path to being unblocked, so it works pretty well!

It's also distanced enough to allow blocked editors to have a fresh start; the only exception would be editors who are globally banned from all Wiki projects, but that's thankfully rare.

Alternative options include Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, or a different language Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please could anyone remove my amount of edits userbox from my userpage, that number has been bugging me and I can't edit my userpage. CyclistR (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]