Due to certain off-wiki and on-wiki issues, FR30799386 has retired.
March 2019
illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
I take responsibility for all actions which are being attributed to me. I would like to say is that in probability that the actions are not mine.
I would like a passing admin to please strip me of my advanced permissions. I have always played by the book and knowingly never taken actions which would harm the encyclopedia. In this case also, I intend to do the same. Unless anybody object I will continue to support the Wikipedia community via my off wiki actions. I have certain meatspace priorities which will keep me occupied for the next three months. After that I am sure I can work out a amicable solution with the functionaries and will be able to return to normal editing via a clean start. My scripts should be kept in my userspace unless there is some maintenance which needs to be done to them. They should be transferred to my clean start account if and when I create one. Additionally, anybody please refrain from posting anything on this page anymore.
Bbb23, I want to have a talk with you regarding the motivations of your actions and my obligations from now on. Regards. [email protected] 03:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
::As an addendum I will be scrambling my password so that I will not be able to log into this account. Effectively locking myself out of it. Regards. [email protected] 03:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Rage quits are never the best way to do things [email protected] 05:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if you are checkuser blocked you are not eligible for a
WP:CLEANSTART. Even if you clean up whatever was behind the block and get it removed, a clean start is not what you want if you intend to transfer your scripts to a new account. A clean start is used if if the user does not intend to connect the new account to the previous account. Meters (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, and I'm sorry for having to say this, but since you likely won't be returning I have forked your user scripts and was planning to maintain them. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, go ahead and maintain them, I haven't got any issues. Just make sure that whatever you do just notify me before making any breaking changes. [email protected] 05:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meters, we'll see how it goes. I intend to come back, though whatever I do I will certainly adhere to the rule book. Lets see if I can make myself a net positive to the community despite being blocked on-wiki. [email protected] 05:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, FR, I don't reply to e-mail, and I don't see a way to respond to your question publicly without violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, Are you on IRC ? Additionally it would be great if could give a simple yes or no answer to the last part of my email publicly...[email protected] 13:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use IRC. It might help if you could tell me what you're trying to achieve. Are you denying socking? Do you want to be unblocked? If so, on what basis?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't have OS privileges, but you can request that anything be OSed by e-mailing the OS group. Second, as far as the accounts you mentioned, I suggest you make an unblock request and explain what you did in that request. In that way, it can be formally reviewed as it should be. As part of that review process, I will have to consult with another CU because of something else that you're not admitting that is very troubling, but before that can happen, you have to get the ball rolling with an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... but since you posted it a second time as part of your unblock request, I'm judging that you don't consider it all that sensitive. Oversight can handle the rest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, I have removed the sensitive portion, please revdel. I'm sorry for acting a bit jerky. Also, I'll keep it the way it is until this mess gets resolved. I trust you'all admins. I guess I need a drink (of tea) [email protected] 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Bbb23, set the ball rolling, I have made the request. Any private info needed, please email to fr30799386gmail.com. I will possibly be unavailable tomorrow because of Holi but will certainly respond ASAP .Regards. [email protected] 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier, I don't e-mail users. Have a wonderful Spring celebration tomorrow! In the meantime, please be patient for a resolution of your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
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).
I was until very recently under the impression that this block was for using IP addresses to edit my user subpages. This was why just above, I had admitted to socking. However, on reviewing your actions it seems to be related to User:~ Sohom and User:Sahil D. Those two account were a result of a failed editathon in which I had organised at my home. The only mischief I admit to have committed is to ask them to register with those weird usernames just as an experiment to know what would happen if those usernames would be registered. Both, my batch-mates have lost interest in editing Wikipedia. I am willing to do anything to prove that this is what happened (short of meatspace encounters (for obvious reasons) ). [email protected] 15:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
As Bbb23 has stated, there are things you are not admiting here. I’ve also looked at the technical details, and I don’t find the edit-a-thon explanation particularly convincing based on a review of the technical data alone. There may be another explanation for all of this, but you will need to contact the Arbitration Committee to appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 21 March 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.
, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Court fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Moved to meta:User_talk:FR30799386
