User talk:Shakdust487

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Alpoin117 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpoin117. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2024 (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).

Shakdust487 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a family member of Alpoin117, not Alpoin 117

Decline reason:

Even if that were true, it's still

sockpuppetry. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 29 February 2024 (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.

And you have been coordinating edits. Which is still a form of sock puppetry. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm usually skeptical of sock blocks, so if even I can see it, it must be obvious. Just sayin') -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a different person than Alpoin117, any argument of “coordinating edits” is invalid I wish you can try at least using more words such that there can be something to show in you’re reasoning why you are wrong, and a suspicion is not sufficient for a verdict, that’s why countries are a better influence on society that Wikipedia Shakdust487 (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"that’s why countries are a better influence on society that [sic] Wikipedia" vs "Wikipedia has a greater influence than many countries". Do you have any idea how idiosyncratic these two statements are? You are clearly either the same individual or working so closely with another that you are indistinguishable from each other technically and behaviourally. To Wikipedia, there is no difference between these two possibilities, you will be treated as the same person.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't representing Wikipedia well, one user insulted someone, the other didn't, you are "Wikipedia's judge of the court of appeals as appointed" Shakdust487 (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add if you want please present your law degree on your userpage because proper regulating bodies ensure people at your position would have one, people love getting influenced by this sewer that Kenya is 1000 times more valuable by GDP and deals with people in a better more effective way Shakdust487 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2024 (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).

Shakdust487 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Alpoin117 was blocked not for his stance on Aaron Bushnell but for using a foul mouth towards another user, according to the criteria not to bring friends or family into discussions nothing suggests that warrants being banned, I have nothing to do with the reason of Alpoin117’s banning

Decline reason:

And that has nothing to do with why you were blocked. After reviewing the SPI, I have no doubts as to that. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2024 (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.

Shakdust487 (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2024 (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).

Shakdust487 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understanx the mindset of trying to change my username "to be evasive", thats not why I changed my username, I changed my username not to be associated with a comment refferring to Aaron Bushnell's burnt face as racist blackface due to the reason that despite deserved, it was in poor style, the issue is only about if joining teams with a family member warrants being banned

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not convince me you are not a sock. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2024 (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.

Shakdust487 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reply here due to User:DanielCase not allowing me to reply to his comment, that it's irrelevant to hear what he has doubts about or not based on his review, I myself understand what kinds of reasons say I am the same user as Alpoin117 and no reason like this can be inputted in your sockpuppet investigation, if Wikipedia takes these authoritarive measures we actually have to make sure its done correctly like most countries can be able to, there's no reason to recreate the witchcraft era Shakdust487 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine living in a society with a country of $20 trillion that has experience accompanying over 300 million people with health, education, any thing already established to take care of people, experience with this and the option to legistate to try making it better and better, but what people want is a culture of Wikipedia that comes from what would be the poorest country in the world by far (around $200 million) that doesn't care about any of those services for you and has zero experience with it for you, has no criteria to be qualified for who can be a police or lawyer and these so called proffessionals are actually complicit to let this peice of shit influence people more than USA can Shakdust487 (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I put that in a quote box and self immolate for example even though I lied there are actually countries poorer than $200 million what accountability would you have over it and how would you take care of it's influence? Shakdust487 (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think any Wikipedia admin should be liable right now for not calling emergency services because their findings that I’m Alpoin117 should carry facts like IP address, device ID and generally sufficient information to know who to call. They claimed they know. Shakdust487 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying in ANI request, there isn’t an insult to anyone on this page Shakdust487 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question is, if I self immolate would you posthumously restore this account because it means what I’m saying must be true Shakdust487 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you won’t respond I picked up the tone of you users, being unbiased is actually giving a direct response, not manipulating the outcome of this topic Shakdust487 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bushnell truly seems like a Wikipedia enthusiast since the self immolation of 2010, would you care or investigate? Shakdust487 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without Wikipedia stupid people will care less about the status of the world Shakdust487 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT make personal attacks. Please stop insulting other users and threatening self-harm, doing so will accomplish nothing and only make the removal of your talk page access (not by me, I am not an administrator, but someone who is) more imminent. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t insult any user, I’m framed as “the same user” as another account that insulted 1 person, I don’t know what you mean by “stop insulting” because it’s not ongoing, would you mean that it isn’t threatening self harm but actually doing self harm that sends any kind of message? Shakdust487 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (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.

 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]