User talk:BlastoiseTheWikiEditor

Further to your appeal of your WG8686 user account
Hi WG8686,

Further to your good-faith appeal to Stewards a couple months ago, I deferred on a decision, given that it came relatively soon after the then most recent sockpuppetry, but I should have been more articulate in my reply with my reason for the deferral. Ideally, you should have followed up with me again via e-mail, rather than creating further accounts.

Nevertheless, now that it's been at least three months since your last sockpuppetry, notwithstanding this and likely one other account, I'm looking to put in place a long-term continuing solution for you, as the current "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle of you creating accounts, editing in a similar fashion that causes DarkMatterMan4500 to create additional work for Stewards, and then locking any sockpuppet accounts isn't sustainable.

So, what I'm proposing is that you be subject to an indefinite Steward user restriction, one which would require you to:
 * 1) Create any alternate user accounts while logged in to your presumptive and apparent main account (WG88686), ideally on Meta Wiki; and,
 * 2) Refrain from using any alternate accounts you create on wikis where locally blocked, in compliance with user accounts policy

In order to effect this, I need you to confirm two things, by way of a reply to this thread, that:
 * 1) You agree with the proposed terms of your user restriction; and that,
 * 2) You still have access to your WG8686, either by remembering its password or by being able to access the registered e-mail address associated to it

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As part of a long-term continuing solution, I have ✅ your main account, which you may use and which will not be relocked. However, you are not permitted to use sockpuppet accounts without prior approval of Stewards, in accordance with user accounts policy. If you no longer have access to this account, you may e-mail, to request the username WG8686 be usurped, and WG8686 recreated for you. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks WG8686 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WG8686, thanks. It's good to know you also still have access to this user account. If you would like me or Raidarr to assist in having you locally unblocked, with a series of locally-imposed conditions, please let me or Raidarr know. If you would prefer to use a separate user account other than this user account, please let us know privately on Discord or IRC. Dmehus (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For continuity, an unblock arrangement has been reached locally. The terms are fairly simple; be cool, make clean edits with clear edit summaries, use talk pages to civilly resolve disputes and avoid abuse of multiple accounts. Fairly standard things we'd (local bureaucrats and stewards) hope to see of any user in good standing, though for obvious reasons we have a particular interest to reiterate the user accounts part. I hope to see good things, and we won't worry about contentious past unless necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent insistence and badgering
Nidoking,

I see you are very passionate about the reception wikis. Consequently, when a wiki creator (who are the ones who approve and decline requests, not Stewards in their own right) declines a request which they would have normally declined for standard concern, you seem to get irritated. As Raidarr explained elsewhere, your Awful Dhar Mann Videos Wiki would have been declined regardless whether one disliked reception wikis or not because the line between criticizing the videos and the person is very thin and with the recent demonstrated inability to manage a project shown in general by users related to the Qualitipedia project, I am worried that this wiki would quickly devolve into a mess. Bluba's 'Receptionpedia' was declined because of concerns in maintaining and upholding global policy due to that user's generally perceived lack of competence. Because of this insistence on reviving Qualitipedia, I suggested you lot find another wiki host to satisfy your unquenchable need of critiquing work. Now, all of this has irritated and aggravated you which has resulted in you requesting Stewards close all reception wikis. I reiterate, we do not have an issue with them. We have concerns however on the management of these wikis, that they will not be able to control their users and enforce global policy. Your repeated insistence on me formally stating "We ban Reception Wikis" all the more cements this concern and does not help your cause. As a local administrator, I ask that you refrain from your repeated insistence of me or anyone else to formally ban all wikis. It is not helpful and does nothing to help your cause. If you truly need help setting up a reception wiki fork, why not consider self-hosting? It's not too hard, last I remember. Agent Isai Talk to me! 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)