User talk:Octahedron foundation

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Reception123:

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
An administrator reviewed Octahedron foundation's unblock request and has declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked!

Octahedron foundation (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribs change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

ok the last edit i made was on the unblock declined template and i made a mistake i reverted them also so far ive only been asking questoins

Denial reason:

You have been warned multiple times before the block and have ignored those warnings and continued the disruptive behavior and nonsensical content. Please take time to reflect on your actions and appeal at a later time (not before at least a month). Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:24, 3 February 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.



hi

Incorrect page move:[edit source]

Hello, I have noticed you have incorrectly attempted to archive your recent discussions to your archive. If you want a certain thread or threads to be archived automatically, you can always reach out to a steward or an administrator of some sort, and they will set up an archive for you. Please be very careful when you attempt to archive pages like you did here. Hope that helps. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's on another user's subpage. Or was it not on purpose? --YellowFrogger (talk) () 23:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit source]

Please do not use RfC to suggest wiki ideas. This you can probably do on the community noticeboard. In the opening table, it says: "way to gather community feedback and to form community consensus on certain proposals, ideas, and issues. Requests for Comments can be used for a variety of purposes where the community should be consulted". Thanks. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damn[edit source]

I guess They don’t like bagels Snail destroyer (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Octahedron foundation: You yourself should know well that Requests for Comment are meant for only serious business and that this type of page is disruptive and can be seen as trolling. Please refrain from making pages like this in the future, thanks. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bagel Snail destroyer (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron foundation: First, what is "Bagel"?? Do you plan to change anything (especially in the content policy)? I don't know what that means. You can open an RfC, as long as it's serious and something community. --YellowFrogger (talk) () 02:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a bagel is a type of food made with bread Snail destroyer (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice[edit source]

A discussion about you has been raised at Meta:Administrators' noticeboard Naleksuh (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit source]

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked from editing Miraheze Meta indefinitely as a result of your disruptive edits. Please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks, legal threats; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies will not be tolerated.

Hi Octahedron foundation,

Regrettably, I have had to indefinitely partially block you from (Main) namespace for persistent disruption and disruptive editing, including, but not limited to, repeatedly creating nonsensical, malformed, and out of scope RfCs. As I do not know when you are able to adhere to community editing norms, I was not able to define a time limit. You are, however, welcome to appeal your block with the {{unblock}} template, but you need to (a) acknowledge what you've done wrong and (b) promise not to continue it.

Additionally, though you've already been guided as to user accounts policy in terms of appropriate and inappropriate users of multiple accounts, I remind you to avoid editing with multiple accounts on this wiki while blocked.

Any Meta administrator will be free to review any block appeal and action accordingly.

Thanks,
Dmehus (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that since Dmehus blocked you partially from the (Main) namespace you have continued being disruptive and discussing nonsensical/off-topic matters as well as randomly writing "hi" on people's talkpages. Please stop doing so, otherwise you may be fully blocked from editing Meta. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok but i have a question Snail destroyer (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended to a sitewide block due to continued disruption in other namespaces and clearly still not listening to warnings given by administrators. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wait what did i do the last edit i made was on the unblock declined template and i fixed my mistakes Snail destroyer (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Strongestoppose Snail destroyer (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the more than 80% of your global edits are construed as either (a) blatant vandalism or (b) trolling, I've Yes check.svg locked your account as a vandalism only account. This does not preclude you from rejoining Miraheze after a reasonable period of time (say at least three (3) calendar months or so), but I would strongly advise you to consider your pattern of behaviour, do some research into generally accepted community behaviour on wikis, blogs, etc., and, crucially, not repeat this pattern of problematic behaviour going forward. Additionally, per my earlier advice to you, you are strongly encouraged to review user accounts policy and ensure you comply with it. Thank you. Dmehus (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that conditional unlock discussed else[edit source]

Hi Octahedron foundation,

I can't remember where, or on which user talk page, I made the conditional unlock offer, or if I made it on IRC in #miraheze-cvt, but in any case, I'll just say that your deceptive creating of Poop fart748, itself a Username Policy violation for which I was in the process of proceeding through its global rename, shows you aren't even able to go at least one month without sockpuppetry and listening to basic instructions. You are good natured and likely have good intentions, but there is a serious lack of maturity that suggests you're not able to survive in an online community environment. It's unfortunate, too, as you were a mere 1-2 days away from your conditional unlock date of April 19th-20th. I might've been willing to forgive a day or two, but this isn't your "first rodeo," so to speak, and at some point, I have to be firm.

So let me make this crystal clear: no unlock before 1 August 20212022. On that date, you may e-mail stewards(at)miraheze.org to request an unlock and the creation of one wiki for your Octahedron foundation account. At that point, you may also request a global rename to SOUUUP, if you so desire. If you sock before then, your socks will be locked on sighed as reason Lock evasion: [[Special:CentralAuth/Octahedron foundation|Octahedron foundation]], and the "unlock clock" will be reset by a further three months from date of last sock. In order words, if you sock on June 1st, 2022, your new conditional unlock/appeal date will be September 1st, 2022.

Thanks,
Dmehus (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 1st, 2021 is in the past. Did you mean 2022? Naleksuh (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thanks. Fixed DarkMatterMan4500's good-faith fix. I should add this would just be the earliest date for an unlock. I would need to significant positive contributions elsewhere, likely for several months following that, before considering an unblock on Meta. Dmehus (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: The thing is, I suggested he should return in October, and Raidarr actually agreed that this was likely to occur from there. The continuation of block/lock evasion will not help him get his main account back up, even if his origin account was his main account before he switched to his Octahedron foundation account in question here. If Mr. foundation is reading this, I'm just going to state for the record that the evasion will only cause a reset of the appeal chances, and it will go so deep into the ocean that you won't be able to crawl out of this one if the ban evasion were to ensue even more. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After conferring with Doug at length, I consider an August 1st minimum (along with the other terms as described) to be reasonable. This was a dual decision between us, hammered out after the hasty events on IRC. I'm not against giving a chance so long as the ability to keep quiet and avoid disruption for that long is proven. --Raidarr (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Raidarr has articulated, let's avoid the hyperbolic it will go so deep into the ocean that you won't be able to crawl out of this one if the ban evasion were to ensue even more metaphors, DarkMatterMan4500. :) Dmehus (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Very well then. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]