User talk:Thegameshowlad

2023 Africa U-17 Cup of Nations
كأس أمم إفريقيا تحت 17 سنة 2023;
Tournament details
Host country	Algeria
Dates	Spring 2023 (Expected)
Teams	12 (expected) (from 1 confederation)
Venue(s)	TBD
	← 2021 2025 →

August 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, 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 ~~~~}}. only (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry, I have had a warning, 3 months I believe is too long, please reconsider it, I won't move any more pages, I am here for the good.Please don't block me, ill accept a final warning.

Decline reason:

My message to you was a final warning. If you read the guide to appealing blocks you might have more success. But I was in the process of issuing my own block when only came in here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2020 (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.

Thegameshowlad (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) @Only @ Ser Amantio di Nicolao,[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).

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

Request reason:

Steven, please step in and help me, I’ve been wrongly blocked, if you unblock me you will forever be my hero

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:14, 24 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn’t understand my edits were wrong, I miss understood policy and I will be constructive in future, I don’t consider myself to have done anything wrong, I haven’t used multiple accounts, it must have been someone else I share an ip with.

Decline reason:

You received plenty of warnings and have not listened. "I don't consider myself to have done anything wrong" is not going to get you unblocked. I suggest you step back, read through all of the advice you have been given, and then think very carefully about your next unblock request - if you continue wasting peoples' time with this sort of unblock request, your talk page access may be revoked for the duration of your block. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2020 (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.

Thegameshowlad (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the important things that admins look at when reviewing unblock requests is honesty. Are you denying that the accounts that TonyBallioni mentioned blocking here are yours? The accounts he blocked are mostly all named after things that interest you (i.e. game shows and football). only (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegameshowlad, I'm sorry to see that you've been blocked, and having spoken to you a bit in the last couple of days I feel sure that you can contribute successfully in the future, but you need to take this slowly. Remove the two unblock requests now. Go on and do it, because there is zero chance of them being granted and if you continue requesting right now then maybe a talk page ban imposed as well. After that, take some time to reflect on everything that's been said here. There probably exists an unblock request for you in the future, but it isn't today and it won't be granted until you give a firm plan as to how you intend to proceed, avoiding some of the issues that have caused this block in the first place. But for now, please just remove these two unblock requests. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Amakura Thank you. I am confident I will be unblocked within the next 3 days, is there anyway we can talk about it so you can have a review and make a report about it? I am really upset and was nearly crying earlier but it’s not your fault, I know I have inadvertadley broke policies. Thegameshowlad (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=“The block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead”. I didn’t know that any of my misdeeds were wrong, I completely understand why I was blocked, I have read the policies and I understand everything better now. I am sorry for inadvertadly breaking rules and I will be more careful in future. }} [[User:Thegameshowlad|Thegameshowlad]] ([[User talk:Thegameshowlad#top|talk]]) 18:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I didn’t know it was illegal to move pages without consensus, I won’t do that again, I will stick to one account, I will keep articles in draft space, I won’t upload copyrighted pictures, tender RfA’s make illegitimate blocks or make null edits, I didn’t realise any of these were illegal and I have learned my lesson I misunderstood the policy I have spent ages reading them and I will be constructive in future}}[[User:Thegameshowlad|Thegameshowlad]] ([[User talk:Thegameshowlad#top|talk]]) 08:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

In the past I have moved pages without conscensous, I have realised this is not right so I won’t do that again, I have created articles without approval, again I didn’t know this was “illegal” and I’ll behave otherwise in future and leave articles in draft space. I have made 10 consecutive null edits to get my edit count up, again I’ll not do that again given I didn’t know it wasn’t appreciated. I have uploaded files to commons, that I didn’t know were copyrighted, I’ll be more careful in future, I won’t make anymore RFS’s, previously I have placed block temples on pages, I thought anyone could block vandals, but now I understand you can’t and I won’t until I become an admin (something I’m not expecting for at least another 12-18 months). This is my request and I’ll let the admins decide if it is successful

Decline reason:

I've read your many requests and looked through the history of this page. I agree with Only that it is best that you sit this out for a longer period. Given this page history it does not come across that you have learned from the issues that caused the block and the subsequent unblock declines. If you truly have listened to all the advice given to you on this page then come back when the block has expired and start again.

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.

Thegameshowlad (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao Only only Barkeep49

Regards, The Game Show Lad.

20/08/20

While you're blocked, you don't get to edit with your IP address. I've now blocked the IP address for the length of this block. only (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@only I haven’t edited from my IP since you payed the smack on this account. Look, I really do think it was time I am unblocked. Have you read my request above?. I’ve done all I can. Give me a chance. Thegameshowlad (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit clearly took place today. I disagree that it's time that you were unblocked, especially if you're editing from your IP while blocked on this account. I've read your request above and still believe that it's best that you sit out for longer. Again, these are not things you're going to learn/correct in less than a week, especially if you keep ignoring the advice of people on this page. But, I'll leave it to another admin who hasn't already responded here to decline or accept. only (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only that was me, I am sorry, I couldn’t recall it, I was only Rvv to with good faith. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I have taken almost a month out. I’ve read the policies, thought long and hard about what I can do, I won’t tender another request until you welcome my appeal 1st. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have sat out for a long time I’m ready to return. I’ve served my punishment, I understand policy better now and I’m looking forward to the future. I’m confident this unblock request was successful

Decline reason:

See the other unblock request below. JBW (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2020 (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.

Thegameshowlad (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only @Barkeep49 @Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Before proposing an unblock, I suggest you learn basic wikisyntax and understand how to ping other users in a way that actually sends notifications. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - blocks are not "punishments", they exist simply to prevent harm to the project. And it's not simply a case of sitting it out for a long time and then coming back. What we need, as stated in your previous unblock requests, is for you to acknowledge that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, and give a detailed explanation of how you intend to proceed differently this time around. Let's hear that, and then we can think about it, because I do believe you can be a useful contributor here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here in late June, I didn’t know all the policies, I rushed into creating articles without thinking and failing to comply with standards, as a result I was given a block for 3 months, I have read all the policies and in future I will not make the same mistakes, I will cite anything I add, I will not make null edits, I will not make Rfa’s for a long time, I will not make unblock requests for other people and I won’t place block templates on peoples pages. I will write article with true info and cite everything I add and grow this wiki. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thegameshowlad, can you give us a sense of the kinds of edits you are interested in making after an unblock? You don't have to know exactly, but I don't want there to be any surprises and certainly don't want you to end up re-blocked a day or a week after an unblock so a general sense would be very helpful. Also, can I ask why you chose to request unblock rather than waiting our another month? Frankly, as much as the block was for different things, ultimately the block was for seriously inconveniencing other editors in making them look over and/or clean up things you've done, and so the thing I personally want to see most is a greater of respect for other editors' time, and making these kinds of unblock requests isn't too promising in my view. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have refactored your comment a bit to remove the duplicate {{unblock}} template (only one should be active at a time). Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 months are left on my block actually. I want to improve articles about sport and game shows and start new ones. I will be more careful. Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am generally more willing than most administrators to unblock editors who say they now understand what they did wrong and will not do the same again. However, with the best will in the world I can't see anything in what you have written during the block that gives any impression that you really do understand how disruptive your editing was, or what needs to be done differently. Your unblock request dated 2 October makes it clear that you have either not read the guide to appealing blocks or have read it and totally failed to understand it, as nobody who does understand that guide could possibly think the request had any chance whatever of success. As for this request, posted while the previous one was still open, and not giving any reason whatsoever for unblocking, the only conceivable effect that might have had would have been to add to the impression that you don't know what you are doing, had there been any doubt about it. My advice to you is that your best plan is to wait the remaining 24 days until the present block runs out, because every time you post here requesting an unblock you just provide more reason to think that unblocking is not a good idea. And when the block finally is over, please re-read all the advice you have been given, and try to learn from it, because if you carry on in the same way as before then it is likely that you will be blocked indefinitely, and I hope that won't happen. JBW (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2020 (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.

Thegameshowlad (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247 Just to clarify, i use a shared IP network (as stated before) i know who this person is and it isn’t myself and i was unaware of their actions and i believe socking only applies to person. If there actions have caused me to be yeeted, as a user of this IP address i take responsibility, the person who created the new account is someone i am close to (i’ll not name them) and they have similar roles/interests in me. I apologise for those actions on myself and the other person involved’s behalf. Thegameshowlad (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn’t get what i was doing wrong i know now, i feel i need 1 last chance to edit legit please Thegameshowlad (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are banned as per WP:3X. No admin is permitted to unilaterally lift your block, you instead need to follow the process outlined in WP:UNBAN. There's no significant chance of your ban being lifted at this point as you were evading your ban just days ago. Your best bet is to wait at least six months then plead for unbanning under WP:SO. Any further unblock requests that do not follow the process outlined in WP:UNBAN may result in you losing access to your talk page. Yamla (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2020 (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.

I'll note additionally that your last blocked sockpuppet was showing the same WP:CIR issues, so you'd specifically need to address what steps you have taken to resolve this, when you contest your ban no sooner than six months from now. --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yalma a user emailed me when i was blocked telling me just to create a new account. Thegameshowlad (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before that, you were told multiple time to read Wikipedia's guidelines, and this comment clearly shows you failed to do so. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1234qwer1234qwer4 another user said ignore them you will not get found out. Thegameshowlad (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to convey? Saying you deliberately violated the rules won't get you closer to an unblock. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1234qwer1234qwer4 I was reluctant to violate the rules, i will not name the user publically but i will email it you. They emailed me saying i should create another. Thegameshowlad (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I have emailed it you. I will forward you the conversation when you reply.[reply]

What are you expecting me to write? [[User:|𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰]] (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just acknowledge the email to prove it is you then i will forward the conversation. Did you get the emaal 1234qwer1234qwer4 Thegameshowlad (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, and it does not seem to be particularly related to your unblock request. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegameshowlad, just to add that an email from some miscellaneous editor advising you to break the rules is not a defence in the fact that you then went on to break them. So forget about this line of reasoning. It looks like you're banned for another six months, so I advise you to either forget about Wikipedia, or if you really still think there's something you can contribute here, read the guidelines properly and come back in those six months showing that you really understand where this has all gone wrong so far. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What so harassment isn’t recognised? The user persistently harassed me. Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you didn't mention that before, you appeared to saying the aforementioned user was giving you friendly advice on breaking the rules, rather than harassing you. If they're continually sending you emails, even now, then maybe consider switching your Wikipedia email address to something else, so that it doesn't hit your normal inbox. Obviously there are remedies available at Wikipedia:Harassment, for users who feel they're being bullied etc, but that I've not heard of an issue involving a long-term banned user before. I'd advise to just move on for now, there's little value in continuing this discussion. My advice to you above still stands. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I have just realised it is an admin that was harassing me, i have emailed you his user name and i will also email you the conversation. Thegameshowlad (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru ~~it is against my human rights to ban me as a person so i will take legal action if you do not stop with such. Thegameshowlad (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Enough trolling. Talk page access revoked. You may use WP:UTRS if you wish to unconditionally withdraw your legal threat or to indicate that your legal action is resolved, and to indicate you will make no more (absolutely ludicrous) legal threats. I very strongly suggest waiting at least six months from today (or the latest time you've evaded your block, whichever is later), as all you have done so far is to very clearly demonstrate you should remain blocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2020 (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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Concern regarding Draft:Giorgio Marchetti (2)[edit]

Hello, Thegameshowlad. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Giorgio Marchetti (2), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Thegameshowlad/sandbox[edit]

Hello, Thegameshowlad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Michael Heselschwerdt[edit]

Hello, Thegameshowlad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Michael Heselschwerdt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 38855 (NLT)[edit]

Legal threat withdrawn at UTRS appeal #38855. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the legal threat here, made a week after the first one was withdrawn? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely withdraw that one UNCONDITIONALLY as well @Eagles247: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44473[edit]

User has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #44473. Yamla is agreeable to restoring talk page access. I do so now. User is CBANned and must request unblocking via WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 2[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

In August 2020 I was blocked for 3 months with the reason ‘Competence is required; while good-faith, making too many disruptive errors in a short span’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=110830381) after numerous unblock requests it became clear that an unblock would not be possible, at this point I knew basically no rules or policies. Then, recharge stupidly in October 2020, I created User:Gameshowandsportsfan2007, after a few weeks I got caught out and that account was blocked and this accounts block was extended to indefinite, at that point if I had have waited another month non of my Sockpuppetry and bans would have happened and I would have been editing legitimately for the last 7 months, after that I created a number of other Sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad, all of which quacked so obviously and numerous were blocked on the policy that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a dusk without CU evidence, all of this I deeply regret and am frankly ashamed of, after numerous unblock requests and apologies I made a ludicrous legal threat one which I withdrew unconditionally yesterday. Over the last 6 months I have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines and now I feel I can return to editing without causing any issues. If I were to be unblocked I will expand and create articles on football and game shows, which I am passionate about. I FULLY understand no admin can unblock me without consultation with the community, as I have read WP:UNBAN numerous times. One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets, I have never vandalized any pages. I fully understand the reason ]s for the block and I admit that I have acted really stupid and I would love to be able to put it behind me, if an unblock is not possible at the minute, I will fully understand why and I would focus on that before requesting a further unblock. With this all said I am requesting the standard offer. Thanks Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Special:Permalink/1030859186#Unban request from Thegameshowlad is the formal close. More informally, I'd just stress that your interaction before and during the unblock proceedings is important - both "tone" and content. If you are in good standing on de-wiki and have sufficient language skills you can of course edit there. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:04, 28 June 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.

@Nosebagbear: my earlier response was stupid as I was quite upset. On reflection I am going to put a strong case together linking contributions to other wiki (I will contribute to simple wikipedia and de-wiki and French wikipedia, as I speak Deutsch and Francais decently. Thegameshowlad (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't following the instructions at WP:UNBAN, nor have you addressed your sockpuppetry. Please reread WP:UNBAN and please revise your request to address all the points. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I have addressed my socking at UTRS and having read through the instructions, I feel I heave read it. Given I have understanding issues would you be able to simplify what these points are? If you give me a list of points to address I would be delighted to do so! Thegameshowlad (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think your unblock request can be granted here by an administrator. That's not the case, see WP:UNBAN. Frankly, your full request needs to be made here, it's inappropriate to tell people to also check UTRS; not many admins have access to UTRS. You say you "created another account", but that's not the full truth, is it? You created at least six accounts, not one. If you had only created one account, you wouldn't have been banned. One account is perhaps a misunderstanding, six accounts is outright malicious behaviour. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being accused of coaching, you must fully and thoroughly deal with each of the behaviors that led to your block. What you did; what you would do. Honestly, I don't know how to make this point more clearly. Your request will need to be carried over to WP:AN for the community to review. And they are much stricter about these things than I. TBH, I would decline if it were up to me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yalma Deepfriedokra I have been out all day and have only just seen your reply, sorry I couldn’t reply sooner. I have written a full unblock request above for your info, is it better? Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Yamla}} Ping did not work. Yamla-- thoughts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: ping still did not work :) ——Serial 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I think this is sufficient to take to WP:AN. Anyone else is likely to do so. Barring objections, I plan to take it to the noticeboard this afternoon. --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yalma: Thanks. I am really grateful Thegameshowlad (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Is an unblock likely?[reply]

We never know ahead of time. We are hopeful. It is good to have a request we can carry to the community. We like being able to. I do so now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long will the process last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We never know ahead of time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant how long do they last on average? Are you talking a couple days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: what is the threshold for an unblock[reply]

It can vary wildly depending on the case.

I've seen these close (with either overwhelming, near 100% support, or opposes) in 24 hours, and I've seen them drag on for a month or longer. It's a discussion that needs to be had. Eventually, the comments will settle, and an admin will read everything over and decide if there is consensus to unblock.

Please note that consensus is not a straight count, and the strength of the arguments made is taken into consideration.

Make sure that you have read the guide to appealing blocks, there is a lot of good information there. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: whilst I fully accept your view my understanding was that the 72 hours were for a request for block not unblock. @ToBeFree: to further address your objection, at that point in August 2020 I was going through a bad time as far as wiki was concerned, I knew basically nothing and I had no understanding, I have become quite interested and frankly addicted in wanting over the last few months to help out and trust me, if I am unblocked (which with an 80% majority so far leaves my very optimistic) my August 2020 contributions were of low standard and I believe that I can edit to a very high standard if I finally get my unblock. Saying this I accept Freedom of Speech and I understand and support that everyone is entitled to your own opinion. Thanks and take care Thegameshowlad (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegameshowlad, thanks for the ping and for addressing the concerns. I'll reply here but potentially modify my message at WP:AN afterwards.

In the discussion, 192.76.8.91 has suggested "avoid[ing] administrative/advanced areas of the encyclopaedia". The "expanded block reason" provided by Only in Special:Diff/974722345 explains this suggestion. You propose to "expand and create articles on football and game shows", which is perfectly fine and never was a problem by itself. If you had done only this before, this block would not exist.

For this reason, while the proposed future editing is perfectly acceptable, I do not yet see any actual response to the concerns that led to your original block. The proposal does not even rule out further administrative involvement one day after the unblock. The sockpuppetry is addressed in detail, but I view the sockpuppetry block as an extension of the original block, which I'd say is still in place for the original reasons. To me, the following is happening here:

Get temporarily blocked for X
Create sockpuppets, get a block extension for sockpuppetry
Create an unblock request that addresses only the sockpuppetry
Get unblocked without having ever addressed X. Success.

That really can't be happening. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(and while we're talking about policy awareness, mentioning "freedom of speech" in an unblock discussion was surely a friendly gesture, but "WP:NOTFREESPEECH" is a central policy shortcut, a misunderstanding about "free speech" on Wikipedia is part of WP:GAB's "Examples of bad unblock requests" and you had made a legal threat regarding your human rights before, so that's a rather awkward statement to make. I understand how it was meant, don't worry about it and there's no need to address this further, but I thought I should mention this perhaps.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have addressed ‘X’ if I am unblocked I will focus primarily on expanding and creating articles on game shows and not in areas that admins do that was my original goal but I didn’t quite manage to execute it, my long term goal one day is to become an admin myself (I know that is a VERY long time away) but for now I would focus on editing @ToBeFree: Thegameshowlad (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Regarding the adminship goal, that's not a problem by itself – it never was – but the schedule was unreasonable to a degree that led to a block. Even if adminship itself is agreedly a long time away, there are of course smaller steps on the path there, and these have been taken too early. My main concern is now that this will happen again.

Ideally, adminship is not a goal; ideally, you receive the permissions almost automatically over time, without having actively attempted to obtain them. I understand that this is an unrealistic view, but a common issue – to me – is that some editors focus this goal too early. If you have made tens of thousands of contributions and notice that you're practically doing administrative work, deciding to run for adminship in the next years is perfectly fine. That's just what I did. If, on the other hand, you have made a few hundred contributions and notice that adminship is an interesting thing you'd like to have too, that's probably too early. Not just too early for adminship, but actually too early to focus one's efforts on it and to call it a goal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I understand that and that’s why I won’t be considering running for adminship myself for a long time, that is the long term goal 🥅! I know my schedule was unreasonable, I am though still interested in the administrative side of things but I won’t be doing any of the closing discussions that admins should do or submitting any RFAs they were very stupid. I will focus mainly on editing. Can I just say you have actually helped me a lot and I will not make any of those mistakes after an unblock. Also given you seem quite young still, may I enquire at what age did you begin editing Wikipedia? Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: How is waiting 2 more years going to make any difference? I am confident that I will be unbanned given you are largely outnumbered (no disrespect to you). I will not be even considering or thinking about adminship now, that goal is completely suspended I will focus 100% on editing and creating articles about football and game shows. Not getting involved with the admins jobs. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you count a 10-year-old's spam contributions on the German Wikipedia, I started fixing typos and broken links in 2012, and patrolling recent changes in 2013, when I was 15-17 years old (enwiki, dewiki). I really did not have adminship in mind, but I was soon interested in becoming a dewiki reviewer/"editor", a usergroup automatically assigned according to the following criteria: de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete_Versionen#Sichterstatus That's roughly equivalent to "extended-confirmed" on enwiki today, but comes with the ability to patrol pending changes on a wiki that has pending-changes protection on every article. The idea of striving to adminship is from August 2018, when I was 21 or 22.

Regarding the "2 more years", that's just a personal opinion on how quickly Wikipedia editors can change significantly enough to alleviate past concerns. Some need half a year, some need ten years, and my completely unscientific guess for this specific situation is "3 years". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar story. I won’t be striving for adminship any time soon. Also as I speak some German I may make some contributions to de.Wikipedia at some point. I believe I will be able to simply edit without causing any disruption. Also to get unblocked if the result stayed like this by Tuesday afternoon would an unblock be granted? as I can’t see anything regarding requisite majorities but I presume only a simple majority is required. Thegameshowlad (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC) @ToBeFree:[reply]

Unfortunately unblock discussions have no set time limit; some discussions are pretty straight-forward (i.e. unanimous after a day or two and closed) and some drag on for a week or two (though this is the extreme end of the scale and rarely happens). In other words, we can't exactly guarantee that (should the discussion continue its trend) you will definitely be unblocked on any particular day. Please continue to be patient. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: what is the threshold for closing after after a day or too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: could you please add to the thread on the notice board the following statement: ‘If I were to be unblocked, I would contribute primarily in creating, editing and expanding articles on football and game shows, something I am passionate about. The main reason for my initial block (before my idiotic sockpuppetry) was for trying to be too involved in the advanced administrative side of it, something I would totally avoid if an unblock was to be granted.’ Thanks Thegameshowlad (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: now I’ve assured you I will not be getting involved in the around in the advanced administrative areas of the site can you please clarify what your objection to it is taking into account: ‘If I were to be unblocked, I would contribute primarily in creating, editing and expanding articles on football and game shows, something I am passionate about. The main reason for my initial block (before my idiotic sockpuppetry) was for trying to be too involved in the advanced administrative side of it, something I would totally avoid if an unblock was to be granted’? Thegameshowlad (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the early-closure question: It's about consensus, which is a very important but only loosely defined term on Wikipedia. The requirements for meeting the "consensus" criterion vary from noticeboard to noticeboard and discussion to discussion. It is impossible to provide the clear answer you're looking for.)

Thank you for the clarification. I remain convinced that waiting two more years would be beneficial, as all the discussions, cordial as they have been, have just repeatedly confirmed my view to me. The new clarification is a good step, but modifying the appeal in a specifically requested way can hardly offset the original impression. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t wait 2 years. I would be at risk of committing Sockpuppetry. Something I hate myself for doing and would hate to have to swoop so low again. Thegameshowlad (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really, really trying to be as understanding as possible, but this is exactly the issue and the reason why I think you're not yet ready to be unbanned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look I have autism among other sensory issues, I feel I am ready to return and contribute constructively. But yourself in my shoes and think if you would you have been prepared to wait 2 years? I feel if I am made to wait I would end up committing sockpupptry something I know is wrong and I would hate to do but I don’t know if I could resist. I don’t want to do that again, I hate myself for it as I am frankly ashamed to have swooped so low Thegameshowlad (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC) @ToBeFree:[reply]

To be completely honest, when I see someone say "I have X issue so I should get an exception", it makes me think they're trying to get sympathy points; such things are not an excuse to misbehave. If you know there are issues that cause you to do something, you need to either learn how to deal with those issues or avoid situations that cause those issues to arise. As a minor point, a few of your talk page posts have been hidden under WP:OSPOL for being personal information. Again, it's the sort of thing that should not be used as an excuse, and is not the sort of thing you should be telling random strangers on the internet. Please feel free to email me if you do not remember exactly what was added, but otherwise please do not re-add such content again. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was my age. I am not asking for sympathy or an exemption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: I will NOT create sockpuppets if this unban doesn’t pass (which at 6-3 and no heavy evidence either way is looking like it will), what I was saying above is I don’t know if i could resist socking if I was made to wait 2 more years as Tobias Frei suggested above, don’t get me wrong I hate myself for socking and will do everything to prevent it happening again! Thegameshowlad (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@192.76.8.91: I will NOT revert to socking if this is not accepted I am not threatening to do so all I said was that whist I hate socking and know it is really bad and deceitful, an opportunity may come along to make an edit and I may not resist (even though I will do everything to stop that from happening) this is not a reason that I should be unblocked, over the last 6 months I have considered socking but have resisted only on knowing that an unblock was likely but this time it will be too long. Look, like some others have said, I believe if you give me a chance I shall not cause any issues, I believe that pursuant to Wikipedia’s assume good faith statute I should be given a chance to prove myself and if not reblocking me is easy enough if I cause a nuisance. Also I will state that if I were to be unblocked then reblocked I would not make any further unblock requests and I would request for account to be disabled as that would be the end of my time here. I would have certainly outlived my welcome. I am 99.99999999999r%sure this won’t happen but FWIW I think it was appropriate to stipulate my position on that matter. Thanks Thegameshowlad (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Just to clarify what I meant by ‘ One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets, I have never vandalized any pages’ look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation/Thegameshowlad, even though I created 6 ‘duck quacking’ socks, if you look at all the edits they were maid with good intentions (for the benefit of the encyclopaedia), not to cause deliberate disruption. Not once did I vandalise pages. Also regarding the signing in main space I don’t recall that edit but I presume it was an accident. When I am unblocked I will always create articles in draft space and to clarify I will not submit any RFA’s for myself. Thegameshowlad (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @Deepfriedokra: How much longer will the discussion last? It was looking positive for me but then went a bit downhill but I’m still confident. Thegameshowlad (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article mock up to prove I am capable of writing articles[edit]

This is an article I have mocked up based on the U17 AFCON 2023. @Amakuru: @Eagles247: @Chess: @ToBeFree: What do you think @Eagles247:? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameshowlad (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 Africa U-17 Cup of Nations will be the 15th edition of the Africa U-20 Cup of Nations (20th if tournaments without hosts are included), the biennial international youth football tournament organized by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) for players aged 17 and below. The top four teams will qualify to the 2023 U-17 FIFA World Cup in Peru, delayed from 2021 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The tournament will be hosted by Algeria ^[1]

Qualification[edit]

Player eligibility[edit]

Players born 1 January 2006 or later are eligible to participate in the competition.

Qualified teams[edit]

12 teams are expected to qualify

Team	Zone	Appearance	Previous best performance
Algeria (hosts)	North Zone	2nd ^[a]	Runners-up (2009)
	North Zone
	West Zone A
	West Zone A
	West Zone B
	West Zone B
	Central Zone
	Central Zone
	Central East Zone
	Central East Zone
	South Zone
	South Zone

References

^ https://www.cafonline.com/press-release/news/caf-executive-committee-media-statement

response[edit]

TGSL, are these kinds of noncontroversial-facts pre-event sports stubs typically initially sourced to a press release? —valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced it to such as that is the only citation. @Valereee:Thegameshowlad (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC) what you think of it?[reply]

Unblock (3)[edit]

I am submitting the following new unblock request and I will address all the issues raised in opposition to my 1st.

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).

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

Request reason:

In August 2020 I was blocked for 3 months with the reason ‘Competence is required; while good-faith, making too many disruptive errors in a short span’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=110830381), I acknowledge the reason for this as I was not complying with admin requests on 3 main areas, A) I continued to create articles in main space after being asked to add them to draft space, B)I was closing discussions wrongly, I was then told by an admin if I’m gunna do it I’ve got to do it right but I continued to perform them in the same way C) I submitted an RFA after like 2 weeks of editing. If unblocked I will ALWAYS A) Create articles in draft space and cite them correctly, B) I will not engage in any in-depth administrative areas for a very long time until I’m sure I’m doing this correctly, I promise I will focus on improving the wiki and leave the admin stuff to the more experienced wikipedians. After numerous unblock requests it became clear that an unblock would not be possible, at this point I knew basically no rules or policies. Then, recharge stupidly in October 2020, I created User:Gameshowandsportsfan2007, after a few weeks I got caught out and that account was blocked and this accounts block was extended to indefinite, at that point if I had have waited another month non of my Sockpuppetry and bans would have happened and I would have been editing legitimately for the last 7 months, after that I created a number of other Sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad, all of which quacked so obviously and numerous were blocked on the policy that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a dusk without CU evidence, all of this I deeply regret and am frankly ashamed of, after numerous unblock requests and apologies I made a ludicrous legal threat one which I withdrew unconditionally last week. Over the last 6 months I have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines and now I feel I can return to editing without causing any issues. If I were to be unblocked I will expand and create articles on football and game shows, which I am passionate about. I FULLY understand no admin can unblock me without consultation with the community, as I have read WP:UNBAN numerous times. One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets, I have never vandalized any pages. I fully understand the reasons for the block and I admit that I have acted really stupid and I would love to be able to put it behind me, if an unblock is not possible at the minute, I will fully understand why and I would focus on that before requesting a further unblock. When unblocked I will only act in 2 areas, A) creating articles about football and game shows in draft space and B) editing articles whilst citing all the info I add. Also regarding the socking, I will never sock again I withdraw all I said about that it was just something that I wanted to be honest about but I’m sure I will not sock. With this all said I am requesting the standard offer. Thanks Thegameshowlad (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal to be unbanned has already been reviewed in a community discussion, and this discussion was closed 28 June 2021 as unsuccessful (see previous decline above). I will protect this page for six months to prevent further disruptive repetition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 15 July 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.

@Deepfriedokra: @Yamla:

Checkuser note to reviewing admins: there appears to have been one login, but no edits, with a sock account (one the user hasn't declared and hasn't shown up in the SPI), a couple of weeks ago. No edits from any of the other accounts in the CU timeframe. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thegameshowlad - what's going on here? You've re-posted the identical unblock request to the one above, even with the same time-stamp, only four days after your previous request was declined. In my view this is way too soon to be considering another request, and furthermore you will need to explicitly address the issues that were raised in the community unban process last time. My advice to you is to please withdraw this now, let the dust settle on the last unblock request, and then come back with a properly reasoned request, addressing the issues that were raised. Because you're not doing yourself favours by persistently coming back here with the same request. — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: If you read it properly I have expanded on it quite a lot, as for the time stamps sorry that was a mistake on my part (forgot to add the 4 new tildes 😂). Thegameshowlad (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I would make[edit]

I am working on putting together a strong unblock case @Amakuru:. Here are some articles I would approve (the below is my version and you can compare them with the current version on the page.

Article in user talk space removed, see Special:PermaLink/1033764756#2021_CAF_Women's_Champions_League for text. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

@Amakuru: I feel that my first unblock request was wrongly declined as: A)In view of WP:AGF I feel that not enough was put up against it. B)Some of the evidence against me was put forward by a non-admin on the admin noticeboard which from my understanding is only for admins.

I know you were against my unblock but I know you said you were willing to consider changing if I demonstrated what I would do in future. To avoid a WP:Conflict of Interest I’m requesting a further review from an uninvolved editor Thegameshowlad (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that "Some of the evidence against me was put forward by a non-admin on the admin noticeboard which from my understanding is only for admins" does not exactly speak for the competence issues being resolved. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: I want to resolve the competence issues and submit another request. Thegameshowlad (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TGSL, I think what 1234 is referring to is that any editor is free to post to Administrators Noticeboard. The board is for things that need to be brought to admin attention. It isn't just a place for admins to discuss amongst themselves. There are very few places on Wikipedia where input is limited to only a certain group, and those sections will be labeled as such. —valereee (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS[edit]

Despite being told here that any future appeal would only be considered in six months, this user made a request in UTRS appeal #45963. This should be held against them in any future unban request. Thegameshowlad has been warned that any further request made before the six months is up may result in a ban from UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best path to an unblock is going to look something like this:

Stop creating new accounts here. Forget about enwiki.
1. Don't try to edit here. Even if someone is wrong on the internet. Let them be wrong, ignore it.
2. Every sockpuppet you make here to continue editing will be caught, and will make getting unblocked even harder.
Participate in a positive manner in another WMF project.
Don't appeal again at a minimum until your time is up per the above.
Address the reasons for your block. Explain why you decided to behave the way you have, and what you plan to do in the future to mitigate that behavior.
1. Because of how you have repeatedly abused multiple accounts, you have become banned per WP:3X. You'll have to make a convincing case to the community before you can return to editing.

I hope this helps. You've dug a deep hole for yourself, but I've seen others climb out. You can do it if you try. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ineligible for unblock discussion till December 28, 2021[edit]

Appeal to be unbanned was reviewed in a community discussion, and this discussion was closed 28 June 2021. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[1] ttps://www.cafonline.com/press-release/news/caf-executive-committee-media-statement

[1]

[a]