User talk:AH999


 * }

October 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CSD. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - MrX 00:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

September 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do then? AH999 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, stop lying to us? Max Semenik (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When can I start editing Wikipedia again? AH999 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

AH999 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When you make a successful unblock request and we unblock you. Suggest starting reading with WP:OFFER. By the way, you're not hacked anymore? Max Semenik (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you know of any willing admins? AH999 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me be blunt. First, I don't believe your "hacking" story. Second, it's amazing how you were aware of the block but not aware of the edits the "hacker" made. Finally, this block cannot be reversed except by me or by another CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you or another checkuser willing to accept the WP:OFFER? AH999 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to return six months from now and request again to be unblocked, it will be considered. However, it's highly unlikely it will be accepted unless at a minimum you come clean as to your socking, and that includes dropping (now better than later) the hacking story. Even if you do all that, no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I wasn't hacked and yes I was socking, but when I created the Sociable Computer account my intention was not to deceive but for a fresh start, I shouldn't of created that account as I cannot clean start when a block or ban is in effect, if am unblocked I promise I will do my best to become a good editor. P.S. am I still able to visit Wikipedia and read pages? AH999 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What about TeaLover1996 and ComputerTechGuy?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and those. And my other question. AH999 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages." (WP:BLOCK) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically, if I don't attempt to edit, create any accounts or evade my block for the next 6 months, I stand a good chance?, also could I opt to not submit an unblock request for longer than 6 months? AH999 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would put it differently: If you attempt to edit, create any accounts, or evade your block, you stand no chance. Yes, you can wait longer than six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay well see you in April or subsequently from then. I hope you don't hate me for this. Happy editing AH999 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Request
AH999 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi AH999 - please note that User:Bbb23 has not edited since 15 March - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi any idea how long I need to wait for a response? AH999 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Never having been blocked, I am afraid I don't - I understand that some admins only consider lifting blocks that they imposed themselves, as they are familiar with the background, and are not "treading on anyone elses toes". However, with Bbb23 being away, that means there could be a delay. Your request appears on the list at Category:Requests for unblock although I do not fully understand that table.  I suggest patience - after 7 months another day is no great deal - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay cheers. AH999 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You were blocked by a checkuser - and only checkusers can unblock in this case. You will need to wait patiently for one that has free time to review this block. SQL Query me!  23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you recommending an unblock?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AH999 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AH999 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

While the blocking admin is welcome to reverse their own action, unblock requests are handled by uninvolved admins. If you only want Bbb23's consideration then stick to pinging and avoid the unblock template(I think you already figured this out). I will defer to Bbb23's wisdom on this matter. HighInBC 01:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Any clue as when I will receive a reply? AH999 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. HighInBC 03:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have little to say. Based on your history, I would not unblock you. Although only I or another CheckUser can unblock you, that doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to the recommendation of another administrator, which is why I asked SQL when they put the unblock request on hold, whether that's what they were doing (there's usually no reason to put it on hold otherwise). If they had responded positively, I would have asked for their reasons. As you know, that didn't happen. It also doesn't look like any other administrator wants to intervene, so I'm done here. You can wait longer and try again, or you can seek relief either through WP:UTRS or the arbitration committee.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have participated in the standard offer previously, what does this mean for me now? AH999 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't every one deserve a second chance? and I give you my word it won't happen again. AH999 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access removed
Since you have had you unblock requests reviewed and you are now basically begging and pinging people every day I have removed your talk page access. You may appeal you block at WP:UTRS if you like, or if you prefer you can find another website. HighInBC 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
--UTRSBot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What next? AH999 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to wait a full six months and then decide whether you feel that you can justify a further appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

When will the 6 months have elapsed? AH999 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your /minimum/ 6 month waiting time does not expire until 28 June 2017. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the information you have sought that I posted before your question!! Just Chilling (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The timings are crucial here. According to the archive pointed to above, the last case of conformed socking was- what, September 2015? This needs some clarification., where is your July date from? &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I took the date from Sockpuppet investigations/AH999/Archive. However, after the User:FootballFanMan case was closed because of inactivity I see that they have made two subsequent edits. Consequently, FootballFanMan may need to be reexamined. in case he has a view. Just Chilling (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FootballFanMan is technically between and . I wouldn't decide this other than on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Admin note The recent closed UTRS appeals were not closed as declines, they were closed with direction made to AH999 to make their appeals here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Do I have a chance of being unblocked? AH999 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no point in submitting further appeals by UTRS- Ponyo says above that your previous oes have already been procedurally declined- and your talk page access here reinstated- specifically so you can lodge a usual appeal here. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the above unblock decline, I've removed talkpage access - though I would consider the immediate appeal via UTRS to be admin shopping, and recommend that it is declined with no action (indeed, a ban from UTRS might not be a bad idea). I will further add, for the next reviewing admin, that AH999 has (perhaps inadvertently) just confirmed to me by email that they were behind the FootballFanMan account. Yunshui 雲 水 12:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC) A subsequent email insists that AH999 has nothing to do with FootballFanMan. I therefore offer no opinion either way on this specific matter. Yunshui 雲 水  13:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, Apologies for seeing the former comment but not the latter! I have inadvertently misled TeaLover1996, so, to clarify, they may not request an unblock before 21:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)? Incidentally, regarding removal or TPA and UTRS- that might actually be beneficial to them, as it would remove the opportinuty for them to extend their SO waiting-period through frustration, and thus avoid accusations of friviolous requests. Just a 'IMHO', of course. Cheers,  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the resetting of WP:SO from the last edit (today), I make it 12th December 2017. Yunshui 雲 水 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I'm a bit lost. I understand where each of you is getting your dates from: Yunshui from today and FIM from the last edit date by Football on May 22. I wouldn't have thought that edits on one's Talk page or UTRS appeals affect the standard offer date, so I would have concluded November 22 also as the correct date. On the other hand, we are not bound by the six-month period, and based on the deceit by AHM99 here, I would suggest that delaying the date beyond six months would be justified. Regardless, I strongly urge that we decide the date now so we aren't having this discussion in the future. Of course, whatever the date is, that doesn't mean an automatic unblock as of or later than that date. Finally, FIM, why are you calling AHM99 TeaLover1996? The latter is a sock not the master account and the blocked individual has been handling this under the master account, not TeaLover1996, unless I missed something.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct,, apologies- it's just that I interacted with the TeaLover1996 account, rather than any of the others, so without meaning to, I kind of defaulted to that one. Perhaps because, looking back even now, it was rather an unpleasant experience. In any case, I'll leave the SO dates to you guys of course. Cheers, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)}}
 * I'm happy to go with another date if there's consensus here to do so, but I have always taken talkpage comments (excepting unblock appeals) to be edits warranting a reset of WP:SO. However, given that AH999 has been emailing me persistently (14 exchanges so far) and apparently other users and UTRS since I removed TP access this morning, and given the lack of a good unblock reason in the above requests and UTRS appeals (beyond, "I waited six months, please unblock me"), I'm inclined to invoke the second paragraph of WP:Standard offer and say that this editor is not eligible for SO at all. Yunshui 雲 水 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter 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. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Appeal
Due to an issue with the UTRS system, your appeal may not have been filed correctly and your appeal key may not work properly. If you still wish to appeal, please file again. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)