User talk:Ondrashek06

October 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling. 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:. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 45584
is now open. User finds the "fix an article condition" overly daunting. I would too. Would it be possible to allow user to carry unblock to WP:AN? They still have TPA. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but I am curious as to why they don't wish to do it and what exactly they want to do. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to create some kind of “no consensus” limbo, but I unofficially do object. It’s a time sink. This guy is useless. Review all their edits again. Wasting people’s time at AN is a cost with no benefit. They should be encouraged to go play somewhere else. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Floquenbeam. Look, I don't mind if someone wants to unblock anyway, but my opinion is that if they can't be bothered to even make an attempt under the second-chance template, why should we indulge them further? --Yamla (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When I started editing Wikipedia I made really small edits. (The first edit I ever made with my account was removing an erroneous apostrophe.) I would have found being required to make a major overhaul to an article a really daunting prospect, and I doubt that I would have done a good job of it. There is nothing wrong whatever with an editor wishing to make minor corrections to articles and not feeling confident about making substantial rewrites. There is also nothing whatever wrong with an editor accepting that in the past they acted in ways that were unacceptable, and undertaking not do do the same again. "This guy is useless" is assuming that a person can't possibly change for the better. This case is an excellent example of why I find reviewing unblock requests to be a frustrating and depressing process: not just some but the substantial majority of administrators who regularly review unblock requests appear to have a very strong presumption that editors should not be unblocked in the absence of overwhelming proof of the contrary, and impose unreasonably high hurdles for blocked editors to have to jump over in order for their requests to be considered. I do, however, agree with that taking this to AN would be "a cost with no benefit". I can't see that going anywhere useful.
 * Ondrashek06, it is clear that there is not going to be a consensus among administrators to unblock you under present circumstances. I suggest that you have a go at following the instructions above, even though I totally sympathise with your not wishing to. It really is likely to be your best chance of getting unblocked. JBW (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not fair. This case is an excellent example of why I find answering pings to give my opinion on unblocking someone I've blocked a frustrating and depressing process.  This person has easily wasted a cumulative 2-3 person-hours of other good faith editors' time, intentionally vandalizing, intentionally lying about it, and intentionally trolling.  But asking for an hour's work on their part in return as concrete evidence of a change of heart is unfairly asking for "overwhelming evidence" they've changed?  If you want to unblock someone with a history of repeatedly vandalizing, lying, and trolling, based on... them saying they won't do it again, be my guest. As I said above, my opposition is unofficial, and all 3 of us have said we won't oppose an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * is now closed. As user has talk page access, I asked them to discuss concerns here. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Everyone, if you do wish to prove that I won't vandalize again and that I am not a troll, I suggest doing it the following way: - I'll be presented an article. That article has intentional issues. - I'll be asked to pick 5 of the issues on the page. - Then I'll be asked to describe each issue and what is wrong with it, and how would I fix that. - An admin will review the proposed fixes. If at least 4 of the 5 issues are found to be correctly fixed, unban user.

It was done this way on another wiki, and I liked this process more than the process I was asked to do on here. Ondrashek06 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's so much begging to be unpacked here (an article has intentional issues? blocked troll picking their own unblock process?  apparently blocked before on another wiki with a different unidentified account?  what that blocked account's history on en.wiki is?  etc.) And yet, I have just enough willpower to recognize (well, re-recognize) a timesink and resist falling down that rabbit hole.  I'm taking this page off my watchlist, and anyone can do anything they think best without my further input. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Works for me. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request #4
What utter nonsense. You either lack sufficient competence to understand the instructions or are deliberately wasting our time. Either way, this unblock request should be declined out of hand. --Yamla (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No one has asked you to write an entire Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

is open. Comments from admins sought. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Restoring TPA for unblock request here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)