User talk:Sockshirt

May 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page. Yue🌙 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clear competency issues. I gave you more leeway to own up to your mistakes and your response was to double down on your disruptive editing both on your talk page and with your actions. I already warned you that an editor who refuses or is unable to understand the core policies of Wikipedia may be blocked for being unable to work collaboratively. Yue🌙 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 person had an issue with my edits and kept stalking my page and edits Sockshirt (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, and this demonstrates you should not be unblocked at this time. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2026 (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).

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

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

add sources

Sockshirt (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2026 (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.

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and if unblocked I won’t make any damage or vandalize pages and will only uses sources when adding information Sockshirt (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even leaving aside the issues that haven't been addressed by this unblock request, the blatantly obvious WP:LOUTSOCKing after the block, followed by the repeated denials, do not inspire any confidence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 26 May 2026 (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.

You were editing from User:~2026-29580-73 until you were blocked by User:Yue. Then you opened this account, and are now blocked. And while appealing this block (above), you appear to be editing from User:~2026-31298-61 (and adding content sourced by a Wiki). I really don't think you're...getting it. --Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sockshirt Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't me as my IP is blocked Sockshirt (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? We can see other technical data which matches you exactly, and this account just happened to appear fifteen minutes after your edit was undone, to reinstate the same exact edit. They also somehow knew which website you meant without you having to say a word. They haven't done anything else here.

If you're honest, it'll go a long way to rebuilding the trust that's broken whenever someone breaks the communities trust by sockpuppetry.

If you carry on insisting it wasn't you when all the evidence indicates this was you, then that will not go down well.

Was this you or not?

Please be honest and bear in mind that we can see a lot more than you think we can. Blue-Sonnet 21:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. My IP is blocked whether logged in or not and all neighboring houses have WiFi passwords if their WiFi even shows up Sockshirt (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And all internet service is all done by spectrum as they are the only internet provider around here Sockshirt (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sockshirt: Your IP is blocked because I blocked it after blocking the original TAs you edited from. Aside from the very damning technical evidence, the new TA restoring your edits with the same problematic explanation (unsourced, sourced to self or poorly sourced additions) immediately after your account was blocked is an obvious red flag. I have blocked that TA for block evasion, and another admin has temporarily blocked the IP for block evasion as well.

I strongly suggest, as many others have already, you read Wikipedia:Verifiability before requesting an unblock again. I also encourage the next responding admin(s) to consider giving you the standard offer instead, as I do not think an immediate unblock is appropriate given the LOUT socking and lack of policy awareness demonstrated in the discussion below. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined, leading to the posting of this notice.

For repeatedly removing declined unblock requests after having been warned. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]