User talk:Another Wiki User the 3rd

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Another Wiki User the 3rd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

see above and below

Accept reason:

Time for another try, see conversation below. No pblock from project-space appears to be required; if foolishness resumes there, we reblock. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick facts Decades:, See also: ...

← 1850 1849 1848 1851 in Iowa → 1852 1853 1854
Decades:	1840s 1850s 1860s 1870s
See also:	History of Iowa Historical outline of Iowa List of years in Iowa 1851 in the United States

Close

The following is a list of events of the year 1851 in Iowa.

I only see one edit here: the addition of Oct 18 and footnote 5? And you haven't followed the instructions Pppery gave you in the decline notice. Look, I think 2nd chance is really hard for inexperienced editors (and in your entire time here, you've made under 100 mainspace edits, so that's pretty inexperienced), so I personally am not inclined to worry too much about whether you screw up at this, but this isn't a great start. Is this really what you want to do on Wikipedia - work on years in Iowa? If so, can you find, and fix, the two errors I can spot here? (Hint: only one is in the "article" itself.)

If you're not here specifically to work on this kind of page - and I don't think you are - well, what are we doing here? Why do you want to edit in the first place? Tell me about it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how to fix it. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't see how to fix it, or you don't know what the issues are? -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I figured one out. And could you please tell me what the other one is? Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at Pppery's instructions again. There's a really important part in there that you've missed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm, still not quite. The important part here was providing attribution in your edit summary, but you haven't used an edit summary for any of these edits. Tell you what: I think you should spend some time learning to edit by editing on Simple English Wikipedia. The basics of editing are all the same, but everything there is supposed to be in clear, simple English. There are many grammar mistakes you can fix there, and you can also learn to create new articles by "translating" articles from English to Simple English. When you have a history of good, useful contributions on simple-wiki, you won't need to deal with this WP:SECONDCHANCE stuff. I think you should spend at least a couple of months there before coming back here and making another unblock request (if you still want to). Then, you just need to show that a) you haven't used any other accounts during this time, and b) made good edits over there. Sound ok? -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I do want to add a word of warning as well for Simple English Wikipedia: They have a one-strike rule that allows users who have been blocked on other Wikimedia projects who are being disruptive there to be blocked as well.

I would not say that AWU is inexperienced, except for the fact that they have mainly goofed around a little too much in Project: space. AWU, I would advise you read WP:YOUNG. I do think though accepting a "final warning for any and all disruption, broadly construed" might be acceptable.

I doubt the second chance procedure would be helpful in this scenario. The change that AWU is proposing is nothing more than a minor addition. Yeah the edit is not minor, but it is not one of those groundbreaking changes that significantly improves the encyclopedia.

If this block request is declined (or even if it is not), you may want to consider standard offer as a way to get back to productive editing. Awesome Aasim 23:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

As reviewing admin above I used the 2nd chance procedure because it seemed clear to me that they had been only here to mess around and following it was only way I could see myself being convinced otherwise. Other admins are welcome to do as they see fit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am aware as someone who not only witnessed this user's disruptive behavior but also walked that path when I first really started off on Wikipedia years ago.

Over their three accounts there are several problematic changes that are a part of general disruption, but that seems to owe to something else, not bad faith.. The ANB thread that led to their block over a year ago showcased a general pattern of juvenile behavior across several pages.

Wikipedia is not a game, it is not a webhost, and regardless of second chance or standard offer, if AWU cannot demonstrate that they understand both why they were blocked and what action they will take to avoid the same disruption that resulted in them getting blocked in the first place, they will not be allowed to edit, regardless of unblock conditions. I hate to sound this blunt, but this is the reality when we are dealing with blocks similar to this one and similar to mine all that time ago. Awesome Aasim 05:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

These are good reasons. :) Maybe instead of trying to show you'd be good at editing articles, you can show us that you'd be able to spot vandalism? You could go to Special:RecentChanges, find a few edits you think ought to be reverted as vandalism, and tell us why? Or find some edits that have already been reverted as vandalism, and explain why that was the right call or the wrong call? -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to strike this option out entirely, since I did offer it, but I think going the simple-wiki route is the better choice. Your call. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

. summary: "quick comma-to-semicolon change". Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(sorry about the external link) Obvious vandalism. Shores and trenches removed, and a dubious alternate name added. ClueBot NG at its finest. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! It looks like you linked the same edit twice. Could you share another example? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Whooops, I meant to link to , sorry. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! That still doesn't link to a diff. Can you select a specific edit that you believe constitutes vandalism? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I found it, they're referring to their recent edit in the page history, as a grammar fix, rather than vandalism-hunting. It's a fun one actually - a semicolon is perfectly acceptable there, and in my opinion it's often the stylistically superior choice, but someone with a rigid "semicolons may only be used to connect two complete sentences" approach (which, I expect, is most wikipedia editors out doing grammar corrections) would consider that to be an incorrect change.

Alright. @Another Wiki User the 3rd, I believe that you're not going to do anything quite so foolish as the stuff that led to your block. I don't think you need a block from project-space, like you suggested in your unblock conditions; I'm sure you're aware that if you do that kind of thing again, you'll simply be reblocked, and you won't be able to talk your way out of it. What I'm less sure about is that you won't make other kinds of disruptive edits, without knowing why they're disruptive. And I worry that, since you have a block history that includes both "WP:CIR" and "WP:DE", you'll be given very little room to learn about wiki editing, and you'll just get yourself blocked again. I think it will be a lot harder for you to be unblocked again, if that happens. I don't really want to set you up to fail.

Here's what I think I'll do: I'll unblock you here, so that you won't fall afoul of simple-wiki's one-strike rule. You'll be able to edit here, but I still think you should try to learn the ropes by doing things like "translations" to simple-wiki and reverting obvious vandalism there. I think they'll be less likely to jump on you for making newbie mistakes. Also, please take @Awesome Aasim's advice. If you edit here and get blocked again, well, don't say I didn't warn you, but feel free to ping me for help if you need it. Pinging @Moneytrees as blocking admin. -- asilvering (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Also, @Moneytrees, I didn't ask for CU earlier, but if you think this needs a sock check, please go ahead.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Generally, a checkuser won’t check a user they blocked as an individual admin (I think it might be an INVOLVED thing). A recent CU from someone else seems to show no issues. I’m ok with an unblock and trust your judgment Asilvering. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that but in retrospect it seems obvious. @Another Wiki User the 3rd, good luck, and happy editing. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi? Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Another Wiki User the 3rd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I believe that this does not violate the restriction. @RoySmith:

Accept reason:

Converted to a partial block from project namespace. You would do well to heed the warnings below if you edit in other namespaces. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, my bar for "screwing around in projectspace" is rather higher than "asked a question at the Village Pump instead of the Teahouse", and while I can accept that other admins might have a different idea of what constitutes "screwing around", I'm dismayed to see a no-warning block for this. For your information, WP:TEA is a good place to ask any questions you may have. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In my experience we also generally give one "that looks like a violation, don't do that again" in the aftermath of a topic ban, as sometimes users truly don't quite get where the line is, and the wording on this one seems to me to leave substantial room for interpretation. As the block is not supported by the admin issuing the tban, some clarification and another chance seems appropriate Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support an unblock unless there are additional details that I missed. @RoySmith, thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No warning? This is the second time this account has been indef blocked. Not to mention the two blocks of Another Wiki User the 2nd, the block of FF25 YT, the block of Another Wiki User the 1st and the block of Another Wiki User the Guest. Did those not count as warnings? But, yeah, sure, if you want to waste more time, go ahead and unblock him. I'm sure we'll be back here again. RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice the other blocked accounts. I'm neutral on this one then. Thanks for the additional info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning unblock on this purely because the original blocking admin doesn't support and the block itself had space for interpretation, though I also tend to think we may be back here soon and in that case this should be an instant indef block. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

1. 1 was for much worse offenses, #2 and 4 were sock blocks and #3 was by request! Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

   Indeed. I did say If you edit here and get blocked again, well, don't say I didn't warn you, since I figured other editors and admins would be unlikely to give you much benefit of the doubt, but it would not have occurred to me to warn you away from asking simple questions like that one. This block has been your warning, I suppose: if you're unblocked, don't do anything that doesn't at least attempt to directly improve the encyclopedia. Again, I really think you should avoid English Wikipedia for the time being. Try other, related projects (eg simple-wiki), and build up a history of constructive edits. If you absolutely need to ask questions on en-wiki, ask them at WP:TEA, where responding editors have more patience. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Breaking a template on Meta Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, AWU3. I haven't followed any of the above, but I saw your edit to WT:STOCKS and just read the previous sections here. It seems that, immediately after getting unblocked with instructions not to mess around in projectspace, and then blocked for messing around in projectspace, and then downgraded to a p-block from projectspace, your next edits have been to project-talk-space to talk about some technical error you made on Meta, same as you've now trouted yourself for above.

I feel like you've gotten a lot of feedback here in terms of what not to do, so I'd like to frame this in the positive: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editors to this wiki are expected to be, in some capacity, contributing to the building of that encyclopedia. That might be creating and maintaining articles, or it might be copy-editing, anti-vandalism, technical work, or a few other things. But fundamentally everything needs to come back to that core act of encyclopedia-building.

When editors establish themselves as being here to build an encyclopedia, the community tends to cut them a lot of slack for silly things here and there, even mild-to-moderate timewasting. But when someone seems to only be interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff, the community is more skeptical; and when their behind-the-scenes contributions aren't even constructive, that's when people tend to get blocked.

I considered extending your partial block to cover project-talk-space, but I think that would be self-defeating. The question right now is whether you are interested in building an encyclopedia. If you are, great: Go edit some articles. If you aren't, then you should not edit here. If you continue to edit here without doing things to build an encyclopedia, I think the next step is a return to a siteblock. But the power is entirely in your hands to avoid that! Special:Random is right there. CAT:COPYEDIT is right there. Special:RecentChanges is right there. All waiting for your contributions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I need to know what style of WikiElf someone who works in content quality is. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Well... I don't particularly want to wield the hammer, but I think that's where we're at. Thanks for the sincere attempt, @Tamzin. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've revised the block to full indef. I see absolutely zero signs this user is here to build an encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Valereee. Serial (speculates here) 13:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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 add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Another Wiki User, the next step is removing access to your talk page, which while you're blocked may only be used to discuss the block or discuss getting unblocked. If you keep screwing around here on your talk, someone will likely remove your ability to edit it. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that you were unable to keep to productive contributions. The community patience for your behavior is running out seriously. If you cannot keep away from pages where your editing is a waste of both your and community time, you will not be allowed to edit.

I really suggest that you go make productive edits elsewhere, on or off Wikimedia, and come back when you have gained the trust and credibility that you are able to behave appropriately in a different community. I know you probably are here to build an encyclopedia. But your behavior has not demonstrated otherwise. I would not support any kind of unblock that is not conditional. To put it bluntly, your inability to exercise self restraint and returning to the same behavior that got you blocked in the first place has led to this latest block. Any kind of unblock I would only support for mainspace, talkspace, draftspace, and draft talk space; and an outright TBAN from any kind of proposal or similar.

On a final note, you cannot place the {{retired}} template while you are blocked.Edit 1: Apparently I was wrong about this. I have nothing more to say than that. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have one request. Please replace the contents of my user page with the above retired template. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not retired if you are blocked from editing; that's like telling people you quit when in reality you were fired. I agree with others on this page that taking a break from editing would be a good idea, especially if you plan on getting unblocked at some point in the future. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

To me it's "career-ending injury" more than "fired". Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I have access to userspace and usertalkspace if I ever get unblocked? Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AWU,_again. Thank you. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no intent of editing the English Wikipedia for AT LEAST 3 years, if ever. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I only log in for dark theme. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no intention of requesting an unblock. I accept that I am not capable of being a good Wikipedian. Delete my user page. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether that's true, but anyone's entitled to have their userpage deleted, so  Done. Note that your userpage now transcludes your Meta userpage. If you wouldn't like that, I can recreate it as blank. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2025 (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).

Another Wiki User the 3rd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am, unfortunately, under the age of 18, so immaturity is not an illusion. I recognize my mistake was that I did not pay enough attention to improving the encyclopedia and instead focused on the social features. I fully intend for that to change

Decline reason:

Changing this to a 3-year block, though you are free to edit other Wikipedias (e.g., Simple Wikipedia) in the meantime. Additionally, you may submit another unblock request before the block expires. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

If this is accepted, I suggest one of the following three is put in place:

1. Reduction of my indefinite block to three years

2. A very conditional unblock: Limited to the Main, Talk, User, and User talk spaces, topic banned from BFDI and Fandom, broadly construed, as well as the following restrictions only applying to outside my own userspace: Not allowed to create pages and making any edit not having to do with improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or appreciation of users. If Awesome Aasim is to make an RfA, I am unblocked from Project only to vote "Approve". (if immediate, must wait three years to appeal, else six months) (lasts indefinitely)

3. Reduction of my indefinite block to three years, after which the conditions above take effect

4. A very conditional unblock: Limited to the Main, Talk, User, and User talk spaces, topic banned from BFDI and Fandom, broadly construed, as well as the following restrictions only applying to outside my own userspace: Not allowed to create pages and making any edit not having to do with improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or appreciation of users. If Awesome Aasim is to make an RfA, I am unblocked from Project only to vote "Approve" (lasts three years)

Pinging all admins that blocked/unblocked me: @Moneytrees: @Valereee: @RoySmith: (note: If any of you live in Mountain Time, please let me know).

Please reply before Friday.

Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Given maturity issues, and the tendency of such issues to correct with age, personally I'd be open to the 3-year block commutation, if Valereee doesn't object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can the agreement between us be that if Valereee takes >2 weeks, commutation it is? Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Chillax. No need to overthink things. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I also would be in favour of a three-year block. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

A shorter block would be more accurate, but I don't want to give out my birthdate for the entire internet to see AGAIN (I did it on FANDOM) Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You two - I'll be on Meta so ping me there when/if you come to a decision. (Note: No less than two years is suggested). Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to reveal your age. It would be a "we agree, this is a maturity issue that has a good chance of resolving by the end of three years" block, not a "until you're of the age of majority or whatever" block. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(note: 2 years would be more accurate, but I won't quite be an adult by then) Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Instead of trying to negotiate a timed block, why don't you just edit Simple English Wikipedia and create some encyclopedia articles there? If you don't know what to do, take a look at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games, a list of video game articles that need to be created on English Wikipedia. I already did all the work finding reliable sources. All you need to do is read the sources and summarize them. It's not that hard. Take a look at Strange Antiquities for an example of how I write them. I personally find video games easy to write about, but there are other topics, too. Anything to do with pop culture (albums, TV shows, films, etc) will usually show up on Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or some other aggregator these days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Thank you and 2. Remind me after I get unblocked to add Template:WikiDodo to my userpage. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2025 (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).

Another Wiki User the 3rd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

This user is a WikiDodo.

, see above, and I am cited six times at

Decline reason:

I don't see a compelling reason to lift the block early. If it had been six months, and the involvement in other wikis was more profound, things would be different. PhilKnight (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Note - I will continue to treat Meta as my home wiki Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I would encourage you to remove your unblock request as I feel it would be counter-productive for you. It's only been about six weeks since a three-year block was instituted, so to be unblocked, you would need to have an unusually compelling argument to make. But you're only pasting a humorous template and the fact that some people agreed with you on a meta RFC about a global ban of an editor. As far as I can tell, you haven't created or improved any content at any time over this time period. Obviously, you're free to ignore this advice, but I feel it's more likely to backfire, and possibly even get your talk page access removed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

[note to self - when unblocked, move to "Archive of my youthful mistakes"]

I requested an unblock but I retracted it. Sorry. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Another Wiki User the 3rd. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Alas. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Siroxo: @Owen: @Mz7: I would like to clarify that I do not have any other accounts on this or any other Wikimedia Foundation site apart from FF25 YT and the Another Wiki User set. I edit from a school for neurodiverse students, which uses a shared network. This may explain the technical overlap with Cyzni14 That account does not belong to me, nor is it acting as a meatpuppet on my behalf - it is the independent account of a colleague. I request an additional CU be ran with my long-abandoned Another Wiki User the 1st account. I fully intend to contribute in good faith using solely this account. Thank you for your time and understanding. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: non-checkuser) We do not run CheckUser on accounts upon request, and running it on a long-abandoned account is unlikely to be of much use anyway. Giraffer (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't remove parts of your comments after they've been replied to. Otherwise Giraffer's comment makes no sense. I've reverted your removal for that reason. Anyways, I've reached out to a CU to inquire about the evidence on this block. If this is a mismatch we'll get to the bottom of it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable use of your talk page while blocked. Please only use your talk page for the purpose of appealing a block, otherwise you risk having your access revoked. Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, removed. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)