User talk:Skipl.ag

Hi there. The type-section in the family infobox template is only used to define the type of family, no further details beyond that belongs in this section. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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.

OhNoitsJamie ^talk 19:06, 1 June 2026 (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).

Skipl.ag (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 not a sockpuppet. Instead, this is a legitimate account under the Wikipedia policy here, operated by Example99. Any comments should be posted on this talk page.

Yes, this is the same person who operated Example99, but this account is legitimate. My last sockpuppet accounts had been blocked indefinitely over a year before I edited Wikipedia again, so I can take the standard offer. Also, when using this account or ~2026-13161-28, the temporary account I operated for 3 months before its expiration (so why did Ohnoitsjamie even bother blocking that?) and clearly linked with this account once I created it (see the pre-block revision of this account's user page, as well as the temporary account's user page and its talk page), I have no disruptive intent. No disruptive edits have been carried out using this account (check its contributions), and, for any of the temporary account's edits that mistakenly happened to be disruptive and were reverted, I did not violate the 3RR (check its contributions). I just removed my real name from the talk page of one of my previous sockpuppet accounts, User:Abladifferentblausername (I am not the prof by the way), which I had used a few years ago to create an article on SΙDO feat. EMINEM - VERM!SSEN, a rap song I genuinely believed was real, which was later proven to actually be a hoax, as it was removed from YouTube (however, you can listen to it on the Wayback Machine, it is wonderful). If I am unblocked, I will tag all my previous accounts with Template:Clean start and I apologize for not having done so already. This unblock request is intended for this account only, as my temporary account has expired, so unblocking it would provide no benefit.

Yours faithfully, Skipl.ag (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC) as of activating this unblock request, 12:58 when it was complete (but inactive) except for the PS below, and Ohnoitsjamie had already replied to it at 12:22

PS: After reading Wikipedia:Standard offer and Wikipedia:Clean start again after quite some time, I am now aware that the standard offer can be taken on a blocked account by contacting an administrator after waiting "at least six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e., having made no edits using a named or temporary account on the English Wikipedia", not by creating another account following the aforementioned time period, and that a clean start is not intended for currently blocked accounts. My memory was fuzzy and, before editing Wikipedia again, I thought that the standard offer applies to new regular and IP/later temporary accounts automatically, which Ohnoitsjamie, in his reply, pointed out is not the case. Because ignorantia juris may excuse (and Wikipedia:Assume ignorance), I am requesting that, if unblocking me right away is not applicable, a discussion about me is opened (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as the standard offer suggests).

Decline reason:

No. You are not eligible for the standard offer, as you know. So no, I'm not going to waste the time of WP:AN with this. You are much closer to a WP:CBAN than you are to being unblocked. Yamla (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2026 (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.

You are evading a block, period. Indefinite blocks do not expire, and the "standard offer" doesn't automatically apply 6 months after your block. While your edits aren't vandalism, I'd argue that they are by largely unnecessary and of no great benefit to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 12:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I just activated my unblock request. Please leave it for someone else to review it. In it, I am not addressing the blocking administrator. Skipl.ag (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, why did you blindly revert some of my edits, without them being disruptive? For example, why do you care if I have Template:Talkarchivenav or Template:Aan in my temporary account's archiving configuration? Skipl.ag (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

How would a community ban be justified for me? Based on what I have done in the past year? Or does a long dormant time followed by no disruptive edits not changing anything? Skipl.ag (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE, such as with this account and with your temporary account. See also, WP:3X. You keep on claiming a long dormant time counts for something. It absolutely, categorically does not if followed by further block evasion, such as in this case. Frankly, your continued refusal to get the point is actively harming future unblock requests from you. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A community ban would be justified on the basis that you've evaded blocks at least 10 times and don't seem to get it. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 14:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If that is the only solution, I will return after another six months, using this same account. Skipl.ag (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn: No, the discussion should not be procedurally closed. It is not just me, User:InfiniteNexus had suggested that redirect is deleted prior to my nomination. Also, some administrators keep considering me a huge enemy of the project, whereas I have had the best of intentions at least since I returned with my temporary account and then this account. I mean, look at the edits. And, while the block is justified, User:Ohnoitsjamie also reverted some of my edits that he should not, see above. Skipl.ag (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SO requires zero edits. Stop editing this page (or any other). --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BANREVERT. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 15:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It is very difficult, even pointless, to try to talk sense into editors with CIR issues. I'm not even sure what the point of extending them the SO is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)