User talk:Okmrman

Archives (Index)

2024/March 2024/April

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Can you please stop messing with talk page archiving? You've disrupted dozens of talk pages with unnecessary auto-archiving configurations that were done wrong and not necessary. Automatic archiving should not be configured just because a talk page has old topics. It is for talk page that are under regular discussion that need archiving to keep size down. This is disruptive. Stop. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okmrman, I see that despite the above notice from Ferret, you have continued to do this. You should never set up another user's talk page for archiving unless that user has explicitly asked for it to be done; and you should not set up other talk pages for archiving unless it's already been suggested and agreed. Therefore, I'm making it formal: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okmrman

Please review WP:CSD so you better understand what the speedy deletion criteria are and when they are appropriate. You are mistagging pages. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the space of 33 minutes (04:22 - 04:55 UTC), you voted "Delete per nom" on 41 AfD's today. That is totally ridiculous, you could not have had time to read the nominations, let alone actually read the articles, in doing so. Your contributions add pretty much nothing to the debate, as outlined at WP:ATA. They mean even less when we know that you rapid-fired them at a rate of one every 48 seconds. Please do not ever do this again. Regards, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also another period of 14 minutes (03:52 - 04:06 UTC) today where you did the same rapid-fire "Delete per nom" on 25 AfD's, or one every 34 seconds. Daniel (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus emerges that this 'wasn't disruption, feel free to unblock without waiting on me. This was purely to stop the edits that had followed multiple warnings as to AfD, CSD and clerking. Star Mississippi 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Bad or unnecessary patrolling and clerking by this account from the day it registered. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret @Star Mississippi what if they are a programmed bot, troll or spammer just to disrupt Wikipedia? In any case. Is there any Wikipedia policy so we can revert their recent edits? Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block per recent disruptive edits to AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rollbacked some of their "per nom" AFD comments but the rollback tool works if the comment was the most recent edit to the page. It got a few of them though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. @Xoak I have no doubt they're not new, but I couldn't begin to guess who the master is. @Based Kashmiri I think @Liz got as many as were possible. Hopefully closers dismiss the remaining given their proforma nature. Star Mississippi 02:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, Yeah. I'm not quite familiar with sock detection and check users. So can't tell if an account be requested to be looked up if they are associated with any other accounts, when we are not quite sure who their master is. Is there any such procedures? X (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, @Xoak Keeping it short, but, checkusers have already looked at this account. Nothing to report. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it @Star Mississippi and @Liz, Thanks. Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi and Ferret: You should probably check out Special:Contributions/104.7.152.180 if you haven't already -- I note that this IP has been making extremely rapidfire AfD/RfD edits today. jp×g🗯️ 01:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've already blocked but looks pretty obvious to me. The IP began editing after the last round of blocks. -- ferret (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks @JPxG @Ferret & @Yamla. @Okmrman, disclosing your alts was good but this was absolutely inappropriate and is not the route to an unblock. Star Mississippi 02:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. For what it's worth, this could be a case of block evasion as well, that could explain their edits in clerk and maintenance spaces from the get-go. X (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I recognize that my actions in AfD were inexcusable. AfD is not RfD and should not be treated as such. However, I still believe that my RfDs were made in good faith so I simply request to be topic banned from AfD. Okmrman (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See above. Evading block on IP to continue the same disruption as before. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2024 (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.

Okmrman (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please list all accounts you have used here. Now is the time to be open and honest with us, I can't emphasize that enough. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did make a single alt account @Archivebottester but I didn't make any disruptive edits on that account other than misusing the talk page which was speedily deleted per U1. Okmrman (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to block it. I don't really plan on using it. Okmrman (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I  Confirmed this via CU evidence. --Yamla (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't really consider it a sock since I never really abused it, but I suppose, you have the power to decide. Okmrman (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That account exclusively edited articles that this account had edited, not counting the deleted edits in user space. A clear and blatant abuse of multiple accounts. That said, you were open and honest about it once challenged and this will count in your favour. --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To be fair, your behaviour at AfD would also be unacceptable at RfD. I'm not saying you were disruptive at RfD, but you had plenty of low-quality WP:PERNOM or parrot !votes there too. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware that some of my replies were unreasonable. I promise to put more thought into my responses in the future. Okmrman (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to explain the nominations even further before you vote next time. Protip: don't vote too many times in a span of minutes. Ahri.boy (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]