User talk:Trent1994

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Trent1994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

58.172.55.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Trol1956". The reason given for Trol1956's block is: "Vandalism".

Blocking administrator: Tide rolls (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: The questions below are non-optional. I have blocked this account directly until you feel like explaining yourself. Kuru (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're using the same computer as the blocked vandal. Do you know why that might be? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you answer the above question, which is a requirement, please also comment on this [[1]] edit which you recently made on your user page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:21, 5 July 2011 (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).

Trent1994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this all seems very odd. Someone must be hacking me because i didnt put that "I WILL BE THE GREATEST TROLL" on my user page and i didnt see it there at all. and i honestly don't know how someone could create an account on my IP. all these vandalism messages from admins i keep getting are relating to many edits i didn't make. please cut me some slack i never knew about these vandalizing edits, i gotta get these IP hackings or whatnot under control. block me if you must but this is the truth: those vandalizing edits were not of my fault nor where they made on this computer. and i would sign this message but i don't know how to.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. See WP:GOTHACKED. You are clearly using multiple accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (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 say that you did not make the unacceptable edit to your user page. There are two possibilities:

You are telling the truth, and it was someone else who used your account to make that edit. In that case you have a compromised account, and it must remain blocked for ever, as we have no way of knowing that the same person may not abuse your account again.
You are lying, and it was you. In that case you cannot be trusted, and your account must remain blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i admit i was lying, ill explain everything. Trol1956 was a "dud" account made by me i just didnt realize that doing stupid stuff would affect my whole IP. and about that "GREATEST TROLL" message i put on this userpage awhile ago, i was originally gonna "troll" on this account but instead i blanked the page and decided to use this account as a proper user account. i just thought that if i created a new account, only that account would be penalized and not the other, but i had to learn that the hard way. I deeply apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused and i really feel bad and regretful in doing so. you've definitely taught me a lesson for the future and again im sorry. if you give me another chance ill be thankful and never troll again but if i must remain banned i understand. Trent1994 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting what you have done. That is a great step forward. I believe that I tend to be more willing to give users a second chance in this sort of situation than most administrators. I have more than once unblocked users who have behaved stupidly but expressed regret, even when other admins have been dubious about doing so. However, in this case even I am not willing to unblock immediately. Have a look at Wikipedia:Standard offer. You will see that it suggests waiting six months. I am willing to consider reducing that to three months. If you satisfy the conditions specified there, after three months I will be willing to reconsider your case. I will try to keep this user page on my watch list, so that if you post a message here I will see it. If for any reason I don't see your message (e.g. I forget why this page was watchlisted, and delete it by mistake) you can email me if you first enable Wikipedia email (click on "My preferences" at the top of the page). Alternatively, there is nothing to stop you simply posting another unblock request and hoping to get a sympathetic admin, but I honestly think that the chance of getting anyone willing to give you a more generous offer than I have made is pretty well nil. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Thanks Trent1994 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and thank god you came along, that Hersfold guy doesn't sound so sympathetic at all Trent1994 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but still, im willing to follow any instructions from you until this is all over Trent1994 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that making comments like "that Hersfold guy doesn't sound so sympathetic at all" is probably not the best way to spend your time if you're looking for a sympathetic hearing? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i thought that too when i posted that, but i'm not trying to sound suspicious or cause an argument or anything like that Trent1994 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you think you can give me an exact date of how long i'll be blocked for? Trent1994 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and also, after three months when we'll get things sorted out with me or whatever, may i ask if i can create a new account then? Not to do stupid stuff or anything like that on it like i did with Trol1956, but because i'd to start fresh and new, to eventually put the trouble i caused behind us and want things to be good right from the start. If that OK with you of course. Trent1994 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that you would like things to be more definite, but unfortunately I can't promise anything. Even the suggestion of three months (rather than the six months in the standard offer) only means that I will be willing to consider your request favourably if you have fully complied with the conditions until then. I am not in a position to promise that you will be unblocked then.

If we take the three months as running from the time I made the offer that will take us up to 11:14, 6 October 2011.

It should be OK to make a new account once the block has been lifted. you should read Wikipedia:Clean start. In particular, I urge you to take note of the fact that it says "it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee". If someone realises that it is a new account for a previously blocked user you could find yourself being blocked for sockpuppetry, but if you have announced the fact to ArbCom then you should be protected against that risk.

Even though I spend quite lot of time on Wikipedia, there are frequently times when I am away for a significant period, so I may not respond immediately to posts here. A little patience is therefore necessary. However, this page is still on my watchlist. Technically, you have already broken the terms of the offer I made by editing without logging in to evade the block. You clearly did so in good faith, and made no attempt to hide what you were doing, so I am not proposing to count it against you, but you need to realise that you must not make any edits at all (except on this page) while you are blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, sorry bout using my IP, i didn't realize I was breaking the terms you made by logging out and using my IP i just didn't think you got the messages, i wasn't trying to evade the block or anything like that, i wouldv'e emailed you like you said by going to my preferences to enable my email but i didn't know what your address was so I used the IP since i realized the block for it was expired. I'm really not trying to get myself into more trouble than i already am and i also don't wanna try to post another unblock request becuase i seemed to got myself into more trouble after the 2nd unblock request. I see that you spend a lot of time here on wikipedia and must be very busy as an administrator. I apologize for using the IP i just thought you weren't getting the messages, and im usually very patient. I promise i'll try to be more patient with replies next time. I won't make more edits with the IP again, i didn't know what i was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent1994 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 July 2011

I wouldn't worry about it. It was perfectly obvious that you meant no harm , and you did no harm. The reason I mentioned it was not to reprimand you for having done anything wrong, but just to help you avoid the risk of getting into trouble by doing something similar in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, its been 3 months now, so what exactly is gonna happen now?Trent1994 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked your account, on the understanding that you have undertaken to edit constructively. I hope now you can have a more successful time editing Wikipedia than you did before. Feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you want any advice. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your question on my talk page about the arbitration committee. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl episodes, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —cyberpower (Talk to Me) 09:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]