HugoAcosta9 (talk | contribs) |
Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) →{{UTRS|74260 }}: involved comment |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
{{unblock|1=I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. |
{{unblock|1=I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. |
||
[[User:HugoAcosta9|HugoAcosta9]] ([[User talk:HugoAcosta9#top|talk]]) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
[[User:HugoAcosta9|HugoAcosta9]] ([[User talk:HugoAcosta9#top|talk]]) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
||
*'''Undeniably involved comment''', I do somewhat agree with {{ping|Nfitz}} above that "the AFD system completely failed", which was a big part of what led to Hugo's frustration. I was the closer of some of the original AfDs and ultimately ended up agreeing with them being relisted/restored once the full picture became more clear. Courtesy links: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns_about_articles_nominated_for_deletion]]. I'm not going to take action and have not reviewed the Spanish edits they refer to above, but I do thank them for their clear & direct request above. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:48, 1 June 2023
October 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)- They are deleting my 200 articles based on false claims and I cannot defend myself. Three users are playing with an entire system, I thought it was my fault, but then I realized the Gang of Three targeted more articles day after day. I must recognize the banner, giantsnowman and mississippi star could cheat and laugh at the wikipedia entire page. But they did not cheat on me, I've realized its game, I discovered and I showed to the public. The outcome was expected, users dodge the real question about being cheated with AfD with 1-0 votes, fake discussions and of course the joke of deletion review, the gang of three was discovered by me, they are cheating every time. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You could have, but you weren't "defending yourself", or discussing notability standards, you were spending all your time insulting anyone who disagreed with you. You even started at me, and I didn't even participate in the discussions, and openly stated I was neutral because I don't edit sports related articles enough to know if things meet the Wikipedia standards or not. You refused to discuss constructively about the articles, and your comments were getting in the way of people who actually wanted to discuss the articles themselves, so another admin (not me) blocked you. You can always put in an WP:UNBLOCK request, but if you just do one where all you do is complain about other editors, it's unlikely that any other admin are going to unblock you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- False. I naïvely followed the AfD process over my 18 articles, it was a joke, 1-0 even they are laughing now how I was showed the sources, explained them one by one and then they simply deleted them. Those three friendos are the worst experience over three years writing on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on the reason for your block and your complaint that you could no longer "defend yourself". Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You said creators are not essential on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, I said "article creators participating in AFDs for articles they created is not essential" when someone asked what happens with the AFDs for the articles you create after they saw you were indefinitely blocked. Not sure if you struggle with reading comprehension or are purposefully twisting what I said, but this is exactly the sort of thing that got you in trouble in the first place. If it's just going to be more bad faith accusations from you, I won't be responding further. I did not block you or delete your article, you have no reason to be mad at me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are not ready to discuss the unfair process to delete my 200 articles it was a 1-0 vote on a two weeks discussion AfD, maybe you have your gang too. Three users are playing with an entire system, I thought it was my fault, but then I realized the Gang of Three targeted more articles day after day. I must recognize the banner, giantsnowman and mississippi star could cheat and laugh at the wikipedia entire page. But they did not cheat on me, I've realized its game, I discovered and I showed to the public. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, I said "article creators participating in AFDs for articles they created is not essential" when someone asked what happens with the AFDs for the articles you create after they saw you were indefinitely blocked. Not sure if you struggle with reading comprehension or are purposefully twisting what I said, but this is exactly the sort of thing that got you in trouble in the first place. If it's just going to be more bad faith accusations from you, I won't be responding further. I did not block you or delete your article, you have no reason to be mad at me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You said creators are not essential on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on the reason for your block and your complaint that you could no longer "defend yourself". Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is false I refused to discuss the deletion of my 200 articles, 18 AfD discussions are overhere, also, they are proof how they acted with 1-0 vote no evidences to delete. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hugo, you've been told often enough now that casting aspersions on other editors, like you've done in your comments above, is unacceptable. If you continue on this page with the behaviour that lead to your block your access to it will be revoked as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Three users are playing with an entire system, I thought it was my fault, but then I realized the Gang of Three targeted more articles day after day. I must recognize the banner, giantsnowman and mississippi star could cheat and laugh at the wikipedia entire page. But they did not cheat on me, I've realized its game, I discovered and I showed to the public. The outcome was expected, users dodge the real question about being cheated with AfD with 1-0 votes, fake discussions and of course the joke of deletion review, the gang of three was discovered by me, they are cheating every time. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hugo, you've been told often enough now that casting aspersions on other editors, like you've done in your comments above, is unacceptable. If you continue on this page with the behaviour that lead to your block your access to it will be revoked as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- False. I naïvely followed the AfD process over my 18 articles, it was a joke, 1-0 even they are laughing now how I was showed the sources, explained them one by one and then they simply deleted them. Those three friendos are the worst experience over three years writing on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- You could have, but you weren't "defending yourself", or discussing notability standards, you were spending all your time insulting anyone who disagreed with you. You even started at me, and I didn't even participate in the discussions, and openly stated I was neutral because I don't edit sports related articles enough to know if things meet the Wikipedia standards or not. You refused to discuss constructively about the articles, and your comments were getting in the way of people who actually wanted to discuss the articles themselves, so another admin (not me) blocked you. You can always put in an WP:UNBLOCK request, but if you just do one where all you do is complain about other editors, it's unlikely that any other admin are going to unblock you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • 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 post of this notice.
Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned User:Bbb23 and User:Sir Sputnik that a first block in months (and the second ever) being indefinite is overkill, especially for a productive editor. A block was absolutely necessary to end the drama. But I fear an indefinite block will only alienate a valuable editor, who needs rehabilitating - not driving away.
Hugo is wrong to assume that there's a conspiracy theory here. The much simpler answer is (as is often the case), mistakes, misunderstandings, and apathy. Had they remained polite and civil, then this could have been a lot cleaner.
Hugo is entirely right that the AFD system completely failed - as it's hard to find an article that was put up for deletion here, that didn't meet WP:NSEASONS. There was very little participation at AFD; AFD participation has been very poor lately - especially in the Football area. An indefinite block - perceived unfair - will leader an upset editor to further, dumb, actions. I see that there's now a sockpuppet report here, but I won't comment on that. Hopefully we can find a way to rehabilitate this user (and perhaps the increasingly failing AFD system). Nfitz (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not a CU so I can't confirm one way or the other but I'll say that a) jumping right into this hornet's nest and b) invoking Sakiv (which Hugo also did leaves me little doubt that Hugo is behind the new account. If not for mention of Sakiv I'd have been leaning joe-job, but this seems a little too close to the heart of Hugo's issues with The Banner's nominations. Note: no comment on Sakiv's creations. I've had enough soccer for a very long time. Apologies for not linking the CU. I'm not sure best practices there these days. Star Mississippi 00:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll repeat the comment I made today from my talk page here. HugoAcosta9 needs to stop their sock-puppetry - and using IP addresses like 2806:2F0:31C0:AC8:84C5:A9C6:C132:B7DA and 187.156.98.86. Do you not realise that the quite reasonable arguments you make, are not only impacted by your inappropriate editing, but that the sockpuppetry actually hurts your arguments. Please stop, take 6 months, come back and apologise profusely - and most importantly never, ever, be a sockpuppet or IP edit again. I'm not sure you realise how badly this is seen by the community. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
is open. I am restoring talk page access so user can request unblocking here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @HugoAcosta9 you need to use the following for your request to show:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
and editors to respond to your request. Star Mississippi 21:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
HugoAcosta9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. [[User:HugoAcosta9|HugoAcosta9]] ([[User talk:HugoAcosta9#top|talk]]) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. [[User:HugoAcosta9|HugoAcosta9]] ([[User talk:HugoAcosta9#top|talk]]) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. [[User:HugoAcosta9|HugoAcosta9]] ([[User talk:HugoAcosta9#top|talk]]) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Undeniably involved comment, I do somewhat agree with @Nfitz: above that "the AFD system completely failed", which was a big part of what led to Hugo's frustration. I was the closer of some of the original AfDs and ultimately ended up agreeing with them being relisted/restored once the full picture became more clear. Courtesy links: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns_about_articles_nominated_for_deletion. I'm not going to take action and have not reviewed the Spanish edits they refer to above, but I do thank them for their clear & direct request above. Star Mississippi 22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)