User talk:EGL1234


User	Talk	To Do	Toolbox	Books	User Boxes	Quotes	Announcements

Feel free to talk to me below. My User Page

ARCHIVES[edit]

An archive contains 50 messages, then it is deemed full. Please note that I am quite strict regarding archiving.
:)
If a conversation is over, I will archive it ASAP.

Archive 1

Talk Under Here[edit]

Block reinstated[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
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. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

Dedpite PugGrammarBot being blocked, you have once again created an an unauthorized and undisclosed bot account that caused enough disruption to be brought to ANI. This is not an acceptable use of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional accounts created unnecessarily of which only two were disclosed: ~~ImRichEnoughForAButler~~, Tojodavid and 70RP3D0-MLWR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Hi. I forgot about Butler and mlwr, but the edits were a test to see whether wikipedia would pick up on it. Additionally, it was not editing any pages apart from its own sandbox. Please unblock me. Thank you. EGL¹²³⁴ 02:35, 25 March 2021 (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).

EGL1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Understanding why I have been blocked I understand that I did create a sockpuppet account, without declaring it, and I apologize, however, it doesn't suit this situation to ban for 'multiple account abuse' and 'unauthorized deployment of bots'. The edits by the bot were merely a test of the Wikipedia anti-spam system, which appears to be flawed, as the bot amassed 508 edits on the page before being blocked.
2. Reason for unblock

2/i) Reason why block was incorrect and should be reconsidered
As stated earlier, the block was for "abusive use of multiple accounts" and "unauthorized deployment of bots". This is why it is not abusive:
2/i/i) The bot was created to test the Wikipedia anti-spam system, and I would in turn create and get authorized an anti-spam bot, replacing the defunct AntiSpamBot.
This is why the bot should not have been classified as "unauthorized deployment of bots"
2/i/ii) The bot was merely editing its own sandbox, which is allowed for tests. Additionally, if we aren't allowed to test our bots, how do we make them in the first place?
2/ii) Addressing the Admin's concerns about my conduct
Explanation about how my conduct does not warrant a block:
2/ii/i) As I have stated many times, there was nothing wrong with the conduct, the alternative account wasn't abusive, nor was it editing any other page apart from its sandbox.
Apology for the partial misconduct
The misconduct:
1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it
2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blocked
2/ii/ii/i) Having a sockpuppet without declaring itI sincerely apologize for not declaring that the user was a sockpuppet, and I will not do this again. If I make a third strike, you may block me, and I won't appeal.
2/ii/ii/ii) "Sockpuppeting" again after previously being blocked for itI do admit that I "sockpuppeted", but at the time, I didn't understand that I had to declare that it was a sockpuppet, even if it was not abusive.

3. Summary of Section 2

3/i) Why the block was not necessary
The blocking of my account does not prevent damage, as there was no damage done in the first place. As I have extensively stated, the user was not abusive.
3/ii) Why the block is also no longer necessaryI understand that I have inappropriately violated these rules, and I apologize.
1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it
2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blockedIf I sockpuppet without declaring again, feel free to block/ban me, and I will not retaliate.

Finally, if you get this far, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my unblock request
Thanks,
Edward Latto / EGL1234 EGL¹²³⁴ 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We know Wikipedia's protections aren't perfect. No need for you to actively harm Wikipedia to prove a point. See WP:POINT. This does not convince me you understand your actions were inappropriate, nor does it convince me you'll refrain from any further sockpuppetry and any further unsanctioned bots in the future. Given this wasn't the first time, and given that you falsely claim there was no damage done, I see no reason to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2021 (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.

@Yamla: I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that there was that rule in place. I am quite unexperienced after all. But how can I convince you that I won't sockpuppet again? How can anyone truly prove that they won't do anything again? Also, I stated that if I do it again, you can block me without any retaliation. Also, even if you aren't convinced to unblock me, please could you maybe inform me why you think that there was damage done, as I just simply don't understand. Finally, even if you don't want to do that (which I imagine you won't), please could you maybe shorten my block from indefinite to 1-2 years or something, because I really don't want to be doomed to loss of editing privileges just because I didn't understand a couple rules. Being able to edit and help revert vandalism really means so much to me. Sorry for wasting your time, EGL1234.

You are free to make a new unblock request. The big problem here is that you were given a second chance and continued to create sockpuppet accounts. We extended you the benefit of the doubt, you appealed to ArbCom successfully back in January, and then created more sockpuppet accounts and caused more disruption. If you make a new unblock request, a different administrator will review it. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks so much. Would you recommend me taking a break before re-appealing, or doing it now? Thanks EGL¹²³⁴ 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SO has a lower bar. That requires you go six months with zero edits. Your call. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Innocenti moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Roberto Innocenti, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Please also see WP:CIT and WP:CITE for what needs to be included in footnotes in order to pass WP:VERIFY.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Roberto Innocenti[edit]

Hello, EGL1234. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Roberto Innocenti".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 26 September 2021 (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).

EGL1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learnt my lesson after in total having missed out on editing for >1.5 years, and I am convinced that there is no reason that I would, still acknowledging that I will be blocked/banned, sockpuppet/bot again. Also, I believe the 'let the user hang themselves' policy is quite applicable here, and I will just essentially bring myself down completely with no chance of reneging on the block/ban I will get. I also won't even think of appealing if this happens.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2021 (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.

As a checkuser, I see Possible block evasion as Supamexico in August. Note none of that user's edits made it through the edit filter, but you can see the attempts here. It's not immediately clear to me if this is the same person behind both accounts, so this should be evaluated on behavioural grounds. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't me btw but be free to check it out! I understand that you probably have to do a lot of checks first. Thanks for seeing my appeal! EGL¹²³⁴ 14:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla It also may appear to be me, as I frequently edit on College / public wifi. EGL¹²³⁴ 01:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to other reasons that may apply against unblocking EGL, especially that of "once bitten, twice shy" when it comes to unblocks, I don't believe the possible sock matches this editor using behavioural review. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad someone checked out the potential sockpuppetry! EGL¹²³⁴ 09:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request Again[edit]

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).

EGL1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary because I have thoroughly learnt my lesson. Additionally, the user Nosebagbear has vouched for me, stating that my alleged 'sockpuppetry' under the Supamexico account in August does not match my behaviour. From this, I have missed out on almost 2 years of editing, which has left a big impact on me. I understand that I was blocked for sockpuppetry and unauthorised creation and usage of bots, and I similarly understand that I am not, under any circumstances, to create or use an undeclared socks and create or use any unapproved bots. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will instead make helpful contributions.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2022 (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.