User talk:Kiko4564

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I had the impulse to log out and make the vandalism edit because I wanted to test the boundaries whilst also quite wrongfully being stupid and naive enough to think I'd be off the hook. In that I wanted to be able to see if changing fudge to **** would be appropriate, without anyone finding out but I completely forgot about the first accidental edit whilst logged out which incriminated me. I will avoid any further impulses by ensuring that I actually take the rules seriously at all times if granted a second chance and assuming, especially considering my history, I'll be under greater scruntiny in the first place; which will include having no more opportunities to deal with being blocked again, rather than pushing every boundary, trying to game policies like this one or for that matter, the system in general to see what I can get away with. I don't think of Wikipedia as a game, instead I think of it as a serious encyclopedia. However, at the time I also saw it as having a portion of joke pages like the one I vandalised which are a bit freer with the rules. Also, when I have an impulse to change a word in an article to a profanity citing my chances under policies like be bold or wikipedia is not censored; I'll check the situation out in advanced in a more appropriate place. For instance; in this situation I did not vandalise main space, which is not relevant to the grounds I'm blocked on because I did agree to the condition of never editing whilst logged out; regardless of any intentions, even in good faith. I understand the block wasn't being used to punish me for the sockpuppetry; but was within the policy as preventing this being repeated and needed to be indefinite considering they had no idea as to how long would be long enough for another impulse to possibly happen. On this short leash unblock, I'll also agree to never use any profanities on site except on talk pages without explicit permission from an administrator. For clarification purposes, all usernames which I have known to edit wikipedia from apart from the current one are: WPBot, John Prescot and Kiko4564 (alt). Kiko4564 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm really not sure what is different here from the previous two times you have made this promise. An assertion that you would view this as 'short leash unblock' is meaningless; you were already on a short leash and had explicitly vowed not to repeat the behaviors which lead to your previous blocks. Unfortunately, I cannot review IRC conversations for any further mitigating information. Mr. Fluffernutter's proposition below is a good one in a general sense; taking the time to develop impulse control on other endeavors and other projects may provide a better case for an unblock. Kuru (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I had the impulse to log out and make the vandalism edit because I wanted to test the boundaries whilst also quite wrongfully being naive enough to think I would be off the hook, in that I wanted to be able to see if changing fudge to the f word would be appropriate; without anyone finding out but I completely forgot about the first accidental edit whilst logged out which gave the game away. I will avoid any further impulses by ensuring that I actually take the rules/ provisos seriously at all times if granted another chance and assuming, especially considering my history, I'll be under scrutiny; which will include having no more opportunities to deal with being blocked again, rather than pushing every boundary, trying to game policies or for that matter, the system in general to see what I can get away with which I understand will be nothing whatsoever. I don't think of Wikipedia as a game, instead I think of it as a serious encyclopedia as I always have. However, at the time I also saw it as having a portion of joke pages like the one I vandalised which are a bit freer with the rules. Also, when I have an impulse to change a word in an article to a profanity citing my chances under policies like be bold or Wikipedia is not censored; I'll check the situation out in advanced at a more appropriate article talk page and not try covering my tracks to avoid scrutiny if I have nothing to hide. For instance; in this situation I did not vandalise main space, although this is not relevant to the grounds I'm blocked on because I did agree to the condition of never editing whilst logged out; regardless of any intentions, even in good faith. I understand the block wasn't being used to punish me for the sockpuppetry; but was within the policy as preventing this being repeated and needed to be indefinite considering they had no idea as to how long would be long enough for another impulse to possibly happen as well as my history of dealing with blocks of a defined length e.g. social engineering. If unblocked, I'll also agree to never use any profanities on site in mainspace, on user talk pages or Wikipedia namespace including joke pages except on article talk pages without explicit permission from an administrator. I think I should be granted another chance because I will go further than the previous conditions of not avoiding scrutiny. Also, although I admittedly showed the edit to another editor over IRC; I was not proud whilst doing so and will be able to provide a log in private on request. For clarification purposes, this block is for sockpuppetery as confirmed by checkuser using IP address ((Redacted)) and making a vandalism edit, and all usernames and some IPs which I have known to edit Wikipedia from apart from the current one, of which only the IP addresses have been used to sockpuppet, are: (Redacted), (Redacted), WPBot, John Prescot and Kiko4564 (alt). I have done some proofreading on the English wikisource. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

How many "last chances" before it loses any meaning? It has already been reviewed with you how many times you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. It has already been reviewed with you how many times you violated your unblocking conditions. It has already been suggested you take some time before making another unblock request. Yet less then a month after your last unblock request you post a virtually identical one. Furthermore, you really don't have any justification for breaching your unblock conditions other than wanting to test them. I have zero confidence in your ability to follow any future advice or unblock conditions. I should also caution you at this time that multiple identical unblock requests will most likely lead to your talk page access being revoked. Singularity42 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Having had approximately six months since the last appeal above I wish to demonstrate to the Wikipedia community that although I did indeed justify my block by throwing old conditions out of the window I am however fully capable of complying with these as well as new ones such as the abstinence from any use of profanity except where necessary for the quality of mainspace articles or to facilitate proper talk page discussion when using quotes. The hard evidence which you will understandably want to look at may be slightly stale but is still available at wikidata here. Sorry once again for what I did to disrupt the encyclopedia by evading scrutiny, I will move on from this by continuing to patrol vandalism and increase the quality of articles. What I did by changing a benignly humorous word to a profanity was very childish which I'm now finding to be a very regrettable way of conducting myself as part of the general way I conducted myself since December 2010 so having moved on I'd like to please have another chance which for the final time I won't be wasting again having gained more maturity. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As far as I'm concerned, this is much the same as your last unblock request, and the one before that. Given that you were given a second chance, and a third chance, I don't see a compelling reason to give you any further chances. PhilKnight (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

{{unblock|1=As a former vandal I believe I deserve an unblock on the grounds that I have shown I can remain in control of myself on wikidata although finding a checkuser and administrator to unblock me has proven impossible as well as the completely valid rejection of my block appeal I wish to appeal to you once again on the grounds that I'm willing to avoid profanity. My real mistake however was the use of an anonymous IP to not only edit whilst avoiding scrutiny but to also vandalise and my attempt at keeping my breach of the conditions of unblock a secret. I also apologise having grown up from my block evasion a while back making another vandal edit whilst logged out at a school. I'm appealing to you again because being six months since the last discussion on ANI I'd like another administrator to please consider placing this request on ANI for review by the wider community and will also be pointing out that it is a checkuser block for sockpuppetery so a non-CU will not decline nor accept my request. Kiko4564 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Note to reviewing admin: user was most recently evading this block with A banned user returns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with this edit, about an hour and a half before this request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please address your claim in WP:SPI then. In the meantime I've killed the request so you'll have plenty of time in order to do so. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There is, I believe, no prospect of an admin posting your request to any noticeboard here; certainly I, having gone through the whole thread, would not. You can e-mail the blocking admin, which I think is your only recourse. Incidentally you have not killed the request, just de-formatted it.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I've run a checkuser and confirmed the block evasion. In this context, I've revoked talk page access, as I don't think this appeal has any chance of success. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.