User talk:G.-M. Cupertino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino[edit]

The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediate return to previous ways. You were banned for chronic edit warring and insulting edit summaries. A quick review of your edits since your return indicate that you learned nothing from your ban. I will lift this block if you agree to a 0RR restriction: no reversions of any editor's edits at any time, including edits that you consider to be vandalism. Any other admin can lift this block without consulting me once he complies with this.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Kww (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

G.-M. Cupertino (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I've quit wikipedia for almost three years. However, and for my surprise, other people, some of whom I know, who decided to make edits here where I am, at the Portuguese Archives, got themselves blocked for the simple reason that I've also used the same computers. According to some, whenever an IP was blocked the Administrators asked the users to create an account to avoid it. And when they did, they got blocked for the very same reason... I don't want to keep up with something so lowsy as wikipedia. However, I don't want to create any obstacles to anyone else who does. So I request my unblock simply to avoid all this mess. Despite this, however, and for the principle, I find, specially after almost three years, that asking me not to reverse any edits even if I consider them vandalism to be an exageration. I understand that edit warrings are unproductive and excessively penalized and that what we should do is try to find a User or an Administrator that, unlike others, knows anything about the matter in question. I don't know if we can negociate new terms, but I'm open to it. The "insulting" complaints are just lame, though. A few accurate accusations and words cannot be insults, specially when some edits and Users are way more insulting with their manners and ignorance than the ones who answer back. But if I came back I would try to curb it, and if I persisted I could allways be blocked again for reasonable time this turn; the point is, no one else has to be deprived from editing because of me. In these terms, I request my unblocking. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From the comments here and especially below, it's clear that unblocking this user would not be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Autoblocks have long since expired, so the only way IP editors should have problems with being called your socks would be if you, yourself, are still editing from the same range. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:35, 22 February 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.

Specially from below? Defending myself is worse than the rest? What I should not do is respond to provocations, like the one he did on purpose to make partial people like you to deny my request. What did I do wrong? Just because I find lame the obsession with politeness it doesn't mean I'll continue with my way back former behaviour, but you didn't understand that, or you didn't want to. What should I do to get unblocked around here? Yes, they edited from the same range because this is a public range!... What could I have done? How can my unblocking be a benefit, then, if it's so "clear" to you? It is clear to me that people here are just protecting eachother against old offenders who no longer do anything wrong just because they once did. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
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.

G.-M. Cupertino (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I will not continue with my previous behaviour. For the simple reason I will not return here anymore. Even if I did, I wouldn't continue with that behaviour. If that's not enough for you, what is? What's not acceptable is that people get punished for denying a false accusation against them and call it a personal attack. Whatever you want me to do, I will do it. I can't do more. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As your unblock request states that you do not intend to edit Wikipedia, there is no need to unblock. The only person in the world being affected by that is you - nobody else. Indeed, it only affects editing and not reading, so the net effect is positive for all. If at some point you wish to edit again, re-read WP:GAB and try again. Until that point, please do not waste people's time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:37, 22 February 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.

You clearly did not read my explanation, which you should, since you're the responsible for unblockings. I'm requesting my unblocking because the IP of the place I used to edit from is being systematically blocked because of me having used it before, over three years ago... It was told to one of the editors that if I were unblocked they would be too. So I requested my unblocking. So they can get unblocked. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
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.

G.-M. Cupertino (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm fed up with petty arguments and edit wars, so I won't cause any more fuss again. It's so much simpler to me to just ignore provocations that to feed the trolls. I should've done it before and I'd avoid being asking to be unblocked once more now. It would have been so easy!... Fighting all the time leads nowhere. I don't want other people to be blocked simply because they used the same computer I did. I shall search for someone else if in trouble, and perhaps getting a tutor or whatever is called in here, perhaps EyeSerene. I can't give anything else but my word, which you might not take. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Doesn't really offer a reason to unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 19 January 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.

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.

G.-M. Cupertino (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

What reason should I offer? I've renounced my previous behaviour, what else am I supposed to do? If accepting to behave and follow the rules isn't enough, then what is? Perhaps a less biased Administrator should review this.

Decline reason:

I agree with Daniel Case above. And considering what your previous blocks are for, I don't think accusing an administrator of being biased is a proper route. only (talk) 12:26, 1 February 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.

My accusations of bias were only because I've rejected my previous actions, and keep blocking someone in those circumstances at least seems biased. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You seem to either be unclear in how blocking works, or in how to make a clear statement of intent.
If another editor who is entirely unrelated to you is having trouble editing because of a blocked IP address, then that user may make an appropriate unblock request. It's difficult to fathom how you would personally know that someone else cannot login because of your block. We will not unblock you so that someone else can edit - the process and technology behind the block does not work that way.
However, you seem to be also arguing that YOU should be unblocked on your own recognizance - but you're not providing anything remotely WP:GAB-compliant, and thus the continual decline.
So ... which is it? Are you personally trying to be unblocked, or are you trying to help someone else edit? DP 12:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to do both. I know someone else was blocked because of the complaints I sometimes have here at the National Archives from people that had this problem and that just want to work. In any case, please, help me: how should I formulate a successful unblock request? How should I convince an Administrator? With which words exactly? Please, as I also stated, I also want EyeSerene as a tutor. Thank you. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)