Michael21107
August 2023
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Michael21107, if you are unblocked, I will impose a restriction on any use of speedy deletion tags and a WP:1RR restriction for reverting content on a page. Do you agree to these conditions?
from Z1720 posted on your talk page on the 31st July to which you responded i agree, thanks
. Its right there in your talk page history. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Im asking bout a topic ban— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael21107 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC).
- Those conditions are what was meant when referring to topic bans. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- thanks Michael H (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Those conditions are what was meant when referring to topic bans. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this was a massive lapse of judgement for which i apologize, but i dont believe tagging ONE redirect from redundant distingusher (or some tag like that which was added later) warrants an indefinite ban also considering the amount of helpful edits i made in this short time Michael H (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request, as your appeal and the discussion below do not suggest that you can edit constructively here. We want to be confident that you can edit without causing problems, not just that we can block you when you do, and I don't think you understand well enough what the problem is. I agree with the other editors' suggestions that while you are blocked here, you try getting experience editing another Wikipedia project, such as Simple English Wikipedia, or a Wikipedia in your own language. You are free to make a new unblock request here when you think you understand our policies well enough to edit without causing problems; please see the guide to appealing blocks and the standard offer for blocked editors for more advice. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
- Michael, I'm going to again suggest that as opposed to trying to get unblocked again as soon as possible, that perhaps you instead spend some time on another wiki, such as Simple or Fandom, or if you have a primary language other than English, that you edit that wiki instead. Take some time, try to become as proficient as you can at the basics, as in: selecting articles that need improvement, and doing just that, nothing fancy or complicated. Also take the time to learn the policies & guidelines as thoroughly as you can, and work on your communication skills. both conveying your thoughts and ideas to others, as well as understanding those being communicated to you. WP isn't going anywhere, so take your time, (at least 6 months, though 12 would probably be better). I think that if you try this approach, you might have a better chance of success. (jmho) - wolf 10:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- the thing is I'm not here to succeed (if u don't mean just getting unbanned), right now I just want to not be banned indefinitely for tagging one CSD, I would say giving me another chance and then banning me for 12 months if I fuck up would be reasonable Michael H (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Listen, Michael, I try to not be a hard-ass admin. I make a lot of blocks, but try to never jump to blocking, and try to give due consideration to every unblock request. But here, like, you keep saying it was just "one CSD", but it's not like CSD-tagging is the sort of thing someone easily stumbles into by accident. I'd be more sympathetic if, for instance, you were banned from American politics and made a single edit in that topic area, because that's an easy mistake to make once. But you were unblocked on a condition of no more CSD-tagging. You then deliberately added a custom {{db-G6}} template (and not even a valid one) to a redirect. That's not stumbling into an accidental violation; that's intentionally doing something that you were told you'd be reblocked if you ever did again. And you did that immediately after I said I was considering a block and that you needed to slow down and stop plunging into areas you don't understand. (Which is relevant because, again, "not necessary redirect" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. I strongly doubt that that redirect would even be deleted at RfD, let alone speedily.)If I didn't get the sense that you really are trying your best, I would assume you were trolling here, because that's such a blatant violation at a time when you were under a lot of scrutiny. But I don't think that. I think you just still don't get it. I'd suggest you start by focusing on a wiki where you speak the language more fluently. Give it a few months. If, after a few months, an admin from that wiki is willing to come here and say you now understand how to contribute in a wiki environment, I'll be open to an unblock. For now, it's a hard oppose for me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- i dont know what i was thinking at the time, probably was just looking for a resonable way to delete it cuz that just looked like a redundant redirect idk, i know what u trying to say but i dont like editing “fictisious” wikis, i think that i can do no harm if u unblock me until i do next big mistake Michael H (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Listen, Michael, I try to not be a hard-ass admin. I make a lot of blocks, but try to never jump to blocking, and try to give due consideration to every unblock request. But here, like, you keep saying it was just "one CSD", but it's not like CSD-tagging is the sort of thing someone easily stumbles into by accident. I'd be more sympathetic if, for instance, you were banned from American politics and made a single edit in that topic area, because that's an easy mistake to make once. But you were unblocked on a condition of no more CSD-tagging. You then deliberately added a custom {{db-G6}} template (and not even a valid one) to a redirect. That's not stumbling into an accidental violation; that's intentionally doing something that you were told you'd be reblocked if you ever did again. And you did that immediately after I said I was considering a block and that you needed to slow down and stop plunging into areas you don't understand. (Which is relevant because, again, "not necessary redirect" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. I strongly doubt that that redirect would even be deleted at RfD, let alone speedily.)If I didn't get the sense that you really are trying your best, I would assume you were trolling here, because that's such a blatant violation at a time when you were under a lot of scrutiny. But I don't think that. I think you just still don't get it. I'd suggest you start by focusing on a wiki where you speak the language more fluently. Give it a few months. If, after a few months, an admin from that wiki is willing to come here and say you now understand how to contribute in a wiki environment, I'll be open to an unblock. For now, it's a hard oppose for me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- the thing is I'm not here to succeed (if u don't mean just getting unbanned), right now I just want to not be banned indefinitely for tagging one CSD, I would say giving me another chance and then banning me for 12 months if I fuck up would be reasonable Michael H (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I strongly believe I was blocked reasonably but I'm now capable to adhere by guidelines, policies, and my previous/current topic bans. I also believe I'm now competent enough. If you are concerned I'm wrong, I'm willing to provide all the necessary answers to make you trust me again. Michael H (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request does not have enough detail to make me confident that you understand why you were blocked and what you will do in the future to change your behaviour. In future requests, please outline the edits that led to the block, why there were wrong, and what you will do differently if unblocked. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
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.
Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have violated the topic ban, that being use of speedy deletion tags (linked), I will avoid violating this ban in the future as well as obey the 1 revert rule imposed on me as a condition for unblock after my previous block. Michael H (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia editors are expected to understand policies and guidelines well enough to not repeatedly make mistakes, and part of that is accepting and understanding feedback when the occasional mistake does happen, so that you will learn and not keep making the same mistakes. You have been given advice by many editors but you haven't shown that you understand. You have been combative and defensive instead, and you have been blocked four times on Slovak Wikipedia since your first block here for the same sort of disruptive edits. You keep saying we can just block you when you make your next "big mistake" but Wikipedia administrators are not babysitters, and your disruptive editing wastes the time of other editors who then have to fix it. It would be irresponsible to unblock you when you keep showing that you don't understand and won't take the time to learn, and so I am again declining your appeal.
Please note that if you continue to post unsatisfactory block appeals, your access to edit this page may be disabled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
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.
@Ivanvector i can understand policies, how can i prove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael21107 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's what you said last time you were blocked. Why should we believe it this time? JBW (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would say because i have much more knowledge of Wikipedia now. I know u cant verify that certainly but i hope u will try if possible, by unblocking me if needed. If u have better idea, I'm open to it. Michael H (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're apparently serving a month-long block on sk.wiki for "trolling, unproductive edits and bringing chaos to articles" so I'd say that's considerable evidence to the contrary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- i believe thats only evidence of sk wiki being in a terrible state, what even is trolling? bringing chaos into articles? admins there can make up reasons for bans and get away with it Michael H (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- anyway i believe that even if i wouldnt be able to edit wiki with 15 yo rules like having to link dates, it doesnt mean i cant do so at this, in comparision polished wiki Michael H (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- i believe thats only evidence of sk wiki being in a terrible state, what even is trolling? bringing chaos into articles? admins there can make up reasons for bans and get away with it Michael H (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're apparently serving a month-long block on sk.wiki for "trolling, unproductive edits and bringing chaos to articles" so I'd say that's considerable evidence to the contrary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would say because i have much more knowledge of Wikipedia now. I know u cant verify that certainly but i hope u will try if possible, by unblocking me if needed. If u have better idea, I'm open to it. Michael H (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: what should i do when only one person helpfully acknowledged my request for such a long time?--Michael H (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
February 2024
edit Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to once again apologize for my edits. I shouldn't have requested speedy deletion when I was banned from doing so. I know that disruptive editing is a big problem and I would like to combat it, rather than being part of it. I'm willing and able to learn guidelines before making such big edits, like requesting speedy deletion. Please give me a chance to prove that I can do my tiny bit for Wikipedia. I'm willing to comply with all active topic bans and any new that seems necessary. Michael H (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your apology is appreciated, but you have violated topic bans in the past so we can't just take your word that you will comply with them. You will need to tell us what specific steps you will take to comply and what edits you intend to make instead. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I hope this covers the info 331dot requested. To my knowledge, I'm banned from marking pages with {{Db}} and ordered to obey WP:1RR which is a version of a restriction that states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page ...within a 24-hour period.... that changes the 3 reverts to just one. Regarding speedy deletions, i can propose deletion of pages through {{Proposed deletion}} given that the page meets requirements such as not being previously nominated for deletion this way, or start a deletion discussion trough Wikipedia:Afd. Michael H (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have extensively evaded your block by editing while logged out. Any future unblock request will need to address that. Spicy (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
Unblock discussion
edit@Tamzin: Not sure any deletion related tagging is a good idea, but does this suffice? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Michael21107: Can you tell us more specifically what specific steps you will take to comply and what edits you intend to make instead? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- i would obey the topic bans which prohibit me from tagging articles for speedy deletion and making more then 1 revert on a article in 24 hour period, not sure if u want to hear about alternatives to that or what, i would of course accept any further topic bans but not sure what more do you want me to tell you Michael H (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
edit Michael21107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I provided sufficient information to the TBAN violation at the previous unblock request. If not, please guide me so I can do so. Regarding the block evasion, all I could say is that I made a mistake, i stopped this by logging into my account and making an unblock request shortly after, stopping editing (except my talk page) until I get legal access again. Although it was recommended to me on WP:SOCKBLOCK to wait for appx. 6 months before appealing while contributing to other Wikimedia projects, I believe WP is the place I could help the best. Furthermore, I will accept any further TBANs or other restrictions. Michael H (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
- I think the block evasion precludes unblocking, but maybe one of my colleagues will assent to unblocking.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please describe what constructive edits you would make.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: any constructive edits, like fixing links and linked broken anchors, I dont know if u mean like some specific topics or something, if u you mean like topics, mostly minor stuff i come across from the beginning so i get some experience Michael H (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra Michael H (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: not an opinion on the appeal, but I see no further block evasion since the previous decline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- {cringe} Thanks. Let's await further review by a member of the unblock review team. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: not an opinion on the appeal, but I see no further block evasion since the previous decline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra Michael H (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: any constructive edits, like fixing links and linked broken anchors, I dont know if u mean like some specific topics or something, if u you mean like topics, mostly minor stuff i come across from the beginning so i get some experience Michael H (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)