User talk:Hmdwgf

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit summary, where I reverted an edit where you added unsourced and badly sourced content (despite many many warnings about this over several years). Such extreme incompetence is not tolerated on Wikipedia; you are not welcome here. Graham87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've been on this website for 13 years and made thousands of edits over those years, and yes, I have had lots of warnings, and I have tightened up my editing- but a permanent block (let's face it, that's what this is) in this instance is way too harsh and I don't feel this is right. I feel like I got a life sentence with no parole for punching someone in the face, so to speak.

I provided sources on Ward Weaver III. According to this admin (and he's right), there was one mistake in that detailed edit that he pointed out that I had made in not providing a correct source for Wesley Rotteger (whom he referred to as "Rutger", and hence the mismatch), so this admin decided to go from 1 to 1000, delete my edit and then permanently block me from this website. Another example- the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and O'Hare International Airport changes: I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. Atlanta, for example. I changed it from 195 to 196 because 21+29+32+34+40+28+12=196, not 195.

I understand the block and I understand why I got blocked, and what I'm asking for is a non-permanent block. The last time I got blocked was for a week, and I feel 2 weeks to a month would be more appropriate. A permanent block is just way too harsh, and for someone who has contributed largely positively to this website over these years, I don't feel I have done enough at this stage over the years to warrant such a punishment, and I don't appreciate being told that I am "extremely incompetent" and that "I am not welcome here." I have contributed enough to make a positive difference on many pages on this website, and am always willing to improve my editing skills to this site's standards so that further blocks will be averted. --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Putting an end date on the block doesn't do anything to resolve the issues that led to the block. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. The block can be removed when you can sufficiently assure us that the problematic behavior will not repeat. This request doesn't do that. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 22 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

OK. I looked through the sources again, and a lot of them did not cover Ward Weaver III's family on his father's side. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. That was a mistake- one I've made way too many times, and one I will never make again- if you have trouble believing me, all I have is my word. I consistently violated WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. But there are some things that admin got wrong with reverting my edits, and why I do not entirely deserve this block. Example 1: Again, I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. I changed the total number of gates on that article [195 to 196] because 21 + 29 + 32 + 34 + 40 + 28 + 12 =196, not 195. Same thing on the O'Hare International Airport article. I changed it [191 to 208] total gates, which was still wrong, as 50 + 41 + 79 + 40 = 210, not 208 or 191 as it is currently listed. Little things like basic math do count for something. I did forget to include sources for the bits about O'Hare and Atlanta airports being the busiest and second busiest respectively, which again, I will not do in the future. As hard as this may be to believe for some people, I am willing to learn from my mistakes, site my sources with cited, reliable information, not be a disruptive editor and prove that I am competent. Please message me back if there's anything you'd like me to do or if there is anything that needs to be done. Thank you.--Hmdwgf (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

I accept your sincerity, but ... as you note, you've been editing for 13 years (albeit infrequently and intermittently). So it is somewhat troubling (as you seem to understand) that in the last six months, you got blocked three times for the same thing. It is much more likely in that situation, when the user is a registered account, that the next block be indefinite. A newer registered account might not even have been allowed to get that far. In sum, you got more than the usual chances, and still blew them.

"Indefinite" and "permanent" are not necessarily the same thing, no matter how much the Internet tries to make them be. The former means that there is a chance you can be unblocked. Permanence is more often the consequence of a formal ban by either ArbCom or the community, especially in the latter case. But even those bans have sometimes been lifted.

I think your case would be better served by leaving well enough alone for a while (like, not trying so hard to explain yourself in your unblock request ... your explanation about the gate arithmetic really isn't as relevant to your block as the fact that you went back to it like a moth to the flame. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 23 December 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi. I am appealing my block. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. I did that because I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions. That was a mistake- one I've made a lot too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I will never make again. WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. Is there anything I can do to contribute to Wikipedia:Task Center that needs done? --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As you now know and are certainly expected to know after nearly 14 years and 9,000 edits here, all information in Wikipedia is expected to be cited to a reliable source. Information on living persons is required to be cited inline, as misleading or incorrect information published here can have serious and severe real-world consequences for the persons affected. I am going to unblock you, however based on your recent editing history prior to your block, I believe it is prudent that as a condition of unblocking, you are topic banned from biographies of living persons. I will describe this further below. As always, repeating the behaviour which led to the block is likely to result in more serious sanctions, up to and including being banned from Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional unblock

As a condition of your unblocking, you are topic banned from the subject of living persons, broadly construed. You may not edit any page nor discuss any topic which concerns a living person, anywhere on the English Wikipedia, subject to the normal exceptions except I advise you not to depend on the exemption for reverting obvious vandalism to biographies of living persons, as doing so will likely be considered a violation of your ban. As an unblock condition, this sanction expires in one year, or you may appeal earlier to the administrators' noticeboard (see WP:STANDARDOFFER). Violations of this condition will result in your indefinite block being restored, and may result in lengthening the duration of your topic ban or expanding its scope. If you are not sure if an edit might violate this restriction, you are encouraged to ask before attempting the edit, as inadvertent violations will be treated as seriously as deliberate ones. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. OK. Great. Thank you so much. Hmdwgf (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sami Zayn, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to provide a source before you changed it. Hmdwgf (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you did not take the notice above seriously. You are not permitted to edit biographical articles concerning living persons here on Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 03:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot about that- really, I did. I'm not sure if an apology or an explanation will do but I guess my time is up here. I've been on the admin's user watchlist since July of last year. Hmdwgf (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Adding a ping to the admin so that they can decide, to me it seems very reckless to immediately not just ″forget″ your topic ban but also repeat the same unsourced editing that got you blocked in the first place. TylerBurden (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even though I’ve been topic banned for a year from editing articles on living people, I can at least say I provided a source. Of the few dozen edits I've done since I was unbanned, it’s the only edit I’ve done on a living person. But I don’t think it will get me off the hook. I’m on thin ice already. I thought I could get away with at least one- but clearly not. Hmdwgf (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ivanvector- I'm probably going to request to be unblocked some time later in the year but even so my contributions will very likely be extremely limited and will pertain to one article. I was hoping you would be lenient, hoping you wouldn't ban me- but you did, and that for me is the final straw. I understand why Wikipedia has to be strict about things like this, but this ban has made me realize that I cannot function in a site this rigidly administered. This site is just too strict, serious and cutthroat for me- and it didn't always used to be that way. I have mental health problems that I have been working on for a while to get straightened out which have been a contributing factor to all the warnings I've had here- 5 years ago I would have been banned a lot sooner, made a hell of a lot more noise about it and tried to get back borderline obsessively.--Hmdwgf (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

(edit conflict) I was writing the text below while you were writing your reply above. I have not modified it after reading your response, and I have nothing more to add at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly warned not to edit information about living persons only a month ago. I came here willing to forgive this one instance since you did provide a source, but then I reviewed that source and found that, in fact, your edit to Sami Zayn was not adequately supported by the source you provided, and so I have removed it. That led me to investigate other edits you've made since being conditionally unblocked, and I found edits such as:

This edit to Dale Hausner and Samuel Dieteman, one of whom is living.
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace - this series of edits, besides directly concerning living persons named in the article and thus being in direct violation of your ban, you also added grandiose superlatives which do not reflect the views of the existing source at all. And then a few days later you went back for this batch, in which you modified more of the same info, and added an entirely new bit about a living person not previously mentioned although you provided no new sources.
You deadnamed Caitlyn Jenner. While the edit is probably correct given that the article is an event from 1986, you still must have known that they are, in fact, a living person.
There are also numerous examples in your editing history of you adding what appears to be your own personal opinion or editorial commentary to articles with no attempt to add a source at all. These embellishments are not wanted on Wikipedia; please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

What has to happen now is that someone, probably many people with many better ways to use their time, are going to have to go through your history and double-check everything you've added for the last 14 years, since you've shown that you cannot be trusted to check sources yourself. You will remain blocked until you show some kind of awareness and understanding of the harm you've done and the time you are going to make everyone else waste fixing it, instead of trying to see "what you can get away with" as you've said a few times on this page. If you think you can do that, please see WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was never aware of any of those rules- I thought that I could not specifically edit articles about living people, not information about living people on articles not about living people. I never even knew what "deadnaming" is until now.

I know what I did wrong, and I accept it. But to be honest, right now I am so bloody frustrated with this whole thing that in order to do as little damage to my personal pride as possible, what I wrote above is how I will proceed from here. Right now- it's simply impossible for me to care. Right now, I just cannot do any of the things you're recommending I should do to get unbanned. Why? There's nothing I can do to get unbanned right now, and I'm just too annoyed and frustrated to even care. I'm not mad at you personally, so much as I am mad at this website- you did what you had to do. Maybe my feelings about this website will change, maybe not. Only time will tell. My own feelings play a factor for me here. --Hmdwgf (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

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).

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

Request reason:

I willingly and carelessly violated my initial ban on living people. I did that because I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions, like I did before when I would post edits without any sources. That was a mistake- one I've made too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I will never make again. I never took WP:Verifiability seriously enough, and I will take it seriously this time- if there is a "this time" for me. It has also been 8 months since I was banned. Is there anything I can do to contribute to Wikipedia:Task Center that needs done?

Decline reason:

Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK. I will strengthen your block to reflect this. This puts you one further instance of block evasion away from an indefinite WP:CBAN, as per WP:3X. Yamla (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2023 (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.

February 2024

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).

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

Request reason:

So this time, I made edits while logged off to get around my ban. I did that because not knowing much about how IPs work, I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions, like I did before when I would post edits without any sources. That was a mistake- one I've made too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I really will never make again. I never took WP:Verifiability or WP:LOUTSOCK seriously enough, and I will take it seriously this time- if there is a "this time" for me. I never attempted to mislead on those edits I made- I really, really do have the website's best intentions at heart. It has also been nearly a year since I was first banned. My time on Wikipedia will be extremely limited- I will only be contributing seriously to 1 article (it's locked to non-users) and I will make minor corrections to others other than of course, ones about living people, if I am allowed to edit again. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Considering you were already unblocked following an indefinite block, and your recent history of block evasion, I cannot unblock you at this time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2024 (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.

Deepfriedokra, FWIW, I found no recent evidence of socking. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I think October was recent enough, however we can unblock if you think it would be OK. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I guess we should notify @Yamla and Ivanvector:. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Anyone else reviewing this ought scroll up to their previous accepted block appeal from 18 Jan 2023 (permalink) and compare it to this one. And to the October one, for that matter. Then also study the discussion in the February 2023 section right below it, where I documented numerous instances of them violating their conditional unblock over just one month following. And then there's the socking. An unblock request needs to convince the reviewing administrators that the user understands what they did wrong and what they will do differently if unblocked, and a request that is nearly a verbatim copy of the previous successful one is a very long way off. Suffice it to say I am not in favour of unblocking this user at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]