((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Girth Summit (blether) 09:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello I am applying to be unblocked on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Standard_offer as I have waited 6 months with no bad behavior. My request below summarises my apology and commitment to be a productive user on Wikipedia, covering: * my understanding of what I was blocked for, admitting my faults and mistakes including denying sockpuppetry * why the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia * My promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban * Evidence of long-term valuable contributions to Wikipedia (below) * Addressing conflict of editing concerns.
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:08, 29 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.
I acknowledge I participated in multiple instances of sock/meat puppetry behavior and I acknowledge the harm this can cause to Wikipedia.
I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a few years now. I really want to make a genuine appeal regarding my sockpuppetting, as I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I acknowledge I behaved unethically regarding the community policies.
These issues should not happen again as I now see why they lead to a block and how they were counterproductive.
To prove that my intentions with Wikipedia are constructive and productive here is a list of some well written articles I have assisted in building:
Some good quality pages we (User:Renaissance_domenic) have created or collaborated on:
We have never engaged in vandalism of any kind and our contributions. I want to clarify that in any future collaborations we will attempt to make this transparent and within Wikipedia guidelines.
Some conflict of interest editing points were raised by Seraphimblade.
I would like to come out on the record that I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia. All of the articles I have worked on have been areas of interest or only tangentially related to me.
Me and User:Renaissance_domenic ran a startup out of an incubator we created an article about Innovation Collaboration Centre - we were not paid to do this, we just thought the entity was worthy of encyclopedic coverage as it is associated with UniSA.
I am also associated with a city-state movement, which is why I am interested in the subject of Network States, City-states, Secession and other matters.
My intention is to state this COI on my user page if I ever wish to write specifically about my startup or the specific city-state movement I am associated with, neither of which I believe will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines at this current stage.
I never vandalized Wikipedia, and all of the articles I created as far as I am aware followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
My request to the reviewing admin:
Thank you for considering this request Mr vili (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
"Unblock request history"
| ||
---|---|---|
Unblock Request (6 month standard offer)New request unblock is below this block request
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).
Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Hello I am applying to be unblocked on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Standard_offer as I have waited 6 months with no bad behavior, I am reapplying because of the "Procedural decline only". My request below summaries my apology, covering:
Decline reason: I have read through the below conversation. Having done that, I find the denial of paid editing and COI to be entirely unconvincing. Part of what is required for any editor is to disclose any paid editing, and I am not confident that you will obey this requirement or be honest about when it's going on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 15 June 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. ReplyHi, @Seraphimblade While that would be very nice, I am not paid by anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Some of the subjects I have written about are merely things distantly related to me. My edit history shows that from the varying articles i've written, many of which are about government organizations, politics, and some non-profit & commercial enterprises. Without reveal too much identifying information. I run a technology startup (associated with one of the incubators I wrote an article on) and have no interest in earning revenue by performing paid editing services for Wikipedia. I am also associated with a city-state movement, which is why I am interested in the subject of Network States, City-states, Secession and other matters. My intention is to state this COI on my user page if I ever wish to write specifically about my startup or the specific city-state movement I am associated with, neither of which I believe will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines at this current stage. I would like to note that the reason User:Renaissance_domenic and I were blocked was unrelated to anything that could be construed as "paid editing" services. We were working on a WikiProject together, to increase coverage on new city states, secessionist movements & network states around the world. My colleague (co-founder) in my startup likes to edit Wikipedia with me, which is why we often collaborated on various articles. There was no negative intentions on doing this. I ask kindly that you reconsider this @Seraphimblade and feel free to ask me any questions and I will try to answer, but I do prefer to protect my privacy. I never attempted to convince the reviewing admin that I was not a paid editor because I thought the ban was about meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. I hope that my explanation above covers that concern. I am happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. I believe I have made numerous positive contributions, and all were in good-intent. I never vandalized Wikipedia, and all of the articles I created as far as I am aware followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am asking for a second chance to prove that I can contribute to Wikipedia without damage or disruption, If I ever do something bad again (WP:ROPE/WP:LASTCHANCE) then I believe it would be fair for me to be unblocked. I understand that I made multiple mistakes, all of which I was unaware were mistakes at the time, and because I didn't want to be banned, I resorted to denying the accusations of meat puppetry, which was counter-productive. Thank you for considering this request Mr vili (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Unblock RequestI would like to come clean regarding some behavior regarding my ban for sockpuppeting/meatpuppetry. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a few years now. I really want to make a genuine appeal regarding my sockpuppetting, as I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I acknowledge I behaved unethically regarding the community policies. My original account (Mr_vili), was banned because I originally engaged in meatpuppetry, with User:Renaissance_domenic, a friend and coworker. He participated in a vote regarding a proposed deletion (supporting each other in discussions WP:BADSOCK) - we also edited multiple instances of the same articles, but with no negative intentions - with the goal of improving encyclopedia coverage of a few topics. I denied accusations of meat puppetry because I was worried about being banned, and did not want to be banned, following this I attempted some unblock appeals, before giving up. I also acknowledge denying accusations was not the right approach. After this, I created a new Wikipedia account (User:HeliosSunGod) which was linked to Mr_vili, because the two accounts participating in a Wikiproject created by me. The article both accounts collaborated on were Draft:Network State, a notable concept coined by Balaji S. I created this account because I still wanted to be contributing to Wikipedia. I created this account under WP:CLEANSTART, falsely assuming that I was allowed to, but I now understand doing this is considered block evasion and that the policy does not apply to blocked/banned accounts, and I acknowledge these actions are harmful to wikipedia. I still would like to be a valuable contributor of Wikipedia, and despite the few instances of behaving unethically, I still believe my contributions to the community outweigh my negatives. Some good articles I have assisted in building:
Some good quality pages we (User:Renaissance_domenic) have created or collaborated on:
I am reaching out to @User:Girth Summit as you have been the admin most involved in my case, and I would like to apologize to you for denying accusations and behaving unproductively. My request to you and the unblock reviewer is to:
Additionally, Renaissance Domenic and I would ideally still like to collaborate on common articles for the purposes of improving Wikipedia, and if this is an option and we do collaborate, we agree to never participate and canvas each other in same votes and discussions. However if it is decided that this behavior would be considered unacceptable, we would agree to no longer collaborate on overlapping interests. Finally, I would like to say that I am genuinely sorry about my behaviour and I would like to be given a second chance under Wikipedia:Standard_offer. I fully understand what went wrong, and I know what I have to do to keep it from ever happening again. Thank you for considering my appeal. Kind regards, Mr vili (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Applying to be unblocked under WP:Standard_Offer. I have waited 6 months and given my reasoning and explanation of my actions for unblock below. I please request the reviewing admin to take the time to read through it. I truly want to continue being a productive contributor of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Decline reason:
As requested, I'm directly reviewing your unblock request. Highly likely WP:LOUTSOCK block evasion in August and September. On that basis, I'm declining your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:58, 1 October 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.
Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Per Yamla, you were just WP:LOUTSOCKing as recently as last month. You've been given multiple last chances, and each times you have run afoul of them. If you truly do want to come back productively, you need to that this WP:SO. Do no request an unblock until October 2, 2024. DO NOT edit under an IP, period. Do that and we could consider an unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 2 October 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.
Hey @User:RickinBaltimore I am not sure if you read my unblock request but I specifically stated that I did not edit under my IP. I can guarantee it was other users on my shared IP that my internet service provider is using across the neighbourhood.
I have never been given a "last chance" I was never unblocked at any point. Please stop being so harsh on me and actually take the time to read through my request and explanations to everything.
Im really frustrated because I haven't done anything wrong in over 6 months. There's nothing I can do about my IP being shared with many users… It changes regularly too whenever my internet restarts Mr vili (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Look. I don't want to be an annoying f**k but I literally did not make those contributions. ISPs assign the same IP to many customers, and I can say with absolute certainty I did not make those contributions under my IP. There is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent random people who share my IP from continuing to contribute under it - it will likely continue to happen in the future and this just means that I will never be unblocked which is completely unfair as I have done everything right on my end to be unblocked.
Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Unblocked, subject to the editing restriction discussed below. Girth Summit (blether) 08:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)