User talk:EGL1234


User	Talk	To Do	Toolbox	Books	User Boxes	Quotes	Announcements

Feel free to talk to me below. My User Page

Talk Under Here

Edits on Football First League of North Kosovo

Good Day,

It would be great if I would receive a explaination for the reverting of my edit about the "First League of North Kosovo".

Greetings, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.206.98 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@81.14.206.98: Hello. I reverted the edit, because some of it disobeyed the Manual of Style (MoS), and some of it appeared to be information added without any citation. EGL¹²³⁴ 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block reinstated

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

Dedpite PugGrammarBot being blocked, you have once again created an an unauthorized and undisclosed bot account that caused enough disruption to be brought to ANI. This is not an acceptable use of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional accounts created unnecessarily of which only two were disclosed: ~~ImRichEnoughForAButler~~, Tojodavid and 70RP3D0-MLWR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Hi. I forgot about Butler and mlwr, but the edits were a test to see whether wikipedia would pick up on it. Additionally, it was not editing any pages apart from its own sandbox. Please unblock me. Thank you. EGL¹²³⁴ 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

EGL1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Understanding why I have been blocked

I understand that I did create a sockpuppet account, without declaring it, and I apologize, however, it doesn't suit this situation to ban for 'multiple account abuse' and 'unauthorized deployment of bots'. The edits by the bot were merely a test of the Wikipedia anti-spam system, which appears to be flawed, as the bot amassed 508 edits on the page before being blocked.
2. Reason for unblock

2/i) Reason why block was incorrect and should be reconsidered
As stated earlier, the block was for "abusive use of multiple accounts" and "unauthorized deployment of bots". This is why it is not abusive:
2/i/i) The bot was created to test the Wikipedia anti-spam system, and I would in turn create and get authorized an anti-spam bot, replacing the defunct AntiSpamBot.
This is why the bot should not have been classified as "unauthorized deployment of bots"
2/i/ii) The bot was merely editing its own sandbox, which is allowed for tests. Additionally, if we aren't allowed to test our bots, how do we make them in the first place?
2/ii) Addressing the Admin's concerns about my conduct
Explanation about how my conduct does not warrant a block:
2/ii/i) As I have stated many times, there was nothing wrong with the conduct, the alternative account wasn't abusive, nor was it editing any other page apart from its sandbox.
Apology for the partial misconduct
The misconduct:
1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it
2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blocked
2/ii/ii/i) Having a sockpuppet without declaring itI sincerely apologize for not declaring that the user was a sockpuppet, and I will not do this again. If I make a third strike, you may block me, and I won't appeal.
2/ii/ii/ii) "Sockpuppeting" again after previously being blocked for itI do admit that I "sockpuppeted", but at the time, I didn't understand that I had to declare that it was a sockpuppet, even if it was not abusive.

3. Summary of Section 2

3/i) Why the block was not necessary
The blocking of my account does not prevent damage, as there was no damage done in the first place. As I have extensively stated, the user was not abusive.
3/ii) Why the block is also no longer necessaryI understand that I have inappropriately violated these rules, and I apologize.
1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it
2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blockedIf I sockpuppet without declaring again, feel free to block/ban me, and I will not retaliate.

Finally, if you get this far, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my unblock request
Thanks,

Edward Latto / EGL1234 EGL¹²³⁴ 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<br> Understanding why I have been blocked
I understand that I did create a sockpuppet account, without declaring it, and I apologize, however, it doesn't suit this situation to ban for 'multiple account abuse' and 'unauthorized deployment of bots'. The edits by the bot were merely a test of the Wikipedia anti-spam system, which appears to be flawed, as the bot amassed 508 edits on the page before being blocked.<br>
2. Reason for unblock<br><br>
2/i) Reason why block was incorrect and should be reconsidered<br>As stated earlier, the block was for "abusive use of multiple accounts" and "unauthorized deployment of bots". This is why it is not abusive:<br>
2/i/i) The bot was created to test the Wikipedia anti-spam system, and I would in turn create and get authorized an anti-spam bot, replacing the defunct AntiSpamBot.<br>
This is why the bot should not have been classified as "unauthorized deployment of bots"<br>
2/i/ii) The bot was merely editing its own sandbox, which is allowed for tests. Additionally, if we aren't allowed to test our bots, how do we make them in the first place?<br>
2/ii) Addressing the Admin's concerns about my conduct<br>
Explanation about how my conduct does not warrant a block:<br>
2/ii/i) As I have stated many times, there was nothing wrong with the conduct, the alternative account wasn't abusive, nor was it editing any other page apart from its sandbox.<br>
Apology for the partial misconduct<br>
The misconduct:<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blocked<br>
2/ii/ii/i) Having a sockpuppet without declaring itI sincerely apologize for not declaring that the user was a sockpuppet, and I will not do this again. If I make a third strike, you may block me, and I won't appeal.<br>
2/ii/ii/ii) "Sockpuppeting" again after previously being blocked for itI do admit that I "sockpuppeted", but at the time, I didn't understand that I had to declare that it was a sockpuppet, even if it was not abusive.<br><br>
3. Summary of Section 2<br><br>
3/i) Why the block was not necessary<br>The blocking of my account does not prevent damage, as there was no damage done in the first place. As I have extensively stated, the user was not abusive.<br>
3/ii) Why the block is also no longer necessaryI understand that I have inappropriately violated these rules, and I apologize.<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blockedIf I sockpuppet without declaring again, feel free to block/ban me, and I will not retaliate.<br><br>
Finally, if you get this far, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my unblock request<br>
Thanks,<br>
Edward Latto / EGL1234 <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 8px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>[[User:EGL1234|<span style="color:orange">EGL</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:EGL1234|<span style="color: red">1234</span>]]</sup></b></span> 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<br> Understanding why I have been blocked
I understand that I did create a sockpuppet account, without declaring it, and I apologize, however, it doesn't suit this situation to ban for 'multiple account abuse' and 'unauthorized deployment of bots'. The edits by the bot were merely a test of the Wikipedia anti-spam system, which appears to be flawed, as the bot amassed 508 edits on the page before being blocked.<br>
2. Reason for unblock<br><br>
2/i) Reason why block was incorrect and should be reconsidered<br>As stated earlier, the block was for "abusive use of multiple accounts" and "unauthorized deployment of bots". This is why it is not abusive:<br>
2/i/i) The bot was created to test the Wikipedia anti-spam system, and I would in turn create and get authorized an anti-spam bot, replacing the defunct AntiSpamBot.<br>
This is why the bot should not have been classified as "unauthorized deployment of bots"<br>
2/i/ii) The bot was merely editing its own sandbox, which is allowed for tests. Additionally, if we aren't allowed to test our bots, how do we make them in the first place?<br>
2/ii) Addressing the Admin's concerns about my conduct<br>
Explanation about how my conduct does not warrant a block:<br>
2/ii/i) As I have stated many times, there was nothing wrong with the conduct, the alternative account wasn't abusive, nor was it editing any other page apart from its sandbox.<br>
Apology for the partial misconduct<br>
The misconduct:<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blocked<br>
2/ii/ii/i) Having a sockpuppet without declaring itI sincerely apologize for not declaring that the user was a sockpuppet, and I will not do this again. If I make a third strike, you may block me, and I won't appeal.<br>
2/ii/ii/ii) "Sockpuppeting" again after previously being blocked for itI do admit that I "sockpuppeted", but at the time, I didn't understand that I had to declare that it was a sockpuppet, even if it was not abusive.<br><br>
3. Summary of Section 2<br><br>
3/i) Why the block was not necessary<br>The blocking of my account does not prevent damage, as there was no damage done in the first place. As I have extensively stated, the user was not abusive.<br>
3/ii) Why the block is also no longer necessaryI understand that I have inappropriately violated these rules, and I apologize.<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blockedIf I sockpuppet without declaring again, feel free to block/ban me, and I will not retaliate.<br><br>
Finally, if you get this far, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my unblock request<br>
Thanks,<br>
Edward Latto / EGL1234 <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 8px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>[[User:EGL1234|<span style="color:orange">EGL</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:EGL1234|<span style="color: red">1234</span>]]</sup></b></span> 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<br> Understanding why I have been blocked
I understand that I did create a sockpuppet account, without declaring it, and I apologize, however, it doesn't suit this situation to ban for 'multiple account abuse' and 'unauthorized deployment of bots'. The edits by the bot were merely a test of the Wikipedia anti-spam system, which appears to be flawed, as the bot amassed 508 edits on the page before being blocked.<br>
2. Reason for unblock<br><br>
2/i) Reason why block was incorrect and should be reconsidered<br>As stated earlier, the block was for "abusive use of multiple accounts" and "unauthorized deployment of bots". This is why it is not abusive:<br>
2/i/i) The bot was created to test the Wikipedia anti-spam system, and I would in turn create and get authorized an anti-spam bot, replacing the defunct AntiSpamBot.<br>
This is why the bot should not have been classified as "unauthorized deployment of bots"<br>
2/i/ii) The bot was merely editing its own sandbox, which is allowed for tests. Additionally, if we aren't allowed to test our bots, how do we make them in the first place?<br>
2/ii) Addressing the Admin's concerns about my conduct<br>
Explanation about how my conduct does not warrant a block:<br>
2/ii/i) As I have stated many times, there was nothing wrong with the conduct, the alternative account wasn't abusive, nor was it editing any other page apart from its sandbox.<br>
Apology for the partial misconduct<br>
The misconduct:<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blocked<br>
2/ii/ii/i) Having a sockpuppet without declaring itI sincerely apologize for not declaring that the user was a sockpuppet, and I will not do this again. If I make a third strike, you may block me, and I won't appeal.<br>
2/ii/ii/ii) "Sockpuppeting" again after previously being blocked for itI do admit that I "sockpuppeted", but at the time, I didn't understand that I had to declare that it was a sockpuppet, even if it was not abusive.<br><br>
3. Summary of Section 2<br><br>
3/i) Why the block was not necessary<br>The blocking of my account does not prevent damage, as there was no damage done in the first place. As I have extensively stated, the user was not abusive.<br>
3/ii) Why the block is also no longer necessaryI understand that I have inappropriately violated these rules, and I apologize.<br>1. Having a sockpuppet without declaring it<br>2. "Sockpuppeting" again after being blockedIf I sockpuppet without declaring again, feel free to block/ban me, and I will not retaliate.<br><br>
Finally, if you get this far, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my unblock request<br>
Thanks,<br>
Edward Latto / EGL1234 <span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 8px red; background-color: black; padding: 3px; color: white"><b>[[User:EGL1234|<span style="color:orange">EGL</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:EGL1234|<span style="color: red">1234</span>]]</sup></b></span> 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Feel free to talk to me below. My User Page

ARCHIVES

Talk Under Here

Edits on Football First League of North Kosovo

Block reinstated