Jump to content

User talk:HowToDoLife

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 12euhfu3hf98238h98923h894 (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 9 January 2021 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD U1).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

September 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Newzoids. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Somalia, you may be blocked from editing. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids episodes.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: List of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids episodes was changed by HowToDoLife (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.932524 on 2016-09-17T15:58:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowToDoLife, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry

Decline reason:

Continued abuse of the unblock template. I have revoked your talk page access. Your only remaining alternative for an unblock is WP:UTRS, but I urge you to think carefully before bothering them with your nonsense. Yamla (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2016 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22677 was submitted on Sep 16, 2018 15:46:03. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin; see this note on the talk page of the sock account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Mkdw talk 14:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24254 was submitted on Mar 10, 2019 17:44:32. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: Hi. And thank you for giving back my TPA! I have a question though. If I'm unblocked, will I have to use that account? I was hoping to use The Duke of Nonsense account, as this has the most written articles, and the permissions required to help this project the best way I can. Your help will be greatly appreciated. HowToDoLife (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that I do not see any reason why you should not be able to choose which account you wish to use and I have seen precedent for this. Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: That's great! Well in that case, if my appeal is successful, I will be happy following a one account restriction (if put in place) with my User:The Duke of Nonsense account. As that has the tools necessary to help this project the best I can. Thank you so much. HowToDoLife (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry. I'm sorry for everything. I'm sorry for the lying, the general incompetence, and the childishness I've displayed in the last two years. Two years ago, I came originally for good. However, a reign of childishness ruled over me, and I got blocked. Instead of getting the point. I created another account, and do the same stupid behaviour on that account, and I got banned. It took me two more accounts being blocked until I got the point. And when I was offered the Standard Offer, I childishly rejected it, and failed to get the point again. But then, it was already too late. I have grown up from that behaviour of yesteryear, and now I want to make this project better the best way I can. I've recently got into music hall and vinyl, so I will edit those articles honestly, and I've got an idea of what I will do, Sam Mayo needs a picture, which I can get from the videos of him on British Pathe (following copyright laws of course), the same goes for Gus Elen. I will also continue my good activity concerning AFC, and page-moving. Times have changed in these six months, and so have I. I've seen that my behaviour was wrong, foolish, and just plain childish. And since requested, my other accounts are:

  • HowToDriveACar
  • Sir Jimmy Wikipedia, CBE
  • The Duke of Nonsense
  • I Saw The Great God Pan
  • Dismissed Cum Laude (I had to use it for School, and I had no other option. I only used it for the BARE minimum. However I forgot to declare the account as a sock afterwards. I only used it for three days, and I haven't edited on it in 6 months, I apologise profoundly, and if this affects my Standard Offer, that it COMPLETELY understandable.)
  • [This one accidental edit is also me. I also apologise for this.]

I hope I've proved to you that I've changed, and I hope you see me not as a reckless, childish vandal, but as a good person, who is here to make the place better, to the best as I possibly can. I will never repeat the behaviour shown by I six months ago, and I will only do good from henceforth. And if you have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to ask! Thank you very much. HowToDoLife (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked User:The Duke of Nonsense per your agreeing to a one-account restriction below. This account will remain blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A standard offer appeal requires that you do not edit for six months prior to the appeal. By your own admission above, you last edited on Sept 28 which would make six months still two weeks away. This whole time on Simple English Wikipedia you’ve been saying your date of first eligible appeal was March 10 but you’re ignoring your account that edited here in September 28. I’ll let others view this, though, to decide if two weeks is worth denying this working taking it to WP:AN for a full appeal discussion. only (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Only: I apologise, it's just that I forgot this account existed until recently, hence my previous Standard Offer date. As my life has been busy, so no time for editing. I will be happy to wait the extra two weeks if you want. Thank you. HowToDoLife (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all intents and purposes, this should be treated as a checkuser block which should be referred to the Arbitration Committee: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. I would suggest you leave the unblock request open or it be placed into pending and send an appeal to ArbCom. For ease of review, here are the accounts:
@Yamla, Primefac, Just Chilling, and TonyBallioni: If you have any comments you'd like to add (as blocking admins)? Mkdw talk 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My involvement here was to revoke talk page access for wilful abuse of the unblock template. But look, that was two and a half years ago. My main concern now is with the account, Dismissed Cum Laude and the claim that this user had to set up the sockpuppet account, which is a serious concern to providing a path toward unblocking. I have no objection to consideration (via ArbCom or WP:AN, though I concur it should probably proceed via ArbCom) proceeding two weeks early. I take no firm stance at the moment on whether I think this user should be unblocked or should remain blocked. Frankly, I'm of mixed opinions. But I'll leave on a positive note. This user appears substantially more mature than 2.5 years ago. --Yamla (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yamla, Mkdw, Only, and Just Chilling: CU blocks are not appealable only to arbcom. If ArbCom previously declined and put a date on next appeal, it should be noted in the block log. But the blocking/CU policy allows review by other checkusers, and frankly most times are more experienced than most CUs on the committee and can save the committee valuable time with the amount of appeals I know they receive. If Arbcom wishes to take up their own review, they can, but it doesn't preclude the community. That's why I authorized a TPA restoration because it had been a while since the block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DQ. My response was not meant to imply it could only be appealed to ArbCom. I hadn't looked at the UTRS appeal to see you had expressly directed it here. I am not aware of any instances during my time where ArbCom has used the block log to record a declined appeal by ArbCom nor was I aware that was even a practice on Wikipedia because of WP:COOLDOWN. It seems odd to me (though not everything we do I necessarily think is the best way to do it). I will bring it up with the committee. In terms of this unblock request, I am fine if someone wants to unblock with the recommendation of including a one account restriction for one year. Mkdw talk 00:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw, DeltaQuad, Yamla, Only, and Just Chilling: Hello all once again! Since I've haven't had anything in the past three days, I am wondering how everything is going with my unblock case. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks.
@Mkdw, DeltaQuad, Yamla, Only, Just Chilling, and TonyBallioni: Hi there once again. I'm once again curious on the progress of my request, since I've haven't had anything in a week. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. HowToDoLife (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw, DeltaQuad, Yamla, Only, Just Chilling, and TonyBallioni: Hi there once again. Does the pin thing work if you're blocked? As I haven't had anything despite pinning everyone twice. I'm curious on the progress of my request. Any response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. HowToDoLife (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no real opinion on this block, and would defer to Mkdw's views here. I don't particularly think you're going around to the village pumps/equivalents of other projects and asking them how to get unblocked here in the weeks and months before this unblock request was particularly helpful, and actually think it was likely disruptive to those projects, but I'm not sure if that indicate you're likely to cause disruption here going forward.
    My general view on standard offer requests is that they should be declined unless the person requesting the unblock can demonstrate that the potential benefits to the project outweigh the known risk of disruption that led to the block to begin with. I'll let another admin decide whether or not you meet that standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: Thanks for the quick reply! The reason I posted that there was to ask questions about how to do it, I was not being disruptive, as my talk-page access was blocked (which was my own fault), I was just wondering how to make a difference. Thank you. HowToDoLife (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other projects tend not to like when en.wiki drama is posted on their pages. Thinking back on this, as Mkdw has said he is fine with unblocking, and I remember that you were constructive with one of your previous accounts, and you seem open to feedback, I am willing to unblock you as meeting my criteria on the condition that you may only have this account for 1 year. If you agree to this, ping me and I'll unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TonyBallioni: Oh thank you so much! I hope this isn't a big ask, but do you mind unbanning my Duke of Nonsense account, and I'll be more than happy following a one account restriction from that. It has the permissions required to help this project to the best of my ability. As according to Just Chilling, I can pick the account. So, that'd be great if possible, thank you so much! HowToDoLife (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HowToDoLife&oldid=999392868"