User talk:AR.Dmg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yesterday
Today is
Tomorrow
More information Views/Day, Quality ...
Close

Please give a last chance

Hello fellow adminis, please give a second chance to rectify my mistake. I will ensure that I will abide by the rule and regulation of the community. I know I had been involved in sock puppetry. but I will not break or abuse Wikipedia and my edit will be really helpful for Wikipedia. AR.Dmg (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


Request to reconsider Unblock

cross icon
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).

AR.Dmg (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log) • SI)


Request reason:

Hello, everyone, Happy Holidays. I know and I have realized my mistake. And I admit it's my mistake, when I young, childish, not too smart enough, kind of fascinated to have a Wikipedia articles. So I forcefully tried and created article Vivek Chourasia, username under Vivek Chourasia. I had earlier admitted that I was using multiple accounts to escape from a block because I was unware of the fact and the consequences I will have to face in the future. I didn't knew about it. It was really foolish and shameful of me, that I again and again violate the Wikipedia policy after getting warned also. I admit that Wikipedia policy clearly states that I have to declare all the account I'm associated with. But I never did so. All my Wikipedia account details through which I was ever been associated with are listed here. I don't want to lie, abuse, spam anymore now with anyone nor would ever try to escape a block by creating a new account. I'm ready to face the consequences. I had misused, abused, harmed, damage whatever I did it was all under the impatience behaviour. I destroy my friendly rapport with few of the admins who on the editorial ground granted rights, assisted me, sometimes guided me. I admit that I violate the Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry. I know that I'm the reason of my block. Last time when I requested for a unblock. It was mentioned that you have to wait for a period of six months to one year. But that also I can't fullfill upto. I admit I'm requesting after 5 month. But in these month I violate the rules. Which I shouldn't have done and I really regret it. Tell me what should I do to justify and prove myself that I will not harm Wikipedia anymore. I will definitely prove my loyalty to the Wikipedia if given a chance on the editorial ground based on the editing through this account. I have always taken undue advantage but would not anymore. Thanks, Please it's a humble request do consider it, if then also if my request get decline, I would just simply say thanks and sorry that I bothered you all and thanks for reading my request once

Decline reason:

As this is now a checkuser block, and in light of recent socking, no. Please read pertinent parts of the WP:GAB.-- Deepfriedokra 19:15, 29 December 2019 (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.

Why are you requesting an unblock here and not at your first account? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:, I'm requesting from here because I don't have the access of my first account by which I violate the Wikipedia policy. So I'm requesting for reconsider of unblock from this account. AR.Dmg (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Administrator attention

Hello @Deepfriedokra:, Happy Holidays. I admit it's my mistake that I was involved with multiple accounts which has led to the violations of Wikipedia policy d guidelines. I admit that I didn't disclose all the account to Wikipedia after repeatedly creating new various account. I didn't intend to do so but I did that in my impatient behaviour. I damage my friendly rapport with fellow editor @Cyphoidbomb:, someone who has always guided me , support me when ever I needed the assistance regarding anything. I'm really feeling guilty that my mistakes can't be pardoned. But then also I would like to request for a reconsider though, I know that I was informed before that I shouldn't edit for a period of six to one year. But again I can't keep up to it. But again I regret it that I should keep calm. Thanks please consider my request. AR.Dmg (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vc4137/Archive. The most recent sock there is from August 2019. There has been extensive activity in article creation and recreation. I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility of WP:UPE. I wonder if we need a checkuser. This is not a checkuser block. Sh/W/Could it be?-- Deepfriedokra 19:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, speak of the devil " 2019-12-29T19:01:42 Bbb23 talk contribs block changed block settings for AR.Dmg talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) " That answers my question. @AR.Dmg:. This is a checkuser block. Please read the relevant prtions of WP:GAB.-- Deepfriedokra 19:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess Vc4137 was the original. I actually remembered all those talk page contents from January, 2018. I must say I am disappointed in myself for allowing users charm and seeming innocence beguile me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not now a WP:3X block?-- Deepfriedokra 19:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
To answer your question above, whenever I see someone who, over and over, furiously creates accounts to edit, there's some agenda at play, so it's likely that UPE is the case here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

utrs

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

AR.Dmg (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #28288 was submitted on 2019-12-29 12:27:03. This review is now closed.


-- Deepfriedokra 18:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Deepfriedokra:, I didn't got any response about the review AR.Dmg (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just blocked three more socks, all of which were created in the last week and were editing at the same time as this account's comments. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Slaps head, exclaims "Ach, du lieber!" (not really, but)-- Deepfriedokra 19:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Makhna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Makhna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makhna until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Charliehdb (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI