Zombiedude101z
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Zombiedude101z (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In all honesty, the only article I vandalised was that Henri whatever the hell it was called, and that was only because it was a raid, otherwise I've been making relatively constructive/non vandalistic edits. Refer to my TTG and Shaun of the Dead Contributions. Alright? I'm sorry if I annoyed you, it was only meant to be a harmless joke
Decline reason:
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.
Zombiedude101z (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Alright, I am genuinely sorry for the edit I made to the page. I assure you, it won't happen again, and I hope that you might offer me another chance, alright?
Decline reason:
We are a pretty forgiving bunch, but participating in a vandalism "raid" is not indicicative of wanting to make contructive contributions, and you only made two other edits before participating in it, so on the whole you have made more bad edits than good. This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
- Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
- Read our guide to improving articles
- Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
- Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
- Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
• do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
• do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
• do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
• do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}}); - Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this:
== [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet; - Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
- You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
- Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
- When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.
If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (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.
- Please do not remove previous unblock requests while you are still blocked. If you were to be unblocked, what sort of articles would you work on? Please supply an example of an edit you feel would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. An optimist on the run! 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly? Maybe add a little more stuff to the Melissa Hutchison page in regards to her various roles in Telltale Games' products. E.g, her work as Clementine (The Walking Dead), ect.
Zombiedude101z (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Honestly? Maybe I'll add a little more stuff to the Melissa Hutchison page in regards to her various roles in Telltale Games' products. E.g, her work as Clementine (The Walking Dead), ect. I was a real prick bsck then and now I've an interest in doing something useful. Maybe contribute to Worm or make a page for its sequel, Ward.
Decline reason:
Please read and follow the above advice given by Beeblebrox regarding getting a second chance. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 16 April 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.
Zombiedude101z (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't see what you stand to lose by unblocking me. I stated what I intended to edit, I don't know what beyond general improvement at this point. I wws a very different person six years ago snd zi don't think lazily referring me to advice given six yeard ago still applies. I've already tried making improvements vis anonymous edits in the past, for the record. I think I'm warranted the benefit of the doubt.
Decline reason:
You've been given a path toward being unblocked. So far, you've refused to follow that path, so there are no real grounds here to consider lifting the block. Your admitted violations of WP:EVADE further indicate it would be inappropriate to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 13:48, 17 April 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.
Zombiedude101z (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So be it, if it's really going to be this much of a headache I may as well wipe the damned slate clean and start fresh with a wholly different account. You had your chance. Sorry
Decline reason:
Any additional accounts created will be contrary to WP:SOCK. Talk page access revoked. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:50, 17 April 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.
Block evasion edit
This user has engaged in block evasion as of April, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- And May, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- And July, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note this user (or someone from their IP address) made a death threat against a sitting US senator in June, 2019. For those with access to deleted material, this is available at Special:Diff/901680343. --Yamla (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am just going to state outright that I don't make death threats - I am on a communal/wide IP range so that may be why.
Block evasion in August, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- And, I suppose, September, 2019. May as well be honest. Zombiedude101z (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's talk edit
I'm trying to hold out a bit of an olive branch here, tbh. I wouldn't mind if someone would actually bother to speak to me, or address my issues - but it seems to be a universal wikipedia administrative practice to bury one's head in the sand and spout policy. I'm not a vandal - I /was/ at one point, years ago, but not anymore. I have not carried out vandalism since 2013 to be honest, though as stated before I had been on numerous different PCs and made harmless, constructive edits here and there. Why this particular action seems to bother people, I don't know - ah yes 'sockpuppetry' - but doesn't it seem a little moronic to actively hunt people making contributions if they're not being a problem anymore? I am acting in good faith.
I'd appreciate if this edit wasn't reverted. I am going to respect this 'sockpuppet' rule for once, in the case of this throwaway account - I just want to get my words down and be heard. I'd use UTRS but it's a one way system, I can't respond and I'm physically limited by a char limit by getting my words down. It's too disconnected and overall, very off putting. I wouldn't be trying to come back unless I wanted to contribute, for christ's sake - if I was here to vandalise articles or otherwise stir the pot, I'd have made another account, changed my IP w/e ages ago. Instead, I have tried to contribute, even improving articles such as Neall Ellis or Steve Ward or the dwarf hamster pages (with a photo of my own little lady, I might say) only for these contributions to be mindlessly reverted. Why?! It makes no god damned sense to me. Yamla, I'm not trying to be a prick about this, but your behaviour and whole attitude from the start (reverting back to User_talk:Zombiedude101 is a key example of WP:BITE - which is why I have admittedly aimed my frustration and the occasional personal attack at you. You made no standard offer to me, you made no compromise - I was shut down.
For that, I feel it was not me who started this. The fact that any edit/comment I make gets buries reinforces this.
- You have repeatedly violated WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. You have repeatedly been pointed to WP:SO which, as you know, requires six months with zero edits. You have repeatedly refused to take advantage of that. This is your only path forward. And for the record, I will likely oppose your unblock under WP:SO, but it won't be up to me. However, this is your only path forward. Each time you edit, such as you have done here, you reset the counter because you are showing you are not willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Each time you edit, you are evading your block. Your behaviour was so bad, you lost access to WP:UTRS for six months (as Zombiedude101, in July 2019. That wasn't me, I didn't revoke your UTRS access. Saying you aren't being a problem any more is, frankly, laughable. This isn't a personal vendetta. Multiple administrators are involved. Ponyo, for example, saw you were so abusive, they revoked your UTRS access for six months. So, what can you do? Your only path forward is to refrain from editing for six months. That's non-negotiable. After six months of zero edits, come back and make a request via WP:UTRS to reinstate your talk page access. Then make an unblock request under the terms of WP:SO. Stop with your ludicrous claims that you haven't been a problem. Every time you violate WP:EVADE, every time you violate WP:SOCK, it's a problem. If you want to be a productive contributor, it's time to start abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because, and I promise you this, the next time you violate WP:SOCK or WP:EVADE, I will put it to the community that we ban you from Wikipedia. And that'll be the end of the line for you. I have basically nothing else to say to you, but will leave this talk page unblocked for one more response (from you and from me) and, although it blatantly is, will not consider your response to be a violation of WP:EVADE. I will note, however, that you are not eligible for WP:SO consideration until 2020-03-12. --Yamla (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate the chance to be heard out at least. Is there no 'context' for block evasion? In the sense I'm not showing a disregard for the policies and guidelines in this case, I am simply coming to speak since I have no other means of communication with you, or anyone else; I don't understand why that would be considered a violation in itself.
- The other thing - why am I a problem? Yes, I know you've cited them before, but to me -why was there a necessity for me to violate WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK to begin with? Because to me, it started when instead of acting like the Zombiedude101 account never existed and starting fresh, which I could've easily done, I tried to appeal it and was firmly refused with reasoning that was unsound to my view. Nobody made me aware of WP:SO at the time and the whole approach, to me, left me alienated - it was just a flat 'no'. Talk page access was revoked and I was referred to the incredibly frustrating mess that is UTRS - which I think is terrible because, as I've said before, it's a one way means of contact, with no option to respond or feed back. I just have to start over and the answers are sometimes copy-paste templates from those viewing it. Not to mention there is a character limit, so I cannot eloquently convey my views.
- So, going to the heart of the problem - this stems from evasion, yes? I've made it clear that I am no longer a vandal, that was a long time ago. If WP:SO had been made to me way back then, instead of what I feel was constant stonewalls and obstruction, I'd have been able to give it a shot. But what harm, what damage am I doing to the project? As I said before, there are numerous articles in which you've reverted half a page's worth of content or more, such as with Neall Ellis, Steve Ward, Worm and Djungarian Dwarf Hamster among others. Pages where I have provided sources, photographs, etc whatever - where my actions have been constructive and improved articles that had very little info - that's been blitzed for no solid reason other than blind adherence to 'policy' and admittedly that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Maybe to you? Sure - but not to me, nor to others who don't have insight into wikipedian politics.
- If you truly don't want me here, go ahead and ask the community to ban me, or take me before the arbitration committee. Let them look at my contributions, let them at least hear me out that I've tried to contribute fer' fuck's sake! If that still warrants excluding me, over some adherence to policy without regard for context or proportion, so be it - but at the end of the day, to me, it will always stem from my old talk page and that of my workplace talk page where even you gave me a chance, only to snatch it back when I tried to do the right thing from there and assumed I was in bad faith. You never gave me a fair and understandable chance, you dropped me to UTRS and guessed I'd figure it out. If it weren't for the block, I'd probably have been commended or otherwise left alone for making the edits, would I not? The content itself is appropriate, no?
- As I'd said before - "How about abstaining from blocking me the moment I come up front about something? And can you blame me for not immediately spilling my guts out given the response I've got so far to comments which have been worded out in as civil and concise a manner as possible? If you hadn't blocked the IP there wouldn't be a problem - and the edit that was 'inappropriate' was made to my user talk page, not to the public so I don't see the problem there - you can continue the trial unblock and leave as is unless I demonstrate (though I will not) there is a problem."
- There will not be a trial unblocking. You follow WP:SO and get unblocked under those terms, or you continue to get your accounts blocked and your edits reverted. You've had multiple unblock requests declined by multiple administrators. WP:SO has been pointed out to you repeatedly and you've repeatedly refused to take advantage of it. While you are blocked, we don't want your edits. You have a path forward to prove you are willing to abide by Wikipedia policy. You've known about this path for months, if not years. You know perfectly well you mislead us at workplace talk page. "I again feel the need to state that this is an apology on behalf of those who chose to make disruptive edits and the community as a whole - over the course of seven and a half years the site has been reduced from 800 to approximately 200 people - including most if not all of the previous editors who will no longer be a problem." Incredibly disingenuous, when you knew you were the person who had made the disruptive edits. Immediately upon unblocking, you proceeded to resume your attacks on Wikipedia. But, that's not even all that relevant, given that was almost 18 months ago. What's relevant is your block evasion. Stop evading your block. Go six months with zero edits. Account for your abhorrent behaviour when you request an unblock. And maybe, just maybe, you'll convince a different administrator to lift your block. As you have now had the one response I promised you, and as I have now responded to you as I said I would, I'm locking this page down and blocking your account. WP:SO remains open to you as of right now, no sooner than 2020-03-12. Any further block evasion and I'll push for your ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- As I'd said before - "How about abstaining from blocking me the moment I come up front about something? And can you blame me for not immediately spilling my guts out given the response I've got so far to comments which have been worded out in as civil and concise a manner as possible? If you hadn't blocked the IP there wouldn't be a problem - and the edit that was 'inappropriate' was made to my user talk page, not to the public so I don't see the problem there - you can continue the trial unblock and leave as is unless I demonstrate (though I will not) there is a problem."
Notice of noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Move to ban Zombiedude101z". Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Banned edit
User is now banned by WP:3X and by community consensus. See Special:Diff/917239897. --Yamla (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Page protected edit
I have protected this page from all except admin edits for the next year. You are next eligible to request your ban be lifted on 2021-02-09. WP:UNBAN explains how to make this request. --Yamla (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)