User talk:AnubisIbizu

Welcome!

Hello, AnubisIbizu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

Hi Anubislbiz. Please see the notice below about heightened rules in a sensitive topic area. I know these notices can be intimidating, especially when delivered by someone in the midst of an editing dispute with you, but I want to emphasize the standardized nature of the notice and the "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions".

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BD2412 T 19:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

To User:BD2412:

This case involves a block imposed more than two years ago, and I write now to request its removal. A block, like any sanction, is meant to correct behavior and to prevent further harm. Neither objective remains necessary here. First, as to the underlying conduct, I recognize that my words during past disputes could have been better chosen. I was overly strident in defending what I believed were well-sourced, meaningful contributions. But Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, not conflict, and I regret failing to engage more constructively with those who disagreed with me. Second, I categorically deny the allegation that I created or operated any so-called "sockpuppet" account. That accusation is unsupported and untrue. My record stands as my own, for better or worse. I trust that a full and impartial review will confirm that fact. Third, two years have passed since my block, and during that time, I have reflected on both my actions and the broader purpose of this platform. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, not the egos of its editors. I have come to understand that principle more deeply and am committed to abiding by it. Going forward, my sole focus will be on contributing constructively to this project. I will approach disagreements with civility, edit collaboratively, and strictly adhere to the community's guidelines. I hope to be judged not by what happened years ago, but by what I do next. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

Anubisibizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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=To User:BD2412:
This case involves a block imposed more than two years ago, and I write now to request its removal. A block, like any sanction, is meant to correct behavior and to prevent further harm. Neither objective remains necessary here.
First, as to the underlying conduct, I recognize that my words during past disputes could have been better chosen. I was overly strident in defending what I believed were well-sourced, meaningful contributions. But Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, not conflict, and I regret failing to engage more constructively with those who disagreed with me.
Second, I categorically deny the allegation that I created or operated any so-called "sockpuppet" account. That accusation is unsupported and untrue. My record stands as my own, for better or worse. I trust that a full and impartial review will confirm that fact.
Third, two years have passed since my block, and during that time, I have reflected on both my actions and the broader purpose of this platform. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, not the egos of its editors. I have come to understand that principle more deeply and am committed to abiding by it.
Going forward, my sole focus will be on contributing constructively to this project. I will approach disagreements with civility, edit collaboratively, and strictly adhere to the community's guidelines. I hope to be judged not by what happened years ago, but by what I do next. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Anubisibizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−5) |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=To User:BD2412:
This case involves a block imposed more than two years ago, and I write now to request its removal. A block, like any sanction, is meant to correct behavior and to prevent further harm. Neither objective remains necessary here.
First, as to the underlying conduct, I recognize that my words during past disputes could have been better chosen. I was overly strident in defending what I believed were well-sourced, meaningful contributions. But Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, not conflict, and I regret failing to engage more constructively with those who disagreed with me.
Second, I categorically deny the allegation that I created or operated any so-called "sockpuppet" account. That accusation is unsupported and untrue. My record stands as my own, for better or worse. I trust that a full and impartial review will confirm that fact.
Third, two years have passed since my block, and during that time, I have reflected on both my actions and the broader purpose of this platform. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, not the egos of its editors. I have come to understand that principle more deeply and am committed to abiding by it.
Going forward, my sole focus will be on contributing constructively to this project. I will approach disagreements with civility, edit collaboratively, and strictly adhere to the community's guidelines. I hope to be judged not by what happened years ago, but by what I do next. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Anubisibizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−5) |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=To User:BD2412:
This case involves a block imposed more than two years ago, and I write now to request its removal. A block, like any sanction, is meant to correct behavior and to prevent further harm. Neither objective remains necessary here.
First, as to the underlying conduct, I recognize that my words during past disputes could have been better chosen. I was overly strident in defending what I believed were well-sourced, meaningful contributions. But Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, not conflict, and I regret failing to engage more constructively with those who disagreed with me.
Second, I categorically deny the allegation that I created or operated any so-called "sockpuppet" account. That accusation is unsupported and untrue. My record stands as my own, for better or worse. I trust that a full and impartial review will confirm that fact.
Third, two years have passed since my block, and during that time, I have reflected on both my actions and the broader purpose of this platform. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, not the egos of its editors. I have come to understand that principle more deeply and am committed to abiding by it.
Going forward, my sole focus will be on contributing constructively to this project. I will approach disagreements with civility, edit collaboratively, and strictly adhere to the community's guidelines. I hope to be judged not by what happened years ago, but by what I do next. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Anubisibizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−5) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have requested further input at WP:ANI, and will abide by the consensus of administrators reviewing the request. BD2412 T 03:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I did not discover the block until quite recently, when I sought to resume editing. Had I known earlier that the block was indefinite, I would have addressed this matter long before now, when the events at issue might have been more vivid in memory. The intervening years, however, have allowed me to reflect on my approach to editing, and I hope this request can serve as an opportunity to demonstrate my readiness to move forward constructively.

On the allegations of sockpuppetry, let me state directly and without hesitation: I did not engage in sockpuppetry. My contributions to Wikipedia have always been my own, untainted by subterfuge or the use of alternative accounts. Indeed, my professional obligations, which involve significant engagement in matters of the federal judiciary, leave me neither the time nor the inclination for such conduct. My aim on this platform has always been to contribute meaningfully, particularly in areas where I hold expertise, such as law journals and federal judges.

Yet I must address a troubling element of the record. It appears that another user, without my solicitation or consent, commented on my edits and purported to support me during disputes. I cannot say with certainty what their motives were, but their actions—and the timing of those action—created the appearance of coordination. This appearance, I suspect, is what led to the allegations of sockpuppetry. To be clear, I had no knowledge of or connection to this user’s actions. Indeed, I find myself hesitant to infer bad faith, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies, but the possibility remains that their conduct was calculated to provoke exactly the response it did: my indefinite block. Whatever their purpose, their actions are their own, and I am prepared to subject my own contributions to whatever scrutiny is necessary to confirm this truth.

On my intentions moving forward, I seek not to reopen old wounds, nor to dwell on the errors or misunderstandings of the past. My sole purpose here is to reaffirm my commitment to Wikipedia's mission and to express my desire to return to editing in a manner that is respectful, collaborative, and consistent with the community's guidelines. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers, and to that mission I remain devoted.

I recognize that my conduct during prior disputes could have been better. At times, I defended what I believed to be well-sourced and meaningful contributions with a zeal that overshadowed civility. I regret those moments and have spent the intervening years reflecting on how to better engage with others on this platform. Should I be granted the opportunity to return, I will approach disagreements with humility and edit in the spirit of collaboration that this project deserves.

The administrators who weigh this request stand not as adversaries, but as stewards of a project whose success depends upon the trustworthiness of its contributors. I ask only for the opportunity to re-earn that trust—not by dwelling on the allegations of the past, but by demonstrating through my actions that I can be a constructive and respectful editor in the future. I leave this matter in your hands, with gratitude for the time and consideration you have extended to it.

Respectfully submitted,

AnubisIbizu AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Belmont Law Review (January 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Carolina2k22 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Belmont Law Review and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnubisIbizu! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Belmont Law Review

Hello, AnubisIbizu. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Belmont Law Review, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Belmont Law Review

Hello, AnubisIbizu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Belmont Law Review".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]