User talk:AubieXX

Sockpuppetry, disruptive edits

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 8 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Thanks in advance for your help. This block should not be necessary as I have been trying to return factual data to this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubie The information I have been trying to repopulate are the names of the National Champions who were Aubie during their respective wins. They have been listed on this wiki page for over 10 years and not sure why they were removed. I had been updating this info prior to obtaining an account, and once obtaining this account was blocked. If there may be anything else I could help offer to ensure proper use of this site, please feel welcome to send any info.AubieXX (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. Please see that part of the GAB pertaining to sock puppetry. It would be best to appeal from your original account. Please see Ohnoitsjamie's comments below and on the other talk pages. Please read and indicate understanding of WP:edit war and wp:content dispute. Please indicate understanding of acceptable ways by which to deal with these issues. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2019 (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.

You've already been told numerous times that Wikipedia is not free webhosting for lists of non-notable names. You continued to add the info despite being warned at this account and other accounts. See also WP:MEATPUPPET. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dlohcierekim, thank you for the note. I read through the articles related to sock puppetry, edit war, and content dispute and can see where that makes sense to me now, and will abide by the recommended acceptable ways to deal with those issues, and could create a talk page related to those issues. Regarding appealing from my original account, I did not have an account until establishing the current AubieXX account. The other edits were made was not logged in, as I did not have a Wikipedia account.AubieXX (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

duplicate Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2019 (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.

Question: Are you here for any other reason besides insisting that Wikipedia list the names of people who have had the role of a college sports mascot? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, CheckUser shows that they are very likely telling the truth about having no previous accounts, and I don't see any block evasion. I don't think there are any socking violations here, but if there is a disruptive editing issue beyond that, that is another issue. I did want to note the CU findings, however. I'd personally be inclined to unblock here, but there might be something I'm missing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several WP:SPAs who's only purpose seemed to be attempting to re-add a roster of non-notable names; the block description should've been "sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry." I'd be OK with unblocking on the condition that the editor agrees to stop attempting to re-add the material. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the meatiness of appearances, I'm not ready leap ahead rashly. But I've already had my decline. I will leave this cold feast to my very able colleagues. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for the dialogue. I would gladly agree to not conducting any sockpuppetry, now understanding all. It would bring up the question regarding non-notability of listing individuals who have won a National Collegiate Championship. citing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport),AubieXX (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2019 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Yamla, thank you for the note. I am writing to follow up from your note and state that as requested above by the original blocker to not conduct any sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or disruptive edits. Thank you in advance for your assistance AubieXX (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2019 (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.

Unblock follow up

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, it's been 1 month since the last time administrator followed up my unblock request. I made this account just to make sure that administrator "cares" about my condition on the original account. Thank you. AudieXX (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a joe-job from a troll. I'm not sure why AubieXX said nothing about this, but it that's not important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2019 (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.

Can you give any examples of edits you intend to make if unblocked? If your only intention is to attempt to re-add lists of non-notable names, there's no point in unblocking you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone has recently completely removed the Aubie Wiki page. Having great historical knowledge and being able to provide references for the winningest collegiate mascot in history, that would likely be a great place for me to start adding value. Other edits may include technology philanthropies which I am involved in. Thank you for your continued concern regarding unblocking. AubieXX (talk)

You didn't really answer my answer question. Are you planning on attempting to make this edit again? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. AubieXX (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]