Jump to content

User talk:Ayaena

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

Ayaena's talk page


 Thursday  21 November 2024  21:59 UTC 


You are currently viewing a discussion page of Ayaena.
Leave your message here.

List of people from South Kingstown, Rhode Island

[edit]

Hello, I saw you left the unreferenced and orphaned article tags on the page "List of people from South Kingstown, Rhode Island". I've added links to the page on other pages, so it's no longer an orphan. As for the fact that it's unreferenced, all of the individual pages it links to do have references, is it really necessary to re-cite the citations on the page? If it is, I'll add them, but it would just be a pain in the ass lol. SusImposter49 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CS and WP:WHYCITE you have to. Facts and claims in texts can be fully reversible when there is no link to reliable sources. You should remove the template when getting these sources if you could, then there'd be no issues to be solved. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 03:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Feedback

[edit]

Hello, Ayaena. Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia. I've been trying my hand at creating pages but, as it's my first time doing so, I'm struggling quite a bit. If you have time, would you mind coming over to my sandbox and checking my draft for the company, Kenja K.K., and let me know what I can improve on or fix? I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much! Alexandra Bowes-Lyon (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra Bowes-Lyon Hi! Thanks for being here. For sure, I can, just give me some time to do it. I'll be texting you as soon as possible. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 04:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thank you so much! I look forward to your feedback when you're able to go through it :) Alexandra Bowes-Lyon (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opa!

[edit]

Tá tudo bem? Gondolabúrguer (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... Merry Christmas... Gondolabúrguer (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gondolabúrguer Happy new year from my family to yours. I wish the best and the better life that you can ever live! ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azzy moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Azzy. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 17:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Azzy has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Azzy. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your editions! God bless. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information (?)

[edit]

Hello @Ayaena. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia. May I know why the userbox on your userpage says that you have been on Wikipedia for 13+ years, while looking at your global account log I can see that you registered in 2022, just one year ago. Even you contradict yourself on your own userpage,
"For a long time I used Wikipedia... despite the short time...".
Did you use any other account to edit Wikipedia? If yes, you must declare that account or else you may be violating Wikipedia's rule on Sockpuppetry.
If no, then is the information on your userpage incorrect? Please clarify. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 13:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Raydann, ⁣
Thank you for reaching out to know what is going on with the userbox on my userpage. I've been using Wikipedia for a long time, and that's really the truth. The only answer for that question is that I have used Wikipedia for a long time but just reading, and didn't ever use being registered. “Despite the short time” means that I created this account early 2022. If that's a problem, it will be fixed. Thank you! ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 05:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page

[edit]

Hello, Ayaena,

Can you please adjust your User talk page so it isn't centered? It makes it very difficult to read and it is inaccessible for editors with vision problems. Please use the standard format, not centered, not tilted, just so that messages are readable. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the difference in readability between User:Ayaena and User talk:Ayaena. And it's your talk page that needs to be more accessible, not your User page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Liz. I can't see the subject from here, because to me, it seems well. I'm guessing what needs to be adjusted, so I could do it easily without any problem. Thanks for reaching out! ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Noahmoretz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noahmoretz. 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.
Girth Summit (blether) 15:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already did my request, what's going to happen now? ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 13:39, 5 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I've been inactive on Wikipedia for a while due to my problems with having free time to spend on the internet, and unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend a blocking request made a while back. Again, there's another blocking request, and I TOTALLY AGREE! All the accounts mentioned ARE in my possession, and I can explain. It must have been a while since the other accounts were created, but can be sure that my intention was pure, and I didn't want to break any rules established in the pillars. It was only a long time ago that I decided to really become part of Wikipedia, and I'm even more active on the Portuguese Wikipedia. As soon as I decided to join Wikipedia, I also decided to read ALL the paragraphs, terms and everything else, not only on Wiki PT, but also on Wiki En. You all can be sure that I don't do anything malicious, and the real reason I created so many accounts was precisely because of my poor memory of passwords. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused, but I'll leave you guys with a note of my regret. Today, I currently edit on Wikipedia, but certainly following all the frameworks. You mentioned that I have a template saying that I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, but I've already explained that, it's even on my talk page. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 07:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've forgotten my password multiple times. There's a button for that. I've never had to make a new account multiple times. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2023 (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

[edit]

I have things to do, and editing to do, I don't have to wait for your attitude to resolve this case. Let's go. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 15:27, 7 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I reckon my account unblock request got denied 'cause the admin in question didn't make another account after forgettin' their password 'multiple times.' Unfortunately, I didn't quite share the same mindset back then, and I didn't have the commitment to read through the pillars of this grand community called Wikipedia. Nowadays, I've got a very different mindset from 3 or 4 years ago, and that should be taken into consideration. Y'can see that ALL my edits are made for the community's benefit, not to harm it and its members. I'm here to help and make a broad contribution, not to cause harm. If I'm making this request again, it's 'cause I genuinely feel sorry for creatin' multiple accounts for a very useless reason. I'm aware of the pillars I broke, the ones I didn't follow, and the ones I disrespected, but I'd like a second chance to show that I'm willin' to just contribute and not cause harm. I'd like to keep contributing, like I do on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Hope you understand, thanks. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am much more inclined than most of the administrators who review unblock requests to unblock editors to give them another chance if they indicate that they have changed their attitude and will not repeat the problematic actions which led to the block. However, even I am not going to contemplate unblocking someone who has so obviously and blatantly lied and lied again, and when caught out in lies has tried to look as though they are belatedly admitting what they have done, while still lying. Why should we trust you to be honest after an unblock, since you have so consistently and persistently been dishonest before and during the block? JBW (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2023 (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.

★ Ayaena ]]Aya helps you 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)}} ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping a steward here, in hopes that they might be able to bring some clarity to this. Vermont: I know this is a while ago, so apologies if I'm asking too much of your memory (mine isn't what it once was!), but you globally locked Perassolli for cross-wiki abuse, linking to User:Athaenarae, for former name on this account. I don't have the necessary permissions to see the rename request, and I don't know where to look to see whether they were legitimately unlocked. Is this a cross-wiki abuser who ought to be shown the door further ado, or should we do a deep dive into their contribs and have a serious discussion about unblocking? Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. Girth Summit (blether) 19:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, the unlock was legitimate. I saw enwiki socking and xwiki spam, and assumed the username was an impersonation of Athaenara. They were unlocked shortly after, though the sock was not. As far as I know there haven't been any continuing problems xwiki since the rename, and thus nothing from a global side that would prevent a local unblock. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vertmont. Ayaena: what about the allegations of spamming? You have used multiple accounts to create promotional drafts about 'NF Ravi - Silentze' - what is your connection to this person? Girth Summit (blether) 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your attention and availability to my case. Regarding the rapper mentioned, I just wanted to include him on Wikipedia as, since I wasn't aware of the pillars yet, I thought I only needed some information for it to be possible for him to feature on the wiki. Unfortunately I wasn't aware enough to stop the bad deeds I was committing, and I'm aware of this. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 11:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit You may want to ask why he lied when @Raydann informed him about sockpuppetry above and asked "Did you use any other account to edit Wikipedia". His response was "I have used Wikipedia for a long time but just reading, and didn't ever use being registered"
I would also suggest you to ask him to reveal any other unrevealed accounts he has and see if he will lie again or tell the truth.
If you ask my opinion, this account just looks like an attempt after realizing he won't be able to spam himself (NF Ravi thing) without smokescreening it with an account that looks like a constructive contributor and trying to build that account. All the smokescreen type of edits and deceptive things like "have been on Wikipedia for 13+ years" thing show me that (doesn't that look similar to previous practice of impersonating admins?). Tehonk (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made it clear when I made my replies, so I'll make it easier for you to understand. I have NEVER been interested in CONTRIBUTING to Wikipedia by making EDITIONS. Yes, of course, I created other accounts, but the real reason was that I actually lost the passwords, and I just kept trying to create an article that didn't meet ANY criteria, and I'm aware of that, as I said. I've used Wikipedia all my life, I was always a boy of a few years old learning languages through reading. I didn't lie at any time, I just didn't make it known that I had tried to do something on Wikipedia ON OTHER ACCOUNTS, just for this reason I didn't think it was necessary to make it known that I tried to edit on Wikipedia. When I finally created this account and confirmed my email address, just in case I lost the password and was able to recover it, all I wanted to do was edit, and continue editing actively. If I was up to no good I'd be creating another account right now to get away from these allegations and problems, but no, I just want to keep making my edits, and contributing. I've already said that I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and that I'd like this to be reviewed, you can check my account on the Portuguese Wikipedia, I have no malice, these were all just mistakes, but to claim that I lied? That's disrespectful, it's too much for me, at the very least I ask for respect, because I have explanations for every detail. Off topic, but mentioned above, I was blocked globally just because they thought I was an impersonation of the admin Athaenara, and no, the Stewards were aware of this and only suggested a name change! I'm not here to interrupt progress, I'm here to contribute. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You registered this account 4 days after Noahmoretz was blocked, that's block evasion, you obviously did not "forget" your password in a few days. When you were asked if you had any other accounts, you lied and said that you had never registered before, when in fact you were doing block evasion.
Can you reveal other accounts you ever had? Tehonk (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only remember those mentioned. Already explained what happened. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 00:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're still not being truthful, here are 3 more accounts you're not revealing: SpongeCole, Tlenory, SteveMonelle. Tehonk (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember of those, all really mine. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 03:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock - Reply

[edit]

Hiya, @JBW, alright, sorry for the mention. I'm throwing this new thread 'cause I'm having a bit of bother responding to the same request. Just put in another appeal about my block, spilled more details about myself regarding the block and the unblock request. Not sure what you mean by “lying” 'cause when those accounts were brought up, I straight up said they were indeed mine, just slipped my mind. At no point did I deny those mentioned accounts were mine. On the contrary, I was totally straight up when I said they were indeed mine and that I'd just forgotten. I appreciate you laying it out, mate. I've been banging on about forgetting passwords and, yeah, making mistakes that shouldn't have happened. Furthermore, I'm not here to stir the pot; I'm here to contribute, and I'm genuinely sorry if I've caused any hassle against the principles of this domain. As I mentioned in the appeal I dropped a few hours back, my aim isn't to cause a ruckus, but to be as honest as can be. It really bums me out to hear you say I'm lying when, at no point, did I deny or try to spin some false yarn to cover up what I did. Trying to create other accounts 'cause I forgot passwords or drafting a bio for someone who shouldn't be there, yeah, it messes with the credibility of this place, and I get that. You can see I've been contributing long before all this went down — I'm not asking you to believe me, just to know the truth. I'm a solid editor and user, and the last thing I want to do is break the rules. No, not my scene. Cheers!

Add: I appreciate your work, and I get that we're all in this to make things better. Sorry it all landed on me, but I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I just want to grow by contributing with the rest of the editors. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 19:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it difficult to understand the mindset of people like you. I can understand the temptation to use sockpuppets, and I can understand the temptation to lie when caught out, in the hope of fooling people and getting away with it. What I can't understand is continuing to lie after layer upon layer of dishonesty have been unearthed, so that it must be obvious to you that nobody who has read all the relevant history can possibly fail to see what has been going on. Isn't it obvious that doing that makes it less likely, not more, that you will ever be unblocked? Didn't it become obvious long ago that your best chance of getting unblocked was to stop digging yourself further and further into the hole you had dug for yourself? Or is it possible that you are so blind to how obvious everything is that you really think that there's a chance of taking someone in? I could easily sit here and go through all of the nonsense you have posted, and explain in words of one syllable why each bit of it is obviously untrue, but I have far better ways of spending my time. However, here are just two examples. (1) You have made dozens of edits, using several accounts. Those accounts are blocked for sockpuppetry. The next day you post on the talk page of one of the accounts "Lol, what is going on?" Three days later, you create a new account and start editing, at which time you have forgotten that you have ever previously edited or had any account. Really? (2) You have been editing with one of your accounts. You create a new account, which, you tell us, is because you have forgotten the passwords to your previous accounts. 8 minutes after creating that account, you must have remembered a password after all, because you start editing with an old account. You edit from that account for 19 minutes, and then, oh dear... you have forgotten the password again, because you switch to the new account after all. You edit from that account for two minutes, and then you find the password to the old account again, because after a gap of 26 minutes you are back on the old account. Then, a few hours later, you are back on the new one. Really? Well, I suppose it was worth a try; there was just a chance that your unblock requests might have been reviewed by an administrator who was either an idiot or too lazy to bother to check the history of your endless dishonesty. JBW (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found it a bit tricky to grasp folks like yourself. As you rightly mentioned, it's probably best for me to keep me trap shut, lest I dig an even deeper hole, given that your perspective seems to be filtered through a pair of cracked lenses. Cheers for the clarifications that lead you to believe in your own truths. Having said that, I'm earnestly seeking a pass to those who are qualified for such matters. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 01:17, 31 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, Wikipedia community. A few months back, I got myself a ban, a fair and rightly applied ban. Today, I acknowledge the harm my actions caused and where they led me. Unfortunately, being a rather arrogant and ignorant bloke, I ignored the mistakes I was making even when being judged for it, and yet, I persisted with a cheeky attitude. I broke a crucial policy about using multiple accounts within the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, I attempted to create an irregular article and made accounts to disguise my wrongful actions, trying to start anew with a clean slate on another account. A big blunder. After months, I'm asking for my ban to be reconsidered. I won't use the "I've grown, changed" argument, but rather, I'll argue that Wikipedia is a part of me, and I'd really like to show you that I'm here in good faith, asking you to please allow me to demonstrate that I can be a positive contributor. I just want to be here to grow with a thriving community. Thanks for your attention! ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 15:01, 11 March 2024 (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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (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.

No checkuser evidence of recent block evasion. I'm refraining from reviewing this unblock request, though. To me, I think Ayaena needs to directly address their lies and I just don't see that here. --Yamla (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I should've mentioned more above. My bad.
My lies led me to unpleasant consequences, and I acknowledge what I did as much as I recognize the impact of my actions.
I was questioned during my trial about having other accounts, and I dodged the truth to try to "clean up" a dodgy history and disguise that I never had such a bad track record. But I admit, my history was bad. I created an account and tried to make an article about myself, then created another, and another, and only later did I truly get interested in Wikipedia. The truth is, at the beginning, I just wanted to put myself on Wikipedia without even knowing the consequences, and only much later did I genuinely try to achieve something, which harmed me and left me with a reputation I always disapproved of.
I created accounts to escape punishments, and in two or three of those accounts, I attempted to create an article about myself, but it got deleted. That was a mistake I acknowledged much later.
I only realized I was truly lost in my own lies when I recognized it wasn't what I wanted. What I wanted was just to be myself, genuine, and unfortunately, I failed to make that happen.
I want to be here in a fair and truthful manner. I'll do my best for that, and I'll answer any questions clearly and concisely. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have trials. This is not a legal proceeding. I see no reason to unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a problem with interpretation? If you don't see reasons, wear different glasses. I'm here asking for the permission to continue contributing. If you've read everything I've said and you just send me a lame comment, please leave. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 20:29, 11 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hiya! Me again. In the grand tapestry of my recent missteps, I find myself compelled to pen a somber reflection upon the tangled web of deceit I have woven. Alas, my transgressions, wrought with untruths and sins of omission, have led me to the precipice of loss - a loss not merely of standing, but of the cherished trust bestowed upon me by the discerning arbiters of editorial integrity. With each falsehood uttered and every detail obscured, I unwittingly erected barriers between myself and the unassailable pillars of credibility. The weight of my fabrications/lies, once a fleeting reprieve from the spectre of consequence, now bears down upon me with a gravity that belies the gravity of my trespasses. To have faltered in such a manner is to court the fates with reckless abandon, forsaking the bedrock principles upon which any meaningful relationship, be it personal or professional, must invariably stand. The erosion of trust, once lost, is a tempestuous sea upon which no vessel of contrition may easily navigate. Thus, with a heart heavy with contrition and a soul laid bare before the immutable gaze of accountability, I beseech thee, in all humility, to consider the merits of redemption. Let not my missteps define the totality of my character, but rather serve as a crucible from which a renewed commitment to transparency and rectitude may emerge. In this crucible of contrition, I humbly implore the powers that be to grant me a chance at restitution, a pathway towards reconciliation, and a beacon of hope amidst the encroaching shadows of doubt. For in the absence of forgiveness, there can be no redemption; and in the absence of redemption, there can be no healing. With earnest entreaty and a fervent plea for clemency, I submit myself to the wisdom of those whose judgement I have sorely tested. May their discernment be tempered with compassion, and may their verdict be imbued with the possibility of a brighter tomorrow. It's time to face the music and own up to my recent blunders. I'm reaching out, hat in hand, asking for another chance. I know I've got some serious damage control to do, but I'm willing to put in the work to rebuild that trust. Please, consider giving me the opportunity to make things right. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 14:56, 14 May 2024 (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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, dear editors of this domain. I am here earnestly to request the unblocking of my account. Firstly, I want to acknowledge that during the time I'm blocked, I have come to realize that my actions within this domain were irregular and against policies. I have made some previous requests, but they were not sufficient, hence I am making one last and brief attempt, as I deeply regret what I did in the past regarding creating multiple accounts on this domain and falsely denying their existence. I do not wish to cause any further disruption; on the contrary, I simply want to return to editing on this account honestly and in good faith, in accordance with the policies set forth in this domain. I express my profound regret for what occurred and hope to soon become an editor of this domain again. Thank you for your attention. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 22:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can. There are also a limited number of admins willing to review unblock requests. This is also a checkuser block, meaning only a checkuser can authorize its removal- and they are even more limited in number. Patience is required. That you seem willing to further evade your block isn't a point in your favor. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2024 (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.

My unblock request was made 10 July 2024, no responses. Today is 23 July. And you ask us why we bypass blocks? This gotta be a joke. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone asks why blocked editors evade blocks. It seems to me absolutely obvious why dishonest people do so. JBW (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bypass anything. I see where you're coming from. I neither don't know why people bypass blocks, like hiding themselves 'til the end comes. This is like leaving a country you live in because you did something. I prefer to face my reasons, consequences instead. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 01:38, 14 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, after some time I’ve decided to come back here and ask for a second chance. I really want to get back to editing and contributing like I used to. I believe my actions might have overshadowed my good intentions, but I’d really appreciate a chance to prove that I’m here with one goal in mind, which is to be a good editor. I’ve made a few other requests appealing my suspension, but since they didn’t work out, I’m here again asking for another chance. My intentions are genuine. I’m willing to accept anything to get permission to return here. Thanks. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 01:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is getting ridiculous. You impersonate an administrator and lie about random things on your user page. Someone calls you out on that, and you deny that you did it. You threaten to engage in sock puppetry, someone calls you out for that, and you deny that you were. It just keeps going on like that endlessly. Please find a different hobby. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2024 (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.

Okay, I don't get it either. You make an article that appears to be promotional, you make a bunch of sockpuppets to talk to each other, you get blocked for it. Maybe this makes you have a change of heart, maybe you didn't realize we could tell you were doing this and now you want to clean up your act, whatever. You want to be unblocked, and you lie a little, presumably because you think you're more likely to be unblocked that way. It doesn't work. You decide you're going to come clean and earnestly request another unblock (or you decide to pretend that is the case, whichever). Up to this point, things mostly make sense. It's what happens next that I don't understand at all. When JBW replies to you last December, you basically tell them to get bent. When Deepfriedokra responds to you, you snap at them. When 331dot declines your request you make a sarcastic comment about block evasion. When JBW responds to that, the sarcasm is gone and you're saying "I prefer to face my reasons, consequences instead." It's like we're talking to three or four different people, only one of whom is earnest (or capable of pretending to be), and none of them read what the others wrote. What's the deal? And what do you even want to do once you're unblocked? -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. Yeah, starting with "I'm sorry" isn't great, because feeling sorry without changing actions and behaviour doesn’t fix anything. Thanks for letting me speak, I won’t hide anything. I’ll try to summarise everything so far, so I’ll be as direct as possible.
When I joined Wikipedia, to be honest, I only did it to try and promote my work. It was a well-known site, and I thought I might get some recognition from it. I created an account, made an article to promote myself, and it got deleted. After that, I made another account and did the same thing. I think this happened a few times, but can I be honest with you? In none of those attempts did I even bother to look at the policies or rules. I had no clue back then, and I didn’t make the effort to read the policies. I know my words now are questionable and probably hard to believe, and that’s my own fault. But being honest, my first goal when I joined was just to make a small article about myself and then leave.
I didn’t have the same feelings for Wikipedia back then as I do now. To me, it was just a site with articles, but one day, after a while, I got the urge to edit. I started small, but then I got interested in more advanced tools. I wanted to become an editor, and maybe something more. I think two years had passed since I made that stupid mistake of creating articles about myself. I made another account because my old ones had a history of deletions, articles flagged for deletion (the ones promoting me), and I wanted a clean record, you know? No rule-breaking, no policy violations, just someone contributing in good faith. The truth is, after being an idiot and creating articles about myself, I came back later and fell in love with editing. I created the account Athaenarae because I admired how Athaenara edited and I wanted to follow that example. I got blocked because they thought I was trying to impersonate someone, but I managed to explain myself, got unblocked, and had my name changed to Ayaena.
After this, I dedicated my time to contributing to the project, making edits and all that. The only thing I wanted was to be able to contribute and keep going, because it became like a hobby, you know? I admit, it wasn’t until much later that I really started to understand the rules and community policies.
Then, after a while, I saw an open discussion about me, suspecting me of being a sockpuppet. Do you know what was even more idiotic on my part? I dug my own hole and buried myself in it. I tried to downplay my situation by hiding things, concealing details and information, trying to mislead, and that’s what really destroyed my honesty. Above all, I should have been upfront about the accounts I had and about the self-promotion I had done.
As for the sarcasm, yeah, I’m sorry. I think it was a moment of frustration because I had submitted a review request days ago and hadn’t received a response. I wish I could take back my words and my actions so far. I understand if you feel like you’re talking to four different people, that’s what I caused myself. But being honest, I admit I made mistakes and acted impulsively. I’m the one who caused everyone to distrust me.
When I said, “and you’re still asking why we bypass blocks?” I want you to know that I never bypassed a block fully understanding the policies. Yes, I did bypass, but never knowingly, never realising what sockpuppets were, even though it was obvious. That comment was out of frustration, and I regret saying it, just as I regret many of my actions and behaviour up to this point. If I could, I’d speak to each admin and apologise for the way I acted and what I did. If I had the freedom to edit again, you’d see my efforts and that I’m acting in good faith, but I understand that I’ve caused a mess with the trust people had. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "I got blocked because they thought I was trying to impersonate someone" (an admin), were you really not? You copied that editor's user page in minute detail; you have created profiles on social media claiming not only to be that person, but even claiming that you are a "[editor, writer and] steward on Wikipedia. Yes, I know that after I mentioned this in the account block discussion on the Portuguese Wikipedia last year you changed it to your real-life name, but you kept the claim that you were a steward on the Wikipedia. That is, until days ago, when you rushed to delete it, after I mentioned it again on the new discussion that you have opened to have your account unblocked. Which so far has been the pattern – you admit and confess details piecemeal, only after these have been exposed or have become so apparent and are about to become exposed anyway. Like last year when I pressed you to admit you were the musician that tried to promote on Wikipedia and you admitted it. To me, these confessions of yours are nothing but smoke and mirrors, desperate attempts to appear to be opening up and hopefully lure people away from investigating further. But don't worry, I am normally wary of people who keep saying "to be honest" and so I routinely take screenshots of such honest people that I know they are being anything but. Last year I already sent those to Girth Summit and JBW and I can send the new screenshots to whichever admin or checkuser admin asks for them. So, if that is your understanding of honesty, I can recommend a whole bunch of good dictionaries. You really must take people for idiots. So, like asilvering , I too would like to know what you want to do if you get unblocked? Of your 338 edits, two-thirds are user talk messages, including your own and including 163 are welcome messages.Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blocked for impersonating someone, and that answers your rhetorical questions. Your questionnaires don’t show me anything besides a failed attempt to contradict my words. You can claim all you want that I tried to impersonate someone, but I’ve already resolved that issue and explained what happened. Saying I use the name "Athaenara" elsewhere means nothing. It’s like saying my name can’t be Matheus just because another Matheus exists. Impersonating someone is more than having the same name as someone else. At no point did I claim to be Athaenara, the Wikipedia Administrator. I use that name in other places, and I know others who use it too, or something similar. In fact, I got the name Ayaena from Athaenara. I only changed my name on Wikipedia because it was the same as theirs, not because I was trying to impersonate an admin.
Yes, if someone shows up with the name Athaenara and the same template, it might seem like what you’re claiming, but remember, people have inspirations and preferences that can be similar or even the same, and that was my case. There’s no point in you putting "steward" in bold—I’m not going to deny the facts. I had "steward" in my bio because I liked the idea of it, but of course, it wasn’t true—I’m not one. My goals on Wikipedia were to one day actually become an admin and a steward. My mistakes involve sock puppetry and a mess of lies to try and clean up the situation I created, but none of them involved impersonating someone.
Take screenshots of whatever you want and send them to whoever you want, I’ve got nothing to hide, and I’m standing by the truth, here in good faith. You can investigate whatever you like, and I’ll be here to cooperate, not cause trouble. I think I’ve caused enough trouble with my past mistakes, but I don’t want to repeat them. If you think there’s anything else, just ask me, and I’ll be honest with every word. I don’t want anything other than to build my own track record here. I know my record so far isn’t great, but all I care about is contributing to the project—creating articles, editing, translating, and joining discussions, even issuing alerts, like I used to on the Lusophone Wikipedia.
Understand, Correia, you don’t have to treat me like some sort of troublemaker. I don’t want trouble. I want a chance to prove that my past actions don’t reflect who I really am. I’ve tarnished my reputation, and I’d like the opportunity to show everyone in the community that I’m a good person, acting in good faith, and that I want to help with the project. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 00:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ayaena&oldid=1256374395"