User talk:Albertpda

Welcome

Hello Albertpda and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Vietnam national football team, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning: stop blanking, and start discussing on talk pages, or you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing dizzying array of unblock discussions and other content. Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vietnam national football team. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

There is a sockpuppet investigation involving you. IWI (chat) 13:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. IWI (chat) 13:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albertpda unblock requests

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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, it seems someone has emit quiet a lot of misunderstanding here. As the true person who make use of this account Albertpda, other accounts were used by different users but using the identical set of internet protocols using different machines. One person has notice me and asked if I can make this request and make explanations. To clarify, I have not returned for some time but is occasionally interested currently. The edits I make were of the same project that some other pupils are doing. This account's edits are accused of warring edit but it was when the situation and explanation of other editors towards me was initially vague. I continue to defend my points via the publishing edit sections without resorting to the talk pages or experiments in which one particular editor, as I remember, asking me to make consensuses first without analyzing my rejecting points and that caused me furious and created the hostile atmosphere. I would love to return to editing and furthering my arguments so long as this account is unblocked, my approach will be assured to change as promise. Therefore my requested is for my blocked account and others' being disclosed as they are not of socks.Albertpda (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, there is no chance that this was a mistake. You can not seriously be saying that Albertstrikesagain (talk · contribs) is not you. You are even continuing to evade your block during this process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 3 January 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.

(Non-Administrator-Comment) We need a Checkuser reviewing this case, so be patient if it takes some time. Also, your account is not only blocked for being a sockpuppet, it was blocked indef at first for being WP:NOTHERE (see above Sections), so you need to adress that in order to get unblocked. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone doing the review? Please be quick, so I can get back and get into the work as soon as possible. It is important.Albertpda (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please don't just response to my request in one or two sentences and focus on some specific details and forget my whole requesting point. I'm not denying that Albertstrikesagain (talk · contribs) isn't my account. Yes, I did use to create that particular sock account and ip to further my points because initially I'm quick to be blocked while the then-debate is yet to come to a point, and at the time I am still idealess, I don't notice for there is any possible way to get back into discussion swiftly and don't care about an unblock request yet. Why would NinjaRobotPirate neglect for like a week to respond to this unblock request? Did NinjaRobotPirate randomly check the page and now take this chance to decline this request? NinjaRobotPirate's responsibility is under my question. I'm going into editing again because it seems no one, including NinjaRobotPirate, take responsibility to reply the unblock request. If i still can't get unblocked for longer I would be abandoning because the page need immediate change for obviously plausible reasons. And one can't seriously revert some edits just to keep some, even if I get blocked, my changes should not be reverted and the page should not necessarily be protected because it has stated relevant reasons and also is in accordance with Wikipedia guides and policies. What features there are in my edits do you see that are not legit?? It is plausible and should be done, isn't it?? As an administrator and has been using wikipedia for all those years, if it isn't me, why don't (NinjaRobotPirate) enable those edits or edit the article yourself? As it contains apparent problems which I had stated? Serious all the last edits you reverted are the very last changes I would make, lease it as JUST THAT. The page would be thousand times better! For sake, it is just about 1000 bytes change and is AS NECESSARY AS IT GETS. Why do you HATE those changes SO MUCH?? Do you even UNDERSTAND why are those edits made? Do you even READ my reasons?? LEAVE IT, don't revert, and block me? Fine, no harms to wikipedia and that article AT ALL. By the way, I have work very hard to polish certain certain articles and generally work to build Wikipedia. Aside from those edits and polishing effort, I have spent a lot of effort to make THIS, THIS VERY unblock request. All those efforts to be reverted without any sufficient explanation. Of course I'm in the disadvantaged side just because I don't have the same powers as my debating opponent. The previous one is quick to block me while we have yet come to a point. Like robots, it's annoyingly outrageous. I hope you don't just sweep this request aside. Even if you do, treat it with respect, please, response to the length of this unblock request so as to rebutt what I had pointed out. If you don't ,I'm so sadden to waste my whole time talking to no more than a mindless bot instead of a human. Sorry but I'm being VERY SERIOUS about all this mess. I'm not here to vandalize and if I would, I would not write such another long request again. It's my first offend so I really want to get unblock in order to actively contribute again. Albertpda (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a sock pupettry block. Please read the GAB for more about that. Then you need to address the behaviors that led to a "not here" block and the edit warring. Launching a tirade against an admin will gain you negative results. Suggest you spend lest wordage on that. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 8 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for initial sock puppetry and Edit Warring conducts. This is my mistake as I had yet to be ingrained with Wikipedia basic constraints and I'm a new editor on Wikipedia. This is my first time infringement in a situation which is unclear to an administrator who involved in the heated warring edit and other debates. I want to be unblocked because the block is not necessary anymore as I can assured that I will not create my initial misconducts again. Instead I want to make contributions to Wikipedia in a more gradual and restrained manner and pace. What lead to my "not here" block is, the pages with content about Vietnam national football sport teams contain multiple problems according to Wikipedia Manuel of Style. Due to its large amount of false technique content being present, I have to make an equal large amount of edit to remake or revert that content. Some editors then occasionally reverted my edits and ask me to do a "consensus" first hand. I have raised questions and my own arguments against the need to do a "consensus" for a such a necessary change to make (immediately). The debate went along with a warring edit case, in which I choose to place the arguments in my warring edits instead of using the talk page. I have my own defends for this actions, didn't know that this would let to my eventual block by the opposing editor, possibly an administrator. Now that I notice that making more gradual edits instead of sweeping edits, will lead to more positive results. So i request this unblock, understanding reasons for my block, stating why the block is not necessary anymore as how I will contribute to Wikipedia differently in the future Albertpda (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Consensus applies to all editors, and your view that you don't have to abide by consensus shows that an unblock is unwise. Your insinuation that you were improperly blocked is nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 9 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Please caution: this is a continuation of previous unblock requests, whereas its seem an administrator come after one another and read the then-request without considering the prior one, and put on yet more questions, making it longer than usual. For example, Acroterion, in my previous unblock request, quoting this administrator: "Consensus applies to all editors, and your view that you don't have to abide by consensus". In no words, did I say that I "don't have to abide by consensus". I just said that at the time (not now), I do not agree on making a consensus for many complicated problems, which I protested, but won't talk about what specific problems they are in this unblock request because it isn't the main point. It isn't now that I won't make a consensus, I will abide to it if it is a must. I also did not say that I was "improperly blocked". My insinuation? I have to write an insinuation due to the complexity of the issue. If I have to list such long reasons for how I was blocked was questionable, this request would go too long, while one admin demanded it to be as brief as possible. If this admin say that my reasons are "nonsense", please put out details of what specific part that is "nonsense"...otherwise this admin is subjecting a personal attack towards me. The previous administrator who reviewed my request, Dlohcierekim, declined and asked me to address the problems that lead to my block and affirm understanding what I have been blocked. I have done all of that, yet i'm still declined by that other administrator, Acroterion, then what do this admin want me to do next and how many more unblock requests do i have to make to satisfy him/her? The point here is, I do not deny my misconducts, I affirmed that this is my first time offend and won't do it again. Also I'm looking forward to manage certain wikipedia pages which surely will be useful and appropriate. Note: Update January 10, I have been waiting for approximately 3 weeks, making 4-5 unblock requests in a row, yet to be accepted, I think it is really enough. Albertpda (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I read all of your unblock requests. I'm deeply disturbed. You continue to blame others for your own bad behaviour. You say you never denied Albertstrikesagain was your account (actually, you say it wasn't, but I assume that's a typo), but you did deny it. The denial is here: "As the true person who make use of this account Albertpda, other accounts were used by different users but using the identical set of internet protocols using different machines." Rather than talking about your own bad behaviour, you constantly rail against perceived injustices from other users and/or administrators. This block is clearly appropriate. I suggest your path forward here is to wait at least six months with zero edits, and then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll want to talk about your bad behaviour, convince us you understand the problems with your edits and convince us you wouldn't act the same way if unblocked, and not blame other people at all. Otherwise there's no reasonable chance you'll be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 11 January 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).

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

Request reason:

To Yamla, what do you mean by "... to blame others for your own bad behaviour"? First off, no, you did not read "all" of my unblock requests, you didn't even read my very previous unblock request to say that I "never denied Albertstrikesagain was my account". Well, i did admit it, saying "I'm not denying that Albertstrikesagain (talk · contribs) isn't my account...i did create that particular sock" so basically that is it, i did not deny it. And that is the only account I used as sock. Secondly, you say about me that "Rather than talking about your own bad behaviour, you constantly rail against perceived injustices from other users and/or administrators". Well, I did talk about my own bad behaviour and I did not "rail against perceived injustices" from anyone. I did not say what they did are "injustices", rather stating the situations that lead to my block, which could be reconsidered for my case. This is yet another evidence to show that you did not read all of my unblock requests. Finally, your suggesting sanction of 6 months is based on you, not other administrators, this isn't court, is it?. I don't thing one can apply that sanction to any case whatsoever. What particularly make you thing "this block is clearly appropriate"? Personally, I concured that 4 weeks of getting blocked and being forced to make a cluster of unblock requests is probably more than enough. I don't deserved to be tortured for 6 months for a first-time offend. For my case which have its own reasons, I don't want to wait for 6 months. Because firstly, this is my first offend, you can block me again very easily if I infringe similar rules again, and if I did it again I will surely accept your block, perhaps forever. Secondly, it's my high interest point to using wikipedia, and the articles I'm editing are having stuff that I think really need my attention and taming it. If I get block for that long, these problematic pages wouldn't need me anymore and so is wikipedia. Thirdly, I have done all the procedure you demand, admitting my fault, stating reasons for me to get unblock, making future promises that I won't do it again. As it is not enough though, you demanded me to do even more, why? Furthermore, I would not talk about whether or not one acting on me is "injustice" and my behavior is actually "bad" behavior (according to Yamla terms and perception). No, I really do not want to say about the word "biasity" here. And, because I'm really afraid if I talk more about that kind of stuff and defend myself against your hypothesises, I would get declined again for making long and irrelevant request. Albertpda (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the terms of the Wikipedia Standard Offer, we need a minimum period of six months with no socking. Given that your User:Albertstrikesagain sock last edited on 8 December 2018, that means no unblock request will be considered before 8 June 2019. I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page, and you can make a request at WP:UTRS for it to be reinstated no sooner than 8 June 2019. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 12 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Welcome. I have been waiting 7 months for the being-blocked period to come to an end as per Standard Offer. Prior to this I have made a couple of unblock requests and got declined as you may consider looking at in my talk page as above. The reasons for me to be unblocked would probably be the same as mentioned in these previous requests. The difference is just that I was make to wait after June to have my unblock requests examined again. Albertpda (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your previous unblock appeals were all declined, with good reason. You do not simply get a blank slate after six months. Until you post an unblock appeal that addresses the problems with your editing and illustrates how you will avoid such issues arising in the future, you will not be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 17 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This account has been blocked for 8 months as of which I was subjected to the Standard Offer. Now the period has ended so I make this request in seek of an approval unblocking my main account. My policy infringements were firstly warring edit and then using socks due to this account being blocked by an admin. In this case, an user reverted my edits of which I have stated my reasons for those edits. This user (a female) did not make statements on why she did not consent my edits rather just demanded me to do a "consensus" before making edits that remove a large amount of article's content. I don't agree with her because making a consensus required 3 or more users actively participating on. It's only her who contested my edits that moment but the important thing here is:she did not give her own reasons for the contest but instead made vague demand for a "consensus". Somehow she was patronized by this admin nicknamed "DrMies" as my account was blocked for the aftermath's warring edits with her but her account wasn't blocked. So then I have to use socks to make more efficient protests against this unjust action coming from the admin but was repeatedly opposed and tracked down and then came to a point that is no longer salvable. After 8 months, I have got a sufficient grasp. To avoid this conflict from happening again I will have to go to the talk page of the user that reverted my edits to discuss with him/her foremost and, but I did not do it back then so I regretted it. Albertpda (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say "so then I have to use socks to make more efficient protests against this unjust action". This demonstrates that you do not understand why socking is not acceptable. Further, you are still blaming someone else for your problems rather than taking personal responsibility for your actions. Just Chilling (talk) 13:10, 18 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.

"So then I have to use socks" Well, that pretty much seals the deal. No admin is going to unblock when this user clearly still doesn't remotely get it. Not that it matters at this point, but this user still hasn't addressed lying about the sockpuppetry. Anyway, if I hadn't already reviewed an earlier request, I'd decline this one. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further unblock discussion as I've already declined once

Your block log is public. We can see this wasn't your first offense. "Biasity" is not a word. Another admin will be along shortly to review your unblock request. I suggest to that admin that they revoke your talk page access if they decline your request. Five unblock requests is more than enough. If your talk page access is revoked, you would still be able to access WP:UTRS six months from today, if you refrain from all further edits and sockpuppetry during that time. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. Your current request has once again not fully addressed the reasons for your block. The amount of railing against others and complaining about the "injustice of it all" is not only quite phenomenal, it is off-putting as well. It reads more like a legal pleading than an unblock request. Please tell us what you would do under similar circumstances to not edit war and avoid blockable behavior. Please be concise and succinct. BTW. Why is it important that you be unblocked quickly? Oh. Good. Grief. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Albertpda/Archive shows you were socking in December? Really? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Albertpda_decimating_Vietnamese_football_teams_articles_again paints a grim picture. User_talk:Drmies&oldid=868737181#What_is_your_authority? shows an inability to function in a collaborative environment, as does Talk:Vietnam_national_football_team#Unnecessary_sections_and_tablets_must_be_removed. (You wanted a deeper review? I've made it.) You will need to deal with these behavior issues. Further, I would not unblock you without a TBAN on Viet Nam and soccer.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to next reviewing admin Please read and reread thoroughly the prior unblock requests and other discussion to savor the full flavor.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Albertpda-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's my first offend because this is the first time I'm blocked. You just keep asking me to state the reasons for my block, now you asked me to do it "fully". I'm not sure how more "fully" could it be according to your demand. Well, I have spoken the reasons, not once but perhaps three or four times already. If according to you, of course I have to "rail" against anyone else if I want to defend myself regardings certain points. This is not a legal pleading, this is an unblock request that has all requirements other admins had asked me to pledge to. If I get on similar circamstances again, I will make smaller and slower changes that is a part of the "big" change, rather than a "big" change that "need a consensus", and it still generated doubts for me, so I will debate it further using the talk page, not the edit tool. It is important that I should be unblocked quickly, and I should not get a TBAN because those pages I suppose to edit desperately need urgent modifications, those modifications are not that big and are required right now, also the pages like Vietnam team's one are at rush hour of possible new edits hence could be easily vandalized, or unsuitable changes just keep on coming hence I could be a useful guard that protect the page. Those are the only pages I can think of that I know what to contribute positively. To sump up, the main thing I regret having done is constantly reverting reverts using the edit tool but not talk pages, for this I will change. Also if one found my words to be some how "agressive" on some occasion, it is because I did not restrain myself during conflict debate very well, but I will try to be less so.Albertpda (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a hint for your next unblock request in six months (if you make one), it is not just "big" changes that require consensus - *all* changes that are contested/reverted require consensus, however large or small they are. And breaking a large change down into a set of smaller ones does not change anything - if the overall change is contested, it needs consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already declined a previous unblock request, I will observe that any unblock request that seeks to justify sockpuppetry and which appears to blame your problems on another editor's gender cannot succeed.. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #23760 was submitted on Jan 14, 2019 01:43:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #25916 was submitted on Jul 16, 2019 04:54:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last trip to the well

Comment: Reading all of the 9+ unblock requests on this page, I think this user is beyond redemption at this point, with an IDHT problem that reaches CIR. To prevent further disruption, I'm going to suggest revoking TP access and email access. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but does this comment qualify as a personal attack?Albertpda (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I fully expect the unblock request above to be declined (I would have done so myself if I hadn't already responded to an earlier appeal) and given that I see no likelihood of you composing a competent or cogent unblock request in the near future, I have removed your talkpage access as suggested by Softlavender. And for the record: no, pointing out that you lack the competence to edit here when you have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack the competence to edit here is not a personal attack. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I had such high hopes when I restored TPA. So many trips to the well. Note to next UTRS reviewer-- unless the next ticket adequately addresses the problems, recommend withdrawing that option. When one goes to the well, one must bring a bucket w/o a hole in it. Rhetorical question-- what happens if we run out of unblock reviewers. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Albertpda:, that is a (valid) observation of your content. You have, again, not addressed the reasons for your block. You have, actually, given indication that your disruption would only continue. That you have (again) made a request with content you do not recognize as inappropriate on Wikipedia raises insurmountable CIR issues. You have had far more opportunities to request unblock than we afford most. Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further time-wasting, I flipped the switch to site ban this editor for repeated sock puppetry and block evasion. Albertpda, please see our policy page about site bans to understand what this means. This change is mostly bureaucractic except that no administrator can unblock you without the permission of the community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion

This user engaged in ban evasion as Trung tá Moore in February, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #30123 was submitted on Apr 17, 2020 11:12:52. This review is now closed.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note the suggestion above to revoke UTRS access, but as it's been quite a long time since then I left it for perhaps one more chance. But I did warn that no request will be considered for at least six months from the latest socking (so not before August 2020), and any further request before then should probably lead to UTRS revocation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further ban evasion today, 2020-09-24, as Alodialodi. Albertpda has lost access to UTRS for six months. Their final avenue of appeal is to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org, which does not require an account. --Yamla (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. -> UTRS appeal #34912; special:permalink/979880478#UTRS decline --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another premature UTRS request in UTRS appeal #44772. I advised them to wait six months. As they have a hard time determining how long six months is, that'd be 2021-12-26, assuming no more sockpuppetry between now and then. --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #86728

I modified the block to allow talk page access. Albertpda wishes to request WP:UNBAN. They will post here to confirm this and then I will copy their request to the noticeboard. Alternatively, Albertpda may decide to hold off on making an unban request, in which case they are expected to refrain from any editing of this talk page until they are ready to contest their ban. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albertpda, if you are unable to edit here because you are globally locked, please either respond via the UTRS ticket or send me an email (which I will read but not respond to). You need to specifically indicate you will not edit anywhere other than this page, including on other projects. I will then attempt to get your global lock lifted solely so you can contest this ban on en.wiki. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock changed to global block

Hopefully, you can now edit your talk page for unban request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ping @Compassionate727: I have written a message for Compassionate727 in the noticeboard. Please give me a clean start! Albertpda (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll expire the ticket. Glad you can edit your talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I pledge to avoid editing in the area of geography for a period of a year while making at least 1000 good faith non-disruptive edits in other areas. I also pledge to be restricted to a one-revert restriction rule. May you accept it? Albertpda (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you @Deepfriedokra: carry the above reply over? Albertpda (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

carrying over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: So may you support the appeal with the addition of this condition? Albertpda (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly ping @Deepfriedokra: to carry over. Albertpda (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

carrying -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:

@Tamzin: Chipmunkdavis says their oppose can be disregarded given the modifications, so there are technically 6 supports vs 1 oppose. The modifications are that I have agreed to a one revert rule restriction, and a topic ban on geography for one year. Spicy doesn't clearly express support or oppose. Getting everyone to agree is too hard. The unban appeal by Wikiuser1314 also have 1 oppose and still pass. Please give me a chance! Albertpda (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it turned out this way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Another reviewer might well see this as having consensus. So determining consensus is subjective and depends on the user who close the appeal now? Is there any objective policy on this?

I have read historical unban/unblock requests on the noticeboard and my appeal very well falls under a rough consensus, not a non-consensus. A lot of unban appeals are granted with rough consensus, yet my appeal isn't. Albertpda (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did misread CMD's final comment. That said, Spicy's meaning was crystal-clear, whether or not he used a boldface "oppose"—I do not see the point in unblocking someone who's likely going to go around indiscriminately blanking articles.—and CMD's wording is essentially to put it in my hands as the closer whether or not I'm comfortable making that deal. And the truth is I'm not. I don't like the idea of an automatically expiring sanction in the main area you've been disruptive in. I think, though, based on this rereading of CMD's comment, I'd be comfortable closing with an unban + 1RR + 1-account restriction + TBAN from geography. You could appeal any of those sanctions after 6 months, but there would be no automatic expiry. Does that work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Albertpda (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll give you the advice I always give people in this circumstance: This community likes giving second chances, but it rarely gives third chances. So please make the most of the chance you've been given, and make the people who supported your unban proud that they did. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's better; welcome back -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Albert, I want to be clear, this is a violation of your ban from "articles or parts of articles that describe a place". Your ban applies to discussion of those articles in other namespaces, not just to editing the articles themselves. The only exception is for mentioning a place in the course of other things, e.g. "John Doe was born in New York".

Please be more careful in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification. I will be more careful. Albertpda (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely apologies if I may by accident stumbled on an article related to geography that I may misinterpreted as of non-geographical or simply because of my negligence. Please tell me so that I will self-revert such edit. Albertpda (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single account restriction was an unblock condition . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DFO: Special:Contributions/Biokob. Checks out behaviorally as well. Sigh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And those look geography related. . . . . Though the account was created before the unblock. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]