User talk:Dominic3203

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

June 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You are indefinitely blocked for disruptive use of Citation bot, excessive citation errors, and unwillingness to address the legitimate concerns of other editors. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2025 (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).

Dominic3203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After careful consideration, I have decided to vanish and promise not to create sockpuppet on any Wikimedia. This is because the search engines still refers my username "Dominic3203" as an active Wikipedia account that I cannot interact with actually (this is false info, I have to remove that by vanishing).

Please unblock me, once and for all. Dominic3203 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Vanishing is for users in good standing, not blocked editors. PhilKnight (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (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).

Dominic3203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I genuinely care about the English Wikipedia, as well as making sure all references got updated. This is not the result I had expected. As per Wikipedia:Standard offer "If an editor shows unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner." I do have a viable suggestion, "If the bot went haywire, There should be an "abort & rollback" button to halt the bot and rollback everything." One simple button could make a huge difference. Dominic3203 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 20:28, 19 August 2025 (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.

"It's all the bot's fault" is in your case the opposite of "good insight into the circumstances that led to the block". ----JBL (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll WP:HA Dominic3203 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Thank you for considering my unblock request. Please also focus about my suggestion for an “abort/rollback” function. Researches indicate these features are standard in many software contexts because they reduce user anxiety, lower the cost of mistakes, and encourage constructive exploration.

Abort (Cancel) lets users stop an action mid‑process, while Rollback (Undo/Back) reverses completed actions. Both should be clear, responsive, and predictable, with safeguards for irreversible steps. Thoughtful design of these functions supports a more forgiving, user‑friendly environment and can strengthen participation and confidence on the platform.

Also, the button should be accessible. Wikipedia is a collective work, admins are not supposed to obstruct legitimate halting / undoing bots' behaviour. Dominic3203 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing the (undo) function which can be found in the article's history. It's also available as rollback and as a tool in Twinkle and RedWarn.
As a blocked user you have access to your talk page in order to appeal your block, not for complaints about Wikipedia's functionality or any other purpose. Commenting on your appeals is not harassment.
Any further comments which are not related to appealing your block may result in your talk page access being revoked. Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]