User talk:Carthage44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was advised speaking with other Admins to submit this unblock request in the hope that I can contribute to this site sooner rather than later. I will post the same message that I sent to the Arbitration Committee as it explains my full and sincere apology to all involved. I just wanted to start off my saying thank you for taking the time to look into my request. I am a big fan of Wikipedia an love to edit the sports (especially the Wisconsin Badgers) pages. Over 7 years ago my username was carthage44. I got into some editing wars and got blocked several times. Again, this was 7+ years ago and I was VERY immature. I think, but can not remember, I said something nasty to Admin Bagumba. My account was, understandably, blocked indefinitely. I have created other accounts (which I understand is Sockpuppetery) but I was not doing this to do bad things to Bagumba or to the site. I just wanted to start over/fresh and continue to make meaningful edits. I am a grown family man now and want to make this right. I would really love to get a fresh start so I can contribute to this great site. I would also like to apologize to Bagumba, personally if possible, because he is owed that. I have admitted my wrong doings and want to make this right so we can all move on. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response. Thank you in advance Carthage44 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While I respect your wishes to edit productively here on the subjects you have the most interest in, the problem I see is the same as my other fellow admins have seen. You have edited outside of your block under multiple socks as recently as a few months ago.

WP:OFFER means that you don't edit at ALL here for six months. No socks, no IP editing. If you can stick to that, and give us a sign you're willing to work collaboratively, then after that 6 month time (which means no sooner than 12 June 2018), I think your chances of an unblock would be much more enhanced. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2017 (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.

  • I can confirm that such a message was sent to ArbCom, where the user was advised on
    WP:OFFER and alerted to the fact that the community was likely to insist on the usual six months without socking, and that the community would likely not look kindly on the existence of User:Jtaylor2017. Bagumba, I'll ping you FYI.

    I have not perused all this user's edits; the ones I looked at seem fine, the usual sports edits. I just wish they'd been smart enough to do all this before creating the last couple of socks. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Thank you again Drmies for taking the time to look into my case. The sockpuppeting was done just because I was trying to leave the poor decisions that I had made with this user name. I was just trying to get a fresh start. I honestly wasn't trying to "stick it to the man" I just wanted to edit sports pages and make them as accurate and up to date as possible. I really would like to "speak" to Bagumba to express how sorry I am for everything I did in the past. I would like to work with Bagumba on making these sports pages better together. I think if I get a second chance, I can show everyone that I have changed/matured into a upstanding citizen and worthy member of Wikipedia. I have children now and always want to sent a good example for them. That is what am doing now as a father and I think some of those same rules apply when using this site. Again, thank you to everyone that has or will be looking into this. I really appreciate it. Carthage44 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage44: Thank you for coming forward. I appreciate the kind words, but I'm not too worried about anything you might have said immediately after a block, and more concerned with your history of editing conflicts with others. There's this recent edit summary directed at you, "Please do not undo peoples edits just to re-do them minutes later like I just did. It messes up the edit history. Whether it is in 1 edit or multiple, the changes are made. Leave them please, nobody owns this page", which is also consistent with your behavior described in past SPI reports. Can you tell us why this style of editing should no longer be considered an issue? Are there any other habits you will try to change, and why? Finally are there any other accounts you have used in the past that have not been blocked? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:, thank you for contacting me so we can have an open discussion on these issues. To your question if I have any accounts that are not blocked, since I am being truly honest and open with everyone, ChiSox2005 which I would only use to update only Chicago White Sox pages but I have not used that account in months. I know in the past I have reverted edits or undid edits and then re-entered them. I do clearly understand now that I DO NOT OWN any of the pages that I edit. I now just want to make the pages I edit as accurate as possible no matter who edits the page first. I no longer want to sockpuppet for multiple reasons: it is wrong, it feels dirty and I want my user name to be carthage44 (the college I graduated from and my football number :). I understand that by typing all this doesn't mean a whole lot but that being said I am being very sincere and would like to prove it to you most of all Bagumba and the rest of the Wikipedia community. In the past I worked alone and did everything because I was selfish. Now, I have learned that people depend on me and I am not here to just lookout for myself. I really truly hope that I can go back to editing THE RIGHT WAY and make all my wrongs right! Hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you very much! Carthage44 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage44: The bulk of your edits are an asset to Wikipedia, esp. your major additions to Wisconsin Badgers and Chicago White Sox articles. However, your negative has been your edit warring (not just with this original account, but also with later socks Redmen44 (2014) and Destiny7awaits (2015), and your habit of reverting others' edits (esp. reverting consecutive edits one by one) just to restore the information yourself with only minor changes. Another admin can decide how to proceed with your current unblock request. In the meantime, you are reminded to not create any new accounts or edit while logged out. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:, thank you for noticing that MOST of my edits have been an asset to the site. The edit warring is a thing of the past. I understand that I do not own the page and if someone edits the page correctly before I get to it, then great less work for me. I have not created any accounts and have stayed away from editing except for my talk page here. I know you said another Admin can decide on how to proceed with my unblock request but do you have any idea how long it will/may take? I was hoping to show everyone how I have changed for the better. Also, if you put in a good word for me it would be much appreciated since you are a respected Admin in the community. Thank you again! Carthage44 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked this account five years ago. It didn't appear to have any effect in restraining the user from continuing to edit. ChiSox2005 'which I would only use to update only Chicago White Sox pages but I have not used that account in months' , was created this year and made around 850 edits until as recently as early October. I think another six months without any editing at all and no further sockpuppetry would be long enough for me to be convinced of the editor's good will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung:, I appreciate you commenting but those accounts were created to HELP Wikipedia and the edits I made were valuable. If you have read the comments above MOST of my edits in the past 5+ years have been a valuable asset to the site. I think I have also explained and discussed my downfalls in the past and I am ready to move on in a positive way. Let me show you that by unblocking me please. I have been without the user name (carthage44) for too long and want to restore myself as a valuable user on this great site. Please show some good faith in me during this beautiful holiday season. What a great gift it would be to be able to show everyone that I have changed for the better. I can be put on a probationary period or a short leash to show everyone that this time is different. Thank you. Carthage44 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appeals of this kind to my better nature won't sway my opinion, I'm afraid. You have continued to edit until very recently in flagrant defiance of the 2012 block, even creating yet another account this year and using it as recently as October. This does not rhyme with your statement that I highlighted in green above, or your claims of improved maturity. A block is a block and concerns the person, not just one or another of their accounts. Whether those accounts were created to help Wikipedia and/or whether the edits you made were beneficial to the project, editing while blocked or banned is a serious breach of one of our most important rules.
You are welcome to wait for a decision from another admin but their answer will also probably be
WP:OFFER. Note: I have done the long overdue block on your ChiSox2005 account, and will block any others I find. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am asking for this unblock request as I was advised to post this no earlier than 12 June 2018. I have not created any accounts and have not edited on wikipedia for 6 months. You can read my posts above on my talk page about the many reasons that I hope that I can get a fresh start. I just want to prove to everyone (and myself) that I have changed for the better. I would really love to get back to making meaningful edits to the site. Thank you all! Carthage44 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

AN discussion archived without achieving consensus. Yunshui 雲水 08:21, 20 June 2018 (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.

Yunshui or any other reviewing admin: The above AN discussion was auto-archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Standard_offer_appeal_by_User:Carthage44.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 20 June 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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since a consensus was not made I would like to again apply for an unblock again. I have obeyed by the rules that was asked of me to not edit or create an account for 6+ months now. I would like to prove myself to the entire community that I have changed and would like to make useful contributions to the site. I can sit here an talk about how I have changed all day but the only way to prove it is to let me show you. If there is such thing as a probationary period, I would be willing to do that just to show everyone what I can do. If there is something else Bagumba or any other Admin would like me to do to show that changes have been made, please let me know. No more edit warring, creating other accounts or removing edits just to replace them myself. I do not own any pages here and just want accurate and current information to be on this site no matter who edits the pages. I am on my knees here asking for forgiveness and a FINAL chance. I take full responsibility for everything I have done in the past and would like to turn the page for the better. Let me show you all that I have/will changed, especially Bagumba. I think we could really get along and work together on sports projects. Thank for your time in this matter. Carthage44 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but the community did not come to a consensus to unblock you. That means your block stays for now. You are welcome to reapply in six months, by presenting your case once again. Yamla (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2018 (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.

December 2018

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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have waited another 6+ months to reapply for an unblock. As I have stated in my previous attempts to unblock (since 2017, see above on my talk page), I have not created any accounts nor have I edited any pages. No more edit warring, no more reverting other users edits just to reenter them, no more arguing and no more being young and reckless. I just want to make some meaningful/helpful edits to the site. Thank you for taking the time to review my case and Happy Holidays! Carthage44 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's still substantial concern with your edits and there's no consensus that your unblock request addresses these concerns. I'm declining on that basis. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2018 (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.

@

WP:SO. What are your thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@Yamla: I've read through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44/Archive. I thik Bagumba ad Bbb23 sahould also be asked for their opinions. This socking spans a period of many years and I would need to be conviced that just six months has changed for the good. Also ask BB23 to run a fresh CU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of socking. I must say that I'm probably not the best CheckUser to look at this. I know nothing about the case, and I believe there are other CUs who do, e.g., DeltaQuad and Yunshui.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I always say, CUs can't prove a negative. It's easy to sit on an IP that is blocked and have no contribs for 6 months, while editing elsewhere where a CU couldn't find it. This phrase is not meant to imply guilt, just a warning. That said, if we do see an unblock here, I would like to see a 1RR provision for at least 6 months given the lengthy block record (including one of my own blocks) for edit warring, and their subsequent reaction to that. --
Amanda (aka DQ) 04:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
For what it's worth it was not me that edited that page. I have stayed away from editing on the site for over 6 months. Illinois has many Badger fans and to put a whole state on me does not seem fair. I understand the concern but because a edit was done in Illinois does not always mean it was me. It's a pretty large state and many UW alumni live in the connecting state of Illinois. Thanks again for your time in this matter. Carthage44 (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The CU tools may not be perfect, but they do reveal a lot more information than just a geolocation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Another 6+ months have passed and no edits made on my behalf. I am not sure what more can be said or done that I have already said above ^^^ but I am hoping to get a chance to show the community the good I can do. Thank you Carthage44 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed to Weliketoparty01 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Inclined to unblock. Thoughts? 
    admin, renamer 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't requested a unblock in almost 3 years. I am asking to please remove the block from my account from 2012. No arguing from me with other users, just want to edit in good faith to make the site better. Unblocking me so I can prove myself as a contributor would be much appreciated. Thank you Carthage44 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any reasons given for unblocking other than "I want it". You'll need to deal with your previous behavior, in particular the block evasion. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:03, 23 March 2022 (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.

Checkuser evidence here is inconclusive, leaning toward no evidence of block evasion. I suggest another checkuser review the evidence before anyone consider unblocking, but I expect that review will also find no evidence of recent block evasion. I'll note, though, that this user hasn't addressed their prior block evasion from 2019. Indeed, the most recently declined unblock request lied about it. "Another 6+ months have passed and no edits made on my behalf" but they had indeed been editing at that time. Certainly, almost three years has passed since then but I'd still expect to see this lie addressed in an unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: What is it that I need to do to "prove" that I am worthy for an unblock? Carthage44 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason for unblocking is to right my wrongs. No block evasion, no sockpuppeting, just good faith edits. What more can I do here? I am truly sorry for my history but what can I do to fix it? I'm trying to prove myself by becoming unblocked and showing users and Admins that people change. These past few years (COVID) have been tough with many losses close to me. Life holds different meanings now and I would like to start over. Thank you kindly Carthage44 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Recent IP usage per latest at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carthage44&oldid=1078972208"