User talk:Icaldonta

Your reason here Hi there, I had this account for years, I didn't know that contribution history was public until recently. In an attempt to mask this, I added '-' on a load of random pages and then removed it. Wikipedia picked this up as vandalism, though this wasn't my intention at all. I would then use different accounts for all of my different interests, hence the sockpuppeting. I never meant for any of this to happen. Please consider my account for unblock. I have a lot of history of constructive edits.

What you are describing is vandalism. Your claim to set up multiple accounts, one for each interest, is bizarre. I can't tell if you are trolling with that excuse or if you really believe us to expect that's a reasonable thing to do. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my unblock request. I understand that using multiple accounts like this is unconventional, though please understand my rationale. Recently, I have taken my online privacy very seriously, which includes my digital footprint. The rationale behind using multiple accounts stems from the concern that if people are aware of my individual interests on the same account, they will be able to trace back all of the interests (such as edits to places in town, for example) and find out my identity. I did not know that contribution history was public until recently, so using multiple accounts was purely a measure to attempt to protect my privacy in this sense. If this is a cause for concern, I am happy to revert to using the singular account again. Please understand that it was purely a cursory measure that I was taking. I would like to highlight that the response above does not take into consideration the many years of constructive edits across my accounts, which I would welcome an administrator to view. I fully accept that editing random pages with '-' and instantly removing them to mask the first few pages of my contribution history was wrong, and I was cease to do this ever again going forward and apologise for doing it in the first place. Please review the constructive history across my accounts, and I would really appreciate it if at least one of my accounts is made available for editing again. Many thanks. Icaldonta (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my unblock request again, in addition to the comments made above, I completely understand what I have been blocked for. I accept my mistake and I will not damage or disrupt Wikipedia should I be unblocked again and I will make useful contributions. Since my block, I have made a list of articles that I would like to improve. I understand the error of my ways and I am hoping to return to Wikipedia where I will be constructive going forward.

Rephrasing the instructions back at us is not convincing. If you understand why you were blocked, then explain it instead of saying "trust me, bro, I know the answer to this question". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the most respectful way, I hope you can understand that the appeal comment on the October 2023 unblock request from UtherSRG used the phrase "does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons". This phrase using the word "or" does not specifically clarify what is being misunderstood, and comes across to me as vague. I hope you understand that for me to convince you, I need to understand what "inadequate for other reasons" specifically means, and what is not being understood. In addition to my comments made above, following my ban, I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding sock-puppeting and fully understand Wikipedia's rationale as to why this is not permitted. I have also read Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism as well. I believe I have established that I did not know I was engaging in vandalism at the time, but on reflection I now fully understand and will not engage in this behaviour going forward. I can confidently say the same regarding the sock-puppeting. I also encourage whoever is reviewing this to view my years and years of constructive edits prior to the block. I am very happy to add further clarification, but for this to happen please let me know what you are not understanding, if the October 2023 appeal and subsequent half of this appeal request has not addressed this. Thank you.

I value clarity and conciseness myself. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read

]

I want to make clear that the reason for my block was justified, as I fully accept that I engaged in

. I completely accept why this is not allowed on Wikipedia, that my other accounts can remain blocked, going forward I will solely use the one 'icaldonta' account. The use of multiple accounts was purely for my benefit in terms of segregating my edits, and was in no way intended to deceive Wikipedia. I am perfectly happy to revert to just 'icaldonta'. The constructive edits I wish to engage in going forward are mainly business-related which is one of my interests.

Per talk. You are welcome. And, welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]