Puppygnu

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Puppygnu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Costco. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. We do not move pages by redirecting them. If you think the title of the page should change, discuss it on the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Costco Wholesale, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. If you continue to try to effect a page "move" using a redirect and without discussing the proposed change at Talk:Costco to achieve consensus for the change, you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 17:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page maliciously, as you did at Costco. General Ization ^Talk 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

When I moved the page Pato to Pato (game), it was sort of an accident. I haven't made a lot of disruptive edits lately. Puppygnu (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

But we don't want you to make any disruptive edits. If you don't have sufficient competence to edit without being disruptive, we'll need to leave you blocked, I'm afraid. Yamla (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

The Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014 move-warring (redoing your move even after another admin undid your move the first time) even after your Pato fiasco and in general closing RM's out of process is completely unacceptable. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not realize that RMs need to be left open for a certain amount of time. Also, Swiss immigration referendum, February 2014 was supposed to be named Swiss immigration initiative, February 2014. See that article's talk page. Also see Talk:Swiss minaret referendum, 2009. To be honest, there was no malicious intent for any of my articles lately. It was really a bunch of mistakes. I promise I won't do things like that again. Puppygnu (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a lot of mistakes in a short time. You say you have good intentions but that is not sufficient. See WP:Competence is required. It is not in Wikipedia's interest to let you continue to make mistakes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Just to be honest (and I'm not lying), I am a different person than User:Soapamalkanmaime. I am not the same person as that user. It was only a coincidence. Please accept that fact. Puppygnu (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting you should say that. Don't see this as a sock or checkuser block. not clear why you think we might see a connection. Soapamalkanmaime is CU blocked, so no.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

See above. Again, those "disruptive moves" were for the most part accidents to be honest. I'll be more competent in the future, and I for sure won't make mistakes like that ever again. I know I have made a lot of mistakes in a short time. I'm sorry that it happened. Puppygnu (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. You seem to have a lot of accidents. maybe with a ban on page moves, in 6 months w/o further socking. i do not believe in coincidence. with #_articles > 5x10⁶, the likelihood of coincidence is vanishingly small. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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.