User talk:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

siempre serás bienvenido

Hi, I am a Mexican Wikipedian. I contribute to both English and Spanish-language editions of Wikipedia. I received both a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. I am currently a part time MBA student at New York University Stern School of Business. Feel free to leave a message for me. Regards, Pablo Morales--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic images[edit]

You placed a message on my talk page, requesting images of the old Poly logo. I have a few images, and have uploaded two of them. Tripodics (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poly-blue logo.jpeg File:Polytechnic-gold-logo.jpg

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).

Pablo.morales.la.bomba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone please tell DGG to review my case Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks can be reviewed by any administrator. Please provide a reason why you should be unblocked. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (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).

Pablo.morales.la.bomba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been working tirelessly to improve and contribute so many articles(see my contributions). DGG said I was not going to be blocked, but since the SPI was open, a new user blocked me. If someone can kindly notify DGG , all the misunderstandings will be quickly cleared.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not given any reason for being unblocked. ("DGG would unblock me" is not a reason.) Even if it were true that DGG thought you shouldn't be blocked, the idea that you can choose what administrator will assess your request, with a view to getting one who you think will be sympathetic to review your case, is a rather strange one, and certainly not the way Wikipedia works. However, where you got that idea about DGG I cannot imagine: as Hersfold has pointed out below, DGG was the administrator who said that you should be blocked. Having said all that, your purpose here has been substantially promotion: in fact your own declared aim is to promote an institution, or, as you put it, to "make Poly proud". You have also made rather strange assertions which encourage me to wonder whether you are being paid to do that promotion, but whether that is so or not, accounts which exist substantially for promotional purposes are blocked and stay blocked, irrespective of the sockpuppetry issue. On the sockpuppetry issue, it seems clear that this account is working for the same institution as other accounts which have been blocked, for the purpose of continuing the same sort of editing that the blocked accounts have been prevented from doing. That means that this account is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, in either case created in order to evade blocks. There are more than enough reasons for maintaining the block. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. I will amend the block log to register spamming as another reason for the block, in addition to the sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (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.

Perhaps you missed the bit in the SPI where DGG said "We should confine the blocks to those for whom there is stronger evidence, such as adding inappropriate material. Among those I would certainly include Pablo.morales.la.bomba, who has been adding highly promotional excessively detailed material to the List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people." Unless you provide evidence to refute that shown in the SPI and commit to avoiding the problematic behavior DGG noted, I think your chances of being unblocked are slim. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refrained from problematic behavior. And my tireless contributions say a lot about me.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a spammer. I was jus trying to improve the article. I was working collaboratively with other users. I got blocked because there was a pending SPI, not because of my behaviour. If something was wrong with my behavior then many other editors should get blocked along with me.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (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).

Pablo.morales.la.bomba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. Don't compare me with others. After I chatted with DGG, I learned what not to do in order to not get blocked. See my contributions. I have been a very productive and cooperative editor. I sought help of other editors and administrators to help fix the NYU-Poly article. I have not been disruptive in any way. I still need to thank Mandarax. I am not a vandal, I love editing and I vehemently oppose vandalism. Editing Wikipedia has become my favorite pastime. I am requesting unblock only because I haven't done any wrong. See my contributions. I just saw that 72Dino nominated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NYU-Poly_research_and_research_centers while editing and keeping this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.R._Bronco This is just not right. You guys are not allowing me to have my say while letting others do what they want.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At your sockpuppet accounts, I see that you said that those accounts weren't sockpuppets. In other words, you lied. That means that you are a person who will lie to get unblocked, which means that everything you say must be supported by a lot more evidence than usual. And this request doesn't even indicate that you understand the conflict of interest guidelines, that you have any plan to improve Wikipedia beyond promoting your own organization, or that there is any reason to think you won't be using sockpuppet accounts in the future. I'm not seeing that the potential benefit is worth the likely disruption. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (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).

Pablo.morales.la.bomba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See DGG's comment below

Decline reason:

I respect DGG and his views enormously, but feel an unblock now is not appropriate. As suggested below, I feel that acceptance of the standard offer is a minimum requirement. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:18, 4 December 2012 (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.

Confirmed sockpuppets of this user have been warned (1, 2) not to abuse the unblock request process... apparently to no avail. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  04:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would support unblocking only if you intended to work on other subjects, and refrained from editing NYU-Poly and subjects and people connected with it. It does not help the encyclopedia to copy over their press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to clarify that such a ban on articles includes NYU-Poly, NYU and related institutions, subjects (such as the lists that were split off) and people (faculty and alumni) connected with those institutions, talk pages, AfDs, etc. 72Dino (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. The whole discussion above - especially FisherQueen's decline - and the presence of sockpuppets indicate to me that this is more than an issue of COI spamming. I do not believe that this user truly understands Wikipedia's purpose or many of the policies he's violated; it appears as though they're just saying what they need to say in order to be unblocked. If that's the case, it seems likely we'll end up back here in a few months, if not weeks. I'd like to see the standard offer met before any unblocking is considered... possibly the "second chance" as well. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has shown absolutely no remorse over anything he has done over the lengthily ordeal that he has put the community with his disruptive editing spanning fifteen sockpuppets and several IPs (1, 2). If anything, his editing has progressively become more hostile and antagonistic (going as far as to open a SPI against me and 72Dino in retaliation). -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo, for your benefit, the "standard offer" is thus: You do not edit Wikipedia under any account or IP address for at least six months. After six months of no editing, if you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and why your past conduct was problematic, and commit to avoiding said behavior in the future, you stand a much better chance of being unblocked. This is not an entitlement to an unblock after six months; you will still need to demonstrate that you will be a constructive and useful editor should you be unblocked. More information is available at WP:OFFER. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I want to clarify: I'm not a sockpuppet. I am aware of the sock-puppet case and the unconstructive edits that were made by 72Dino and Marco Guzman, Jr. The latter is a paid employee of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona[1]. Unfortunately, the link has expired. It will become quite obvious upon seeing their "contribution history" that are meat puppets. Both accounts have repeatedly disrupted the NYU-Poly article in the past. In fact, I created this account to counter vandalism against the NYU-Poly article. Although I haven't broken any law, I still agree to your proposal. And I would request you to please watch the NYU-Poly and related articles in the meantime. I don't think that 72Dino and Marco Guzman, Jr would take a long to begin to change colors again. 72Dino is not a particular vandal, but is a meat puppet. Marco Guzman, Jr and his sock Dabackgammonator work to promote California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, even if that requires commiting vandalism. Multiple accounts are allowed in Wikipedia. Sockpuppetry case is for protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. Unfortunately, sockpuppetry case is being used for the opposite purpose here.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2012 (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).

Pablo.morales.la.bomba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

You have agreed to take the offer; this means you do not edit at all for six months, when you can post another unblock request which we will consider. Making unjustified accusations of sockpuppetry does not help you; Dabackgammonator changed to Marco Guzman, Jr in January 2010. He announced the fact on his page, and the edits do not overlap. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:56, 5 December 2012 (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.

The link to the Wayback Machine works fine, and it links to an article in the Cal Poly Pomona school newspaper that as a student Marco started the CPP WikiProject. And per the terms of the standard offer, "back very soon" will not be at least for six months. 72Dino (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This new link also clearly states that "Guzman created the Cal Poly Wiki Project to help promote and distinguish Cal Poly Pomona from other Universities also featured on Wikipedia.org."--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has nothing to do with your own behavior on Wikipedia, which is the reason you have been repeatedly blocked and denied unblocks. 72Dino (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was also written over four years ago, it's not a direct quote, and doesn't state that I'm paid employee of the university. It's what the author of the article (Stacey Olivas) thought the CPP WikiProject was, wrongly, about. I stand by my direct quotes published on the article (those not taken out of context), but cannot do so for everything Ms. Olivas wrote and interpreted. To summarize on the phony accusations you have made:
1. I'm not a sockpuppet of User:Dabackgammonator or vice versa. It was my old account that's been inactive since Jan. 2010 as pointed out by User:Anthony Bradbury.
2. User:72Dino and I are not affiliated in any way or form.
3. I'm not a paid employee of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona)
-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The offer which you have accepted means no editing at all, including on this page, for six months, after which you can post an unblock request. If you are unable to comply with this I will deny you access to this page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit summary one of his socks had already stated that he'd be "...out from Wiki for at least 1 year. I promise". I hope this time around he stays true to his word. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the standard offer has already been violated here. 72Dino (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000). Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. - Mifter (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pablo.morales.la.bomba&oldid=1141967233"