User talk:Moggitello

January 2018

Hello, I'm GrapefruitSculpin. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Acura RDX, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you referenced a source cited within the article you didn't mention it in the edit summary that you didn't write and there were no updates to the "access date" fields of any source. GS ⋙ ☎ 06:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm not omnipotent. Still, whataboutism doesn't make you right. Cite your sources and don't be passive aggressive if someone calls you out for failing to do so. - GS ⋙ ☎ 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Acura RDX. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. See: diff. Falsely copied a reference used to back different data in the article, after being notified of a failure to cite a source. Clear case of sneaky vandalism. GS ⋙ ☎ 10:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Acura RDX. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "learn to use google lazy jackass instead of demanding sources" GS ⋙ ☎ 10:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Acura RDX. User is knowingly and repeatedly restoring unsourced content ([1][2][3]), making personal attacks ([4]) and committing sneaky vandalism ([5]). GS ⋙ ☎ 11:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moggitello, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GS ⋙ ☎ 12:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20396 was submitted on Jan 21, 2018 10:43:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

was no valid reason for me to have been blocked in the first place. I have not abused wikipedia nor meet the definition of a sock.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry was confirmed both technically and behaviorally. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:24, 21 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

exactly how was it ever confirmed behaviorally? no reason was ever given. creating a new username before editing does not meet the definition of a behavioral sock. Moggitello (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Hint: creating yet another account right before you made this request does not indicate a good faith attempt to work within our community guidelines. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:58, 21 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not actually interested in getting this specific username unblocked since I will never bother editing with it again outside of this specific request. What I don't appreciate is constantly being blocked, harassed and stalked due of sockpuppetry whenever I chose to edit . I kept username:Moggitello for this long a period because I wanted to edit a page which required confirmed users, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered reusing again. However creating a new username whenever I edit isn't a behavioral sock, I need to maintain my privacy and cannot use the same username over long periods of time. Accusing me of being a bad editor and attempting to permablock me to run me off Wikipedia is ridiculous. Using checkuser on me in the first place was nothing more than gaming of the system and should have never happened in the first place.Moggitello (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, so I'm not reviewing it. Note while this account remains blocked, you are not permitted to set up any other accounts. If you are caught doing so, all contributions from those accounts can be thrown away. Yamla (talk) 22:17, 21 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

need to have account unblocked if I am to continue editing wikipedia within its legal parameters. I have been perma-blocked without any sort of valid cause, creating new accounts before editing is not a behavioral sock nor does it justify a permaban.

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:35, 22 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

None of my edits have damaged Wikipedia or been disruptive enough to come anywhere close to justifying a permaban. No examples ever been provided nor do I edit in such a manner. I do not add nonfactual data to wikipedia or vandalize its articles. Creating a new account whenever I edit doesn't equate to me being an abusive behavioral sock. I would have discarded username:Moggitello but needed a confirmed account to edit the Chrysler page. So far two users with issues have gamed the system to have me permabanned. *The 2nd sock investigation was initially denied which in itself is telling.[1] *User:GrapefruitSculpin can easily locate a source [2] rather then remove information or at the very least make use of the ^{[citation needed]} tag to allow another editor the opportunity to provide a source for noncontested data. Later after gaming the system by having me permabanned he stalks my edits and removes additional factual information though he can use EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCE which does nothing beside HARM Wikipedia.[3]. Yet here I am permabanned by a user that has gamed the system even though he ACTIVELY HARMS the website. *The source I provided is valid for both years[4]. goodcarbadcar is a website written essentially if not entirely by a single person (Timothy Cain) who has sole discretion over its content. It doesn't meet the definition of a reputable source which is why I removed it.[5]. Almost certain User:GrapefruitSculpin never visited or heard of the website previously and if it's so great he would use it as a source in the Lexus LC article [6], instead he removes factual data again not using the ^{[citation needed]} tag which does nothing but HARM Wikipeida. [7]. Oh and that goodcarbadcar in error lists Lexus LC sales as 2016 instead of 2017 is an example why it isn't a valid source. *I'm actually familiar with the articles I edit and do not edit articles I have virtually no knowledge of which would be disruptive and HARM wikipeida. Here User:GrapefruitSculpin has put the Acura ZDX on his watchlist yet in utter ignorance of the Acura ZDX allows an anon to vandalize the page.[8]. *Which is why I ask why am I a being permabanned when I am not a behavioral sock or harming to Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

No one has "gamed the system" to have you blocked. Checkuser has confirmed you have multiple accounts, both technically and behaviorally. At this point I am withdrawing talk page access at this time as these repeated requests have become disruptive. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 22 January 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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20420 was submitted on Jan 24, 2018 17:46:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20429 was submitted on Jan 25, 2018 12:40:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20434 was submitted on Jan 25, 2018 15:14:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]