Jump to content

User talk:220.255.188.227

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

June 2024[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal my recent block for alleged block evasion. I acknowledge that I have previously been blocked under the usernames AirbusA350500 and Jacobchoi20. The third block was an autoblock triggered automatically, and the fourth block is the current one I am experiencing. Currently, I am writing this appeal as an IP user.

Despite considerable efforts and patience from both my company and myself, interactions with the group of administrators have been fraught with frustration. I must emphasize that my intention has never been to evade blocks or to disrupt the community. While I understand the rationale behind my previous blocks, I have not engaged in any actions to circumvent these restrictions. My objective remains to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

I respect the guidelines and standards of Wikipedia and am committed to adhering to them. If my actions have been misconstrued, I am willing to clarify and address any misunderstandings. I find the current situation deeply concerning, and I want to ensure that all my future contributions are in full compliance with Wikipedia's rules.

Moreover, the ongoing tension has been a source of significant stress. Both my company and I have felt extreme frustration due to the perception of unfair treatment. Nevertheless, I am ready to put these feelings aside and work towards a constructive resolution.

I am requesting a reconsideration of my block and an opportunity to prove my dedication to contributing constructively to the Wikipedia community. It is my sincere hope that we can move past these issues and work towards a more collaborative relationship.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

As per below, please use WP:UTRS to request unblock under your account name. 331dot (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2024 (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.

Your accounts had talk page access removed for repeated and constant vandalism, and quite frankly, you lied to administrators repeatedly. You should only be making appeals through WP:UTRS from your original account because your direct actions cost you the privilege of being able to use your talk page to make unblock requests. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
How did I lie? There is no way I am responsible for this. You were the one who made my life miserable. Since I did not have the intention to vandalize Wikipedia anyways, you should be more resilient in truly becoming an administrator in Wikipedia. If you do not know why I am “lying to administrators repeatedly”, you can go think about it yourself. You threatened me, and I am not going to tolerate it anyways. If you would like to repent from threatening me, please do so as quickly as possible. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
You claimed those weren't your accounts for weeks. You told a number of bizarre stories, including one about you and your colleague swapping accounts and each forgetting the password. After initially blaming your colleague for vandalism (for an account you now admit is yours), that is. In fact, you're lying in this unblock request; you literally just said "[your] intention has never been to evade blocks, but just by making this unblock request while logged out on a different IP address, you're evading your block. Again.
But, assuming good faith in at least your claim that you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia again at some point, your only answer is almost certainly WP:OFFER. Which means a minimum of six months completely away from Wikipedia with no block evasion and coming back with a much better approach towards editing. That also means taking full responsibility for your actions and behavior. I doubt six months is enough time considering your egregious violations in this case, I'd wait and least a year or two, and show evidence of long-term constructive editing and no block history on a project that you're not currently blocked from. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
My colleague and I did not swap accounts. We were on our own. But when my colleague was blocked indefinitely, I tried to log in after two weeks. Also, I tried my best, as long as my company and you group of administrators have been extremely patient with each other, and I will state once again, I am irresponsible for the alleged vandalism, sockpuppetry and block evasion, and I do not have the intention to vandalize Wikipedia (neither does my colleague) . And also, not touching Wikipedia for half a year and coming back will initially cause my company to suspend a project for that long. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
As they say, the proof in the pudding is in the eating; for someone who says they don't want to vandalize Wikipedia, you've sure done a lot of it. In any case, I have nothing more to add. I've given you the best advice I can on what is likely the only path that may someday lead to you being allowed to edit articles. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
😰😓🫡 220.255.188.227 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]
And that path that may someday lead me to editing articles positively is actually an error in the article Culture & Arts Center station (Incheon Subway). I should look into the error and think twice before fixing the error, but if someone else takes over, I will have directly no choice but to leave it and thank them for helping me, and if that person were to be you, I would probably regret this and change my mind. I will just try to comfort my colleague as well. Of course do I call this contributing positively to Wikipedia, and I had some conversations with many of my colleagues in my office (yes, they can all fit inside) which the whole group of administrators whom I do not classify as abusive anymore is not involved in, which is quite understanding if I tell you now:
My colleague told me how angry they were after they had no intention to vandalize Wikipedia and showing me their indefinite blocked screen.
I talked with him with three of my colleagues behind.
My CEO knew that this was unappreciative to the whole company.
I thought of another idea, and the next day, I went to my office and asked many of my colleagues to come too.
I wanted to say first that I was very patient the other day of the revoking of my user talk page, and how User:JJMC89 declined my unblock request on the platform for the unblock ticket request system, insisting that I still had access to my colleague's talk page.
My colleague told me that he calmed down and still wanted to contribute positively to Wikipedia, when he showed me proof that he had a good heart.
My other colleagues understood that the high amount of patients my company and you group of administrators were fraught with frustration.
All of us teamed up and tried to share that with our CEO, who is a 67-year-old man as of now.
He told us all to be patient and go to the rest area, which was only lead to by a wide elevator, which we squeezed into and made a beeline to the rest area.
I told my colleagues that my response in "The Somewhat Argument" in my user talk page was mistaken for a legal threat.
One of my other colleagues told us to lie down and reflect on this before I could even spit out another word.
We are still thinking of what we had done, and all this being said, please be patient for I would like to know how the offer page could be the correct answer for my utmost knowledge, despite the fact that I had thoroughly read it. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
None of this is helpful.
As I said, WP:OFFER is probably, at this point, your *only* path to *possibly* being unblocked in the future (and not the near future).
I have nothing more to add that will assist you, so I will not be responding to any future replies on this subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The previous response was indeed something that can tell that I acknowledge your words. The offer page was so helpful, thank you for citing me there. I had thoroughly read it and will come back in December this year/somewhere next year. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Unknown "project", unimaginable Wikipedia[edit]

I see you were all talking about a project, but I do not know what you are referring to. No wonder, User:Picard's Facepalm threatened me on their talk page, which made me extremely upset. I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list. Legal threats are not alright. I know I am still reflecting on my mistakes, which unfortunately, I do not know how to repent from them. We used all of our might to build up our aircraft, which we started on since about 46 years ago, and yet, you are still threatening me instead of telling me to repent from my mistakes in Wikipedia. My colleague was in charge of creating a page for the aircraft. Frankly, after some notifications, they got indefinitely blocked, but forgot their password, and they thought they had nothing to do with appealing, since they did not know that they still had editing access to their talk page. Now, because of this, this could be considered permanently logging out. At least my CEO spent a lot of money to get us the best reflection materials. We appreciate his efforts to find us the best workplace environment. Despite this being the maximum, we all get threatened (all 20,000 of us) , and this cannot help. It is crucial for us to get rid of legal threats, and introduce a peaceful environment around Wikipedia and other sites. My company is threat-free. Threat victims ought to shield themselves from the threat, and that is what we are doing right now, shielding ourselves. We dislike getting reprimanded for competing the A380 and the 747. We even tried to build some fighter jets, so please do not make legal threats around the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is to be a safe encyclopedia with no harmful remarks, and my company has no responsibility in making legal threats. Please, let me have some peace and let me proceed with developing the -10 version of our creations. We all had to discontinue the manufacture of the -250 version of the creation because American Airlines disliked aircraft that are too large. Unless you have further punishments to spit, please do so, and I will try my best to reflect that. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I really do not understand how I am getting dragged back into this - and I do not appreciate having been done so. I made it quite clear that I was done with it. I concluded my statements and interactions with you at the closing of my response to you on my talk page. If you have any questions outside of what I am going to respond with here - please see that link. The "project" you are asking about it Wikipedia as a whole. It is considered a project. Everything else you mention above has been exhaustively addressed there - and not one single threat was made there. It was only - and purely - informative and suggestive. In fact - the only person who has made any legal threats here is you - and now it looks like you have done it yet again in your most recent and otherwise incomprehensible diatribe above. For that reason alone - you should be permanently blocked under repeated violation of WP:THREAT, in my opinion. It really is the icing on the cake for the endless other issues stemming from your multiple accounts and AnonIPs.
As for how to repent - while that is the wrong word and mindset to have - I explained it in multiple comments to you as well as in my response on my talk page. Many others - including Coffee, have as well. Quite a bit of it revolves around your self-educating through the myriad of links that have been provided for you. Please go back and reference all of that material.
Not sure what you are referring to about "your creations" - perhaps your company is trying to make aircraft? If so - I wish you luck and success. In either case - as I have mentioned repeatedly before: Your company's job and your job is not to edit Wikipedia. Especially if it is about something your company is otherwise responsible for. Again, see WP:COI.
Now, and for the last time - I am done with this mess. Do not drag me into it again. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
No threat was made by Picard's Facepalm.
The rest is almost impossible to comprehend, but I am going to post to ANI because it appears that "I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list," resembles a threat. At the very least, the only purpose of the talk page for a blocked user is to productively discuss their block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

We are not tasked to edit war. I have thoroughly read the comment. We are tasked to share our creations. Whatsoever, you may not be interested, but I am still fine with that. It does not mean that you can sign off with a decline. I did not threaten either. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure what any of this means.
In any case, you are blocked and have had talk page access removed on multiple accounts now. If you want to be unblocked, you need to follow WP:UTRS from one of the blocked accounts, though it's probably very unlikely you will be successful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I have translated all this. For your information, my company is Korean-based, and by translating this, I will try that. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Also note that if you decide to go the WP:OFFER route, you've committed several more acts of block evasion with these edits. As I said before, without you making a drastic change in approach, I cannot imagine you ever being unblocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I know, I have thoroughly read it. Also, please do not use too perfect English vocabulary as there may be faults on translating this. I will try to find out what "drastic" means when I am free, and I will try to evaluate what you were trying to tell me. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
You can find out what I was threatened by here. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
There's nothing in there that's remotely a threat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
@Coffee, I will tell you something, there is a part where they insisted that if there were a WP with a title about something about a horse, it would have my photo on the top information box. I am not a horse or any other animal. I am a person who is an employee of that aerospace company. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
That's not what that means in English at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
There was no threat made by me towards you. None at all. What I said was if there were a wiki page for "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" it would have your image on it. That phrase is an idiom - or wording to create an example. The point of that example is you have been hand-held and led by numerous people to the reasons why there have been problems, reversions, reports and blocks with regards to your edits, and the things you need to read, understand and do in order to stop these things from happening. Unfortunately you have not taken the multiple opportunities give to you in order to rectify the situation. That is as close to a parallel as can be drawn to the situation: You have been led to the water of rectification for the situation you have put yourself into - but you have refused to drink any of it. Until you do - the situation will not even begin to resolve.
With your new admission above for working for "that" aerospace company (which one?) - it is again apparent that you are likely to have a conflict of interest in some of the edits you have been trying to make. Once again please remember that editing Wikipedia is NOT your job - no matter what your boss says. Please ensure both you and they read WP:COI.
And for the last time - stop pulling me into this. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I will not drag you into this anymore. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Wait what?[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think this is the fifth block. I do not know how this is happening. I already have been block four times for block evasion - the first one was for evading from User:AirbusA350500, the second one was for evading from my account, User:Jacobchoi20, and the third one was an auto block for evading from an unknown user (possibly a resident in one of the towers nearest to our headquarters) , and I do not know why I am blocked for the fourth and fifth time, four months in total in both blocks. If this block expires on the 2nd of October, will there be a sixth block? Even in your opinion, AnonIPs are not permanently blocked, as it seems. 220.255.188.227 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

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 is just wasting our volunteers' time. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 13:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.255.188.227&oldid=1232390073"