User talk:AitMazigh

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:60D0:5E55:B29D:8875 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Moroccanoil. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a administrator? AitMazigh (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: apparently, your warning wasn't enough of a deterrent. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from commenting here I have no idea who you are. AitMazigh (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP address data

I was going to reply to your comment[1] at the ANI noticeboard, but as it's a big off topic I thought I would put it here. IP addresses aren't as anonymous as people think. Each one has WHOIS information attached to it, such as this for the reported IP. So knowledge that the IP 'cable internet customer' is not anything untoward.
To answer your comment above, Bbb23 is an admin, so I would listen to what they say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. AitMazigh (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve literally made zero edits this is literal slander show me one instance of making an edit. AitMazigh (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have made no edits to a page let alone disruptive edits can a admin clarify what disruptive edit I made.

Decline reason:

Special:Contributions/AitMazigh shows numerous edits. That's not getting in to your abuse of multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 22:03, 31 May 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.

Unblock request 2

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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure how to respond to the previous unblock request so I’m making another request, can you clarify what constitutes an edit is it a page edit or are replies edits as well secondly I only had one other account which I forgot the password to so I made this account can you elaborate on what you mean by abuse is it considered abuse to make a new account if you forgot the password and had no email set on your previous account?

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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 31 May 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.

Your first edit was "ban this fool", "who does this imbecile think he’s fooling". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 3

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for resulting to calling that individual a fool and I take that statement back nonetheless the individual in question was deleting and altering sources on the moroccanoil page which was inconsistent with Wikipedia rules as other users pointed out. I’m a new editor still unfamiliar with the nuances of these rules and will not insult any other user if unblocked. AitMazigh (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You shouldn't need to know any rules to know that personal attacks and insults are not permitted, that's just basic courtesy. In any event, setting that aside, I'm concerned about your your accusation of bad faith against another user for which you did not provide any evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Please see WP:AGF. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 14 June 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.

Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other username or identity? (Answering "yes" to this does not necessarily mean you have to stay blocked.) City of Silver 02:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited a Wikipedia page, no. I did create a topic in the talk section under the ibnmazigh account which I no longer have access to as I forgot the password and I never attached a email to that account so I have no way of recovering that account hence why I made a new account. AitMazigh (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the first time you've admitted to using more than one account here? City of Silver 02:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked if I used more than one account so presumably the answer would be yes. AitMazigh (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement I wanted to add this ip user 69.127.244.66 who made actual page edits which were racist and insulted several users in the talk tab was given a 72 hour block. In my case I made no page edit I did call someone a fool which I apologize for but a indefinite block is ludicrous for a first time offender who is obviously not acting in a disrupting demeanor other than the insult which I regret I added to the discussion which seemingly has been solved in my favor. AitMazigh (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 4

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for any insulting or rhetorical remarks I made with no evidence, with that being said the user was repeatedly vandalizing the page and removing citations and information with no reason or basis. If you look at the entire context of the chat I wasn’t the only one raising objection to what he was doing, although I might’ve come across as arguing in bad faith that was not my intention. In any case I apologize for those comments and if I am unblocked I will be more mindful in the future when engaging with users in the talk sections. I would also like to address the sockpuppet allegation against me which is completely false and frankly baseless, I’ve never hidden the fact that I technically have two Wikipedia accounts. I’ve never accessed my previous account while utilizing this account, as I created this account for the sole reason that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I’ve forgotten the password. So I don’t know how that could be called sockpuppeting. AitMazigh (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your claim regarding a lost password for this account is validated by the technical evidence, but your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is incompatible with this project. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 27 August 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.

Unblock request 5

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).

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

Request reason:

I’ve apologized multiple times and I’ve said I won’t make the same mistake again, am I not eligible for a second chance. This is literally my first ban, am I not able to make mistakes and learn from them. The user who was vandalizing a page was never banned, and I’m banned indefinitely as a new editor for making comments on the talk section I didn’t know I couldn’t make. I’m glad you’ve at least seen that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I lost the password, but why am I still flagged as a sock puppet and why was checkuser used on my account in the first place, does my privacy not matter? I feel like I’m being treated very unfairly as a new editor, I was ignorant of the rules it’s been more then two months I’ve read the rules and I won’t make the same mistake again. I hope I’m given a second chance.AitMazigh (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 21 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.

AitMazigh (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 6

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I apologize and I won’t make the same mistake again, I would like to be eligible for a second chance if possible. This is my first ban on this important website, I would like to be able to learn from this situation and I believe I will not make the same mistake again. I’m banned indefinitely as a new editor for making comments on the talk section I didn’t know I couldn’t make, unfortunately that’s irrelevant and I was ignorant and that’s no fault but my own. I assure you I won’t make this same mistake again, I believe my background which is northwest African could aid this website in adding northwest African tribes pages most of which are already on French Wikipedia among other things such as making points respectfully and according to the rules in the talk sections of primarily northwest African affiliated pages if I have any sources to share. I’m glad you’ve at least seen that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I lost the password. I was ignorant of the rules it’s been more than four months I’ve read the rules regarding baseless accusations and I won’t make the same mistake again. I hope I’m given a second chance.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I apologize and I won’t make the same mistake again, I would like to be eligible for a second chance if possible. This is my first ban on this important website, I would like to be able to learn from this situation and I believe I will not make the same mistake again. I’m banned indefinitely as a new editor for making comments on the talk section I didn’t know I couldn’t make, unfortunately that’s irrelevant and I was ignorant and that’s no fault but my own. I assure you I won’t make this same mistake again, I believe my background which is northwest African could aid this website in adding northwest African tribes pages most of which are already on French Wikipedia among other things such as making points respectfully and according to the rules in the talk sections of primarily northwest African affiliated pages if I have any sources to share. I’m glad you’ve at least seen that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I lost the password. I was ignorant of the rules it’s been more than four months I’ve read the rules regarding baseless accusations and I won’t make the same mistake again. I hope I’m given a second chance. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I apologize and I won’t make the same mistake again, I would like to be eligible for a second chance if possible. This is my first ban on this important website, I would like to be able to learn from this situation and I believe I will not make the same mistake again. I’m banned indefinitely as a new editor for making comments on the talk section I didn’t know I couldn’t make, unfortunately that’s irrelevant and I was ignorant and that’s no fault but my own. I assure you I won’t make this same mistake again, I believe my background which is northwest African could aid this website in adding northwest African tribes pages most of which are already on French Wikipedia among other things such as making points respectfully and according to the rules in the talk sections of primarily northwest African affiliated pages if I have any sources to share. I’m glad you’ve at least seen that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I lost the password. I was ignorant of the rules it’s been more than four months I’ve read the rules regarding baseless accusations and I won’t make the same mistake again. I hope I’m given a second chance. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I apologize and I won’t make the same mistake again, I would like to be eligible for a second chance if possible. This is my first ban on this important website, I would like to be able to learn from this situation and I believe I will not make the same mistake again. I’m banned indefinitely as a new editor for making comments on the talk section I didn’t know I couldn’t make, unfortunately that’s irrelevant and I was ignorant and that’s no fault but my own. I assure you I won’t make this same mistake again, I believe my background which is northwest African could aid this website in adding northwest African tribes pages most of which are already on French Wikipedia among other things such as making points respectfully and according to the rules in the talk sections of primarily northwest African affiliated pages if I have any sources to share. I’m glad you’ve at least seen that my previous account is inaccessible to me as I lost the password. I was ignorant of the rules it’s been more than four months I’ve read the rules regarding baseless accusations and I won’t make the same mistake again. I hope I’m given a second chance. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

AitMazigh (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that this user be unblocked. This user could simply use a free VPN to vandalize Wikipedia, when they are making 6 unblock requests to try and make things right. Just my two cents. OnlyNano^talk 00:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you explain what is wrong with edits like Special:Diff/1226622803 and Special:Diff/1226627850, and what steps you'll take to avoid getting involved in such a manner in the future? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accused skitash in bad faith and resorted to questioning his credibility instead of being proactive in providing sources, the steps I’ll take to avoid behaving in that way if I’m unbanned, is to stick to the substance of the objection rather then resorting to adhominem attacks or questioning someones motive with no basis. AitMazigh (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]