I'm sorry, I don't think an unblocking is appropriate at this time. At minimum, this block will stand for at least 24 hours while we sort things out. --HappyCamper04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let it be that way, but I want you to know that it was User:Bunchofgrapes that started all this by nominated exicornt to be deleted. Now he blocks me because in his opinion, mentioning the word in wikipedia is a crime. Eddie 04:48, 25 May, 2006 (UTC)
The User That Blocked Me
The Bunchofgrapes|user that blocked me has caused me a lot of suffering on this site. We had a fight over a word that he nominated for deletion months ago. He hates the word so much that he suggested that any mention or inclusion of this word be consider vandalism.
I posted an {{unblock}}
In any case I will wait 24 hours and see if my request gets fulfilled.
Any user with sysop right can email me and we can talk outside of WP.
I'm letting the block stand for now - I'm writing a response to this, so it will take a bit of time for that. I have this page on my watchlist. I can't guarantee that I can respond immediately, but I will visit it periodically. --HappyCamper05:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the first user who originally confronted Eddie, and asked him many times to stop what he was doing, I support this block. Eddie has had many chances to reform, and instead has deliberately chosen to disrupt Wikipedia instead of becoming a valuable contributor to rail-related articles. I'm sorry Eddie, I wish things had turned out differently, but these choices belong to you and you alone, and you have chosen to be a vandal instead of a Wikipedian. I hope in the future you will decide to truly change your ways. Until that time, take care. —Viriditas | Talk06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A response
This is in response to this followup post. I'm assuming the IP address is yours. Yes, I can see that Bunchofgrapes was the nominator for that article, and was also involved with your recent indefinite block. Perhaps from your perspective, that particular pair of actions appears to be "unfair" or "unethical". I don't know how to change this perspective to alleviate the problem, other than to lift the original block, and replace it with an identical one of my own. At the moment, this seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. Now, there is some discussion about it here and here (near the bottom), so ultimately, the block will be subordinate to the opinion expressed there.
At minimum, I'm sure you recognize that some of your actions on Wikipedia of late have been less than productive - there is CheckUser evidence to substantiate this, for example, see 1 and 2. I would characterize this sort of behaviour as somewhat chronic (considering the AfD was months ago), and unfortunately, your recent use of Wikipedia's resources inclines on the side which does not support the case for you to be unblocked readily.
At the moment, what I can do for you is the following: I will keep this page on my watchlist for a little bit, so if you wish to respond to this, you are more than welcome to. I can't guarantee that I will respond immediately since I have other priorities to attend to, but I will visit this page periodically, at least for the next little bit. Based on my experience here, if you want to contribute more to this project, one option is to start over from another account, and preferably one that would distance itself from the terminology you wanted to introduce to Wikipedia. Up to this point, it simply has not been substantiated to an encyclopedic level which satisfies the community at large. Perhaps you have a differing opinion on the matter, and perhaps the system may be blind towards your wisdom. However, the negative associations with that word have been exacerbated now, and I imagine it to be rather difficult to overturn that sentiment at large.
If you do choose to make another account, it would be quite possible for other administrators to detect this, and based on current policy, I imagine there would be an inclination to block any additional accounts you might make. Should and when that happen, we'll talk more about it then. In the meantime, it would probably be a healthy thing to refrain from editing a little bit. Some of your actions today have upset a number of things, and it is in your interest to wait a little bit longer so that more people would be willing to listen and attend to your concerns. We'll see how things unfold. I hope this helps. --HappyCamper05:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what sort of resolution you wish to achieve - do you simply want to continue editing from your old account? As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be a problem. However, especially after today, I don't think the community is quite as open to trusting you just yet. My suggestion is to wait at least a little bit before requesting an unblocking. --HappyCamper07:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this block is that it originally came from a user that was fighting with me over the "exicornt" term. He hates the word, anytime i mention it, he calls me a "vandal". Im not here to mess up wikipedia pages.
Yes, I would like to be able to edit using this username. While I don't edit often, I doubt trying to post a word that's hated by another user merits being blocked indefinately by that very same user. However, I will wait a few days before I tag here with an {{unblock}} request. -- Eddie (email) 07:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't request an unblock, Eddie. It just clutters up the backlog. Your case has been agreed on by at least five admins at last count (see WP:ANI), and the CheckUser evidence is hard to disprove. You will not be unblocked, at least not in the near future. Perhaps you might like to try in a month, but not in a few days. Also, please stop editing from IPs, otherwise your unblock request in the future may be compromised by accusations of block evasion. NSLE(T+C) at 07:43 UTC (2006-05-26)
Response to your Email:
Eddie: No. Stop being silly. I haven't made the decision to block you alone by any means, as you know. This isn't about rivalry, or a content dispute, and if you genuinely don't understand that, I'm sorry. Finally, threatening continuing vandalization if we don't unblock you is not a negotiation tactic that has ever gotten anyone unblocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:HenryBigg.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HenryBigg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chillum05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate it. I also would like to thank TML for His effort in trying to resolve this issue in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I finally feel like I am getting somewhere after nearly three years of frustration.
Though I'm not quite ready to use the {{unblock}} template, I will address the three reasons You mentioned above:
Vandalism: While it's true I exausted everyone's patience back in 2006 for trying to recreate an articdle about a word I coined, I soon gave up trying to repost it. As for the recent incidents, that was not Me (I cannot prove it, but I can tell You I don't edit wikiquote or wikinews, and the deleted content contained a lot of vulgar language, and simply don't talk that way)
Sockpuppetry: The excessive number of accounts I had were created out of frustration and a few of them were attempts to return as a constructive user. See Voltron's edit history. I wasn't trying to come back and do all the stuff I did back in 2006. I've tried a few times to contact arbcom by email but no one responded and I felt that trying to email arbcom was getting no results.
Harassment: After a few months, I've emailed and apologized to the user who I argued with. He's accepted the apology and I have not contacted or interacted with Him ever since. Incidently, He was the user that started the AFD discussion[2]. He also originally blocked Me during the ANI discussion after Essjay made His claim [3] before I had a chance to reply. After I argued, I was unblocked and then immediately reblocked by user HappyCamper.
I am open to Email, but I would love to have this resolved on site (either on this page or ANI). The reason is that I want this to be discussed in a way so that I can come back under limited conditions that everybody agrees on. I know I still have some opponents who would never trust Me ever a bit and would not want to see Me return, but I don't think a permanent injunction from editing makes sense because I tried to recreate a rejected article numerous times. After all, what usually happens to such a page? It is blacklisted. The article title "Exicornt" is blacklisted[4] (i.e. protected indefinitely from creation) and only an admin can create an article with that name. Therefore -- issues aside -- I can assure You that I won't return as the person I was in 2006. I hope everyone understands that. Eddie, Monday April 202009 at 00:07 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EddieSegoura. This is to notify you that your request for a ban appeal has been deferred to the Wikipedia Community and is now (or will shortly be) posted at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal. To permit you to respond to comments and questions posted in that discussion, the section below has been transcluded onto that page. Any comment you make in the section below, above the <noinclude> tag, will appear on AN for other users to see. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them below or email me at hersfoldwikigmail.com.
This section is transcluded from EddieSegoura's talk page to permit him to comment in this discussion. Please make comments or questions directed to EddieSegoura in the section above. Thank you. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to thank those who supported my appeal. I didn't expect many to support giving Me the clean slate I've been trying to attain. Of course, I understand Sarah's concerns. And yes, I see that I have some opposition to My return (users Friday and EdJohnston). The stuff back in 2006 I did was out of frustration. Being blocked indef in itself was hard enough, but I couldn't take the fact that it was the very same user who nominated [1] my article for deletion. Everything I did after that was out of frustration. But a couple of months after the block, I finally let it go. I felt that if the word has become so infamous and rejected their is no reason to further waist My time. That was then. I doubt that I would make any further attempts to repost anything related to the article that led to me being in this position.
That being said, I cannot go back in time and change history. All I can say is that I truly regret it. I want to come back a different person.
As for my run-ins with bunchofgrapes, I decided to email an apology to him and he accepted it (I don't know if I still have his response, but we haven't had any contacted ever since and He hasn't edited actively). So if I'm banned for harassment, then the issue itself is resolved in respect to that person.
Those issues aside, If I am allowed to come back, their would be no reason to edit with another account beside this one. That addresses the socking issue. I hope we can reach a conclusion that every agrees with. EddieSegoura05:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user that performed the check on EddieSegoure (talk·contribs) do a WHOIS on the IP the account edited on, it might beling to public computer (such as a library or internet cafe) Also I need a time frame as to whether or not the "other account" logged in immediately after EddieSegoure. If there is a substantial amount of time between the edits then I probably have nothing to do with the other editor and the only connection is the IP itself. Eddie, Friday April 242009 at 22:53 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could do that, or you could simply quit playing games, put your cards on the table and be honest. I am sure that you are right and the IP of your socks resolves to a public computer - you told me you didn't want to use New York Dreams to edit from your home computer and the checkuser who originally checked the NYD account told me that if it was you, you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. So I'm quite sure you've been very carefully segregating your accounts. I don't want to oppose your return to Wikipedia and I would actually like to see you given another chance but I'm going to have to oppose this request unless you put your cards on the table and identify the accounts you've been using so they can be blocked (after all, you won't need them anymore, right?). You told me that you couldn't help yourself when it came to Wikipedia, that you were addicted to the site and couldn't stop editing, so I don't believe for a second that you haven't been editing over the last year and don't have any socks at present and I'm extremely disappointed that you are trying to side-step being honest with the community. Surely after being banned for all this time and finally having a realistic opportunity to be allowed to return legitimately, it is worth being honest and transparent? Please answer these questions: have you been editing over the last 6 months? What unblocked accounts do you have access to? Thanks. Sarah07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to (I'd rather do it offsite) but we need to draw a line between the one that actually belong to Me and the one You think belong to Me. Looking at the list of accounts that were tagged there are a couple that I know don't belong to Me. Some don't even have edits. Frankly, I kinda wonder how You managed to find out about My NYD account. I would prefer we discussed by Email, because I need to know who and why You're targeting some editor and why You suspect Me of being that person. Eddie, Saturday April 252009 at 10:48 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but I can explain it. I can tell you that I did user the IP user:38.109.64.162 to post My appeal. A WHOIS clearly states is a Library IP. Now if some other editor happens to edit from that IP in the future, You'd natually assume all future activity would belong to Me, right? That's why I need to know EddieSegoure's last IP so I can determine if it's public or not. Eddie, Saturday April 252009 at 20:18 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any benefit in you answering my questions off-site. These are reasonable questions which the community deserves honest answers to. It should be straightforward to answer those two questions - either you have been editing over the last six months or you haven't, either you have currently active socks or you don't. I think the community deserves an honest and straightforward answer here on this page or your request should be declined. I found the NYD account by recognising your writing style - simple as that. Sarah10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Keegan: I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user (Voltron, NewYorkDreams, etc.). Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal. It's clear most of the oppose users are people that have known Me in the past. It's clear to Me can't change their minds but I wish they'd stop looking at Me as a gangster that who likes to drive people crazy and start looking at Me like a human being. I'll be happy to discuss any recent activity but You can't assume everything You suspect is true. If You'd ask, "Eddie does Account X belong to You" and I say "No", You'd prolly insist I'm lying and that I really own it anyway. Therefore we need to draw a line between what I actually did and what You believe I did. This is especially important because if I am unblocked and during the probation period You suspect that another account is Mine, You'll assume it actually is and I'll be back here singing the blues. I'm happy that I finally have an opportunity to try and convince the community — as a whole — that I'm not the person I used to be. I can't let it slip up because of some suspicion that I can't clear up. I know I'll have a short leash for the first few months but I want to make it clear that I am trying to come back so I can drive people crazy. I'm trying to come back so I can have something productive to do with My time. Yes, I've had a shaky past, but it doesn't mean I can't change right now.Eddie, Saturday April 252009 at 11:13 AM
I appreciate you taking your time to read my comments and reply to them.
Your activities have not been destructive, but they have been disruptive. For years. Your alternate accounts have not been hunted down as you imply on this page (particularly your response to Sarah), but I am a firm believer that a tiger can't change its stripes. I am not making a personal judgment upon you; I am a very understanding person. It is from this understanding that I do not believe that you can uphold your part of the bargain. Your socks were found because of evident patterns in your editing.
Let me see how diplomatically I can put this:
A community ban, while insulting in nature of its title, is not reflection of you as a person. It means that you (personally, as oppossed to a block) don't belong here. We don't get along with you, you don't get along with us. You still don't now. I can't see why you'd want to return to the site considering the nature of comments like my own. If you want to build an encyclopedia, you can/could have through actually changing your behavior. If you had done so, your socks would not have been found. Persistence in trying to overturn a community ban after have continued disruptive behavior will never be favorable to an unban.
If you had chosen to just make a new account and leave this be, it is a violation of the ban policy but I wouldn't care on a personal level, and would turn the other cheek. Your two years of socking and this and that is way too much drama, and it is drama of your own making.
You can respond to this, of course, but I think I've laid it all on the line regarding my opinion and it's not going to change. I do wish the best, Keegantalk08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to Your own opinion. Still, knowning their haven't been any incidents since February 2008 I feel I should get that second chance. Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 10:59 AM
The fact that their are people who support My return means that not everyone agree that I should never come back, there were few people I didn't get along with but most of the time there wasn't a problem. In fact, some are not around today. The few that do know Me have commented, and not all of them oppose. Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 11:40 AM
"I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user...Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal." - So in other words, the problem isn't with you or your behaviour and actions but rather with the editors who identified and reported your sockpuppets and the administrators who blocked them? Sarah10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way it was handled in the first place. I can not deny My past action was wrong and yes I understand spamming and harassment are serious. But Going back to the 2006 discussion, I feel I was blocked prematurely. I never had a chance to state My case. I was blocked only minutes after the discussion was started. What about Voltron? Were their any annoying incedents when I used that account? The blocking user (I don't want to even mention His name, because He Himself has history of questionable actions) had to admit in an ANI discussion that the account wasn't disruptive. After that I wrote to You and after You told Me You could not help Me further I created NYD. I don't know how who told You I had that name, but trying to convince You that I don't have hundreds unblocked unused accounts won't be easy.
Re, I am writing about the discussion back in 2006, the original discussion makes no initial proposal for banning, just a block. Since the policy clearely distinguishes the two, I felt the original block (and protecting of my talk page) was too extreme. The protection especially hurt because I had no way to resolve it without making more accounts. Like I said above, emails to the arbcom were not answered and I felt I was being ignored. I feel appalled that people like You could entertain thoughts of Me making plans to go back to My old self and (secretly) make hundreds of accounts. I still don't know who exactly You're trying to hang My face on and why You believe these belong to Me. I am going to contact ArbCom and have them decide whether or not it this should be handled on WP:RFAR or not. Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 23:43 PM
PS I got Your emails and I will respond shortly. Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 10:59 AM
The account didn't need to be disruptive, however. You were editing while under a community ban and thus under the block and ban policies the account could be blocked. Whether the blocking administrator has had problems in other areas is not really relevant and I don't think it serves your case to engage in ad hominem arguments. No one told me you were using the NYD account. I simply noticed the account on my watchlist, felt something was "not right" about it, looked at their contributions and recognised your writing style. Same goes with the Power Ranger accounts. Sarah11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Also, you cite Voltron and NewYork Dreams as examples of attempts to return to Wikipedia as a user in good standing, however while using both these accounts you were concurrently socking with disruptive accounts (eg User:Grounded into a double play and the Power Ranger accounts). Can you please address this and explain why Voltron and NYD should be considered examples of good faith attempts to become a user in good standing when it appears you were simply segregating your edits and causing disruption with other accounts. Thanks. Sarah11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, You win for NYD editing simultaniously with other accounts (when GIDP was blocked it was involved in a dispute as to whether or not a certain article should be posted) but how do You explain Voltron (I know You're going to tell Me about the account that tried to appeal on My behalf but then again why wasn't user TML — who initiated the request on WP:RFAR — suspected as an account of mine while that other one was?) Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 11:33 AM
I think I can answer part of this question for you: the other account that tried to appeal on your behalf had no other edits aside from the appeal. I, on the other hand, have a sizable amount of edits, and my edits do not resemble your editing style in a way that would closely link my account to yours. (BTW, I stated on the original inquiry that "I have no relation to this user" - and I reaffirm that statement, as I have nothing to hide regarding this issue.) TML (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attempt to close the discussion on WP:AN. Just because it ended up at the top of the page and the vote tally is about 50/50 (and I am including the ones before Sarahs comments) that doesn't mean it should be closed. I call on the ArbCom to make a decision as to whether I should have them deal with this by email or if this discussion should continue on WP:AN.
I also noticed that VirtualSteve is retracting his support and there are still people who are entertaining thoughts that I plans to create and use more account do what got Me into this to begin with. That being said, and given the fact that the ArbCom is privyy to checking IPs I am making a request to check the following:
User:EddieSegoure's last IP (Sarah said it was checked so it should be in the log) for any recent activity. This IP belongs to a wifi hotspot.
User:Malmindser's last IP if it was checked. This user was the first to appeal on My behalf and it was tagged as belonging to Me but I deny this given the language used.
User:PuzzleSolver - Made a few edits, but after the block of NYD I felt it was much safer to edit anon since their is no point in making further accounts only to have them blocked. I obviously am going to have to check edit histories and articles but if You feel any edits from these IPs raise any red flags, feel free to ask any questions. Eddie, Sunday April 262009 at 23:43 PM
as we approach a meetup in NY on Sunday, I will be attending.
I believe Sarah may have suspected this account back in the April discussion. I am requesting this account's IP be double-checked. User:DougsTech edited RFAs and talk pages, and Sarah may have believed that I was using this account all along and felt betrayed stating I might have a many more secret accounts waiting to edit evasively. I will make it clear that this account does not belong to Me. Eddie, Friday July 32009 at 21:50 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's never even occurred to me that you might be Doug. Instead of guessing what I think or suspect, why not just come clean and be honest? I quite like you as a person and I would support giving you a second chance if you were open, honest and transparent and stopped being evasive, and were willing to follow the rules here. Sarah03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that You might be suspecting someone in good standing but it might not belong to Me at all. If You were indeed suspecting that name and I said "no" You'd oppose My return and tell the community I'm lying, just as ex-Admin Ryulong suspected Malmindsir using the so-called "duck test". Aside from the fast the account was new, there is no other way to prove it belongs to Me at all. You wrote to Me You'd like the account You suspect I'm using to be blocked. Instead, let's discuss by email why Your suspected account is Mine. After all when You confronted Me back in 2007 with the NYD account you suspect based on "writing style" so I don't want You linking Me to someone else based solely on suggestive behaviour and I'd hate to add another user to the long list of suspected "socks" — some of which I know are not Mine. Eddie, Sunday July 52009 at 13:24 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EddieSegoura Ban Appeal
Hello Eddie. As you know, your ban appeal is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura. I've specified my concern there and similar to BusterD, would welcome your comments (please take this as a direct invitation for you to address my concerns, though you are not obliged to obviously). You may wish to make other comments for the community to consider at the ban appeal too which this section may be helpful for, so hopefully someone will arrange to transclude this section of your talk page there soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
> On March 19, 2015 at 1:39 AM Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On March 18, 2015 11:34, EddieSegoura wrote:
> > I am appealing this: 1. the ban was a result a discussion on ani. While no ban was explicitly proposed, I was initially indeffed by an involved admin who I've apologized to in the past. I have no intent of attempting to post the neologism in the future. 2. consensus can change over the years and the editors who knew me back in 2006 and 2009 when an appeal was made on my behalf are probably no longer active.
Hi Eddie:
BASC has received your appeal and thinks the best route forward is for us to put it to the community. This would be along the lines of the 2009 appeal, which we facilitated for you. With that in mind, have you anything you wish to add to the above so it can be used as your public statement? Once we get your respone, we can press ahead.
For BASC,
Roger Davies
My reply: Sorry it took me time to reply. I thought I had changed my email address to EddieSegoura@gmail.com (I will change the account Email so it goes there), and I would like you to send your reply to that email address.
As for the public statement I would like to add that the reason I was banned back in 2006 was for promoting and persistantly trying to create an article a non-existant word ("Exicornt", which is blacklisted off Wikipedia) and disruption on Wiktionary. I haven't edited Wiktionary in years and have no interest in editing that site further. As for accounts I may have, I still have the unblocked sockpuppets user:PrimaDoll and user:PuzzleSolver. I never logged into them and they were never blocked.
Roger Davies replied:
Hi Eddie:
I've safely received your appeal; I'll post it at the administrators' noticeboard shortly. From this point on, it should only take a day or two to resolve.
Eddie Segoura <eddiesegoura@gmail.com>
8:01 AM (7 hours ago)
to RogerMy 2nd reply: Thanks. I did post a few images from a wiki meetup on my talk page which I uploaded to commons.
I met arbiter DGG (David) and other long-time editors there.
Sent from my iPhone
End of email
If you're concerned about any "sockpuppet" accounts I may have used over recent years, I will confirm WikiBaseballFan (talk·contribs) as Mine. I used this account to post baseball schedules and upload logos, things You can't do as an anon user. WBF was never blocked and I have not used it in months. This account's last edit was in August 2014 in which I uploaded and cited a World Series logo Eddie, Sunday May 172015 at 7:50 pm
You say that you used WikiBaseballFan to make edits that "you can't do as an anon user". Does this mean that you have been editing as an IP? Sarah03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I logged into WBF when I needed to upload an image (which cannot be done with an IP). Otherwise I edited with an IP when the article is unprotected.
To be honest with you, I have never considered the ban on My username as a legitimate one. Bans handed down by the ArbCom are more legitimate because at least those editors that got banned were given due process. In My case, someone wrote about Me on WP:ANI and I was indeffed before I had a chance to address any concerns in that discussion. The sockuppetry happened because I was frustrated with the editors trying to keep Me away from the site. I thought to Myself that to probably over 90% of the editors that edit just articles would not mind if I edited Myself. Therefore I never respected this. I'm just trying to come back and be Myself. But if You still feel I should not be editing anymore, or if You feel I'm still socking and harassing other editors now, then really I would like to have nothing to do with You. Eddie03:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are harassing people, but I do think you are still editing (either with other accounts or IP addresses) because, as you say yourself, you don't recognize the ban as legitimate. Sarah04:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been using IPs to edit because for the most part the article I'm editing is open to anons and there is no need to log in with a username. Eddie05:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: Reading the appeals and your support on WP:AN, I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban (though I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last). The work I intend to do would be along the lines of User:WikiBaseballFan's contributions. The purpose of this appeal is not so I can edit but to put an end to a 9-year ordeal. I was blocked back in May 2006 and it's almost 9 years to the day. Eddie, Tuesday May 192015 at 5:00 am
@HiDrNick: I fully understand I'll be re-banned if I engage in the behaviour that lead Me to this mess back in 2006. That is: making more sockpuppets harassing other users again.
@Stephen G. Brown: I stated in My letter to BASC above that I was banned for bothering people on wiktionary. If I didn't apologise to them then, I apologise to them now (though it's prolly too late for that now and the users won't accept any apologies, if you can email a list of names to those who have the battle scars, I'd appreciate it). I also stated I haven't editing in Wiktionary over the past 6 years and no intent on editing wiktionary, just Wikipedia. --Eddie
@Sarah: I'm not surprised in the least by Sarah opposing (the proven sock stuff was from 2005-2009, and Sarah obviously took it very personally). I really want to have nothing further to do with Sarah and I'm sorry for the trouble I caused her. I have a feeling that She probably suspects a current undisclosed user behaving like Me and that I'm still filling the site with disruptive sockpuppets. -- Eddie
If anyone is concerned
I see the appeal process is going well so far as I have mostly positive support. However I also understand that all editors that participated in the failed 2009 appeal have been notified and may still be inclined to oppose. I would like it if Email Me if You have any questions, though I would be willing to answer them here on My talk page. Eddie, Monday May 182015 at 01:26 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie, I'd rather not e-mail you. If you have more to contribute to the AN discussion than the rather basic unblock request Roger Davis put there from you, you can say it here, and somebody will move it to AN for you. Bishonen | talk10:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I'm just watching the progress right now. I recall that I did reconcile with user:Bunchofgrapes and He is no longer committed to editing as much as He did when He joined back in 2005. We clashed back in 2006, but I did apologise to BoG. I never bothered Him so much to make Him lose interest in editing Wikipedia. Eddie, Monday May 182015 at 13:35 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen:, I said I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban, but this is suggestive. I also said I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last. They have the final descision on my topic bans and restrictions and how long I would stick to just one account. Eddie16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How long? How long? Eddie, you're supposed to stick to one account all of the time, no dickering about "how long". Willingness doesn't come into it. Socking was a major part of what you were indeffed for and you still don't understand that? Unbelievable. Bishonen | talk17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Do You really believe I'm going to start making even more accounts if I get this unblocked?
Bishonen, You are more then welcome to post my comments on the WP:AN discussion since I still can't edit outside this talkpage. My comments and replies to various supports and opposes can be found here. Eddie17:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Pledge
Judging from all the feedback, I think I might have that 2nd chance. Only four editors have opposed the appeal. I have to assume the opposition is out of concern that I'll eventually relapse into edit warring, harassment and sockpuppetry. I am pledging now to refrain from this activity. I understand that if I engage in this behaviour then I'll be blocked again and never be able to edit with My name. I could easily be editing with the sock puppets that I have disclosed, but I made a serious effort to get My name off the banlist because I regret My past behaviour and intend to edit Wikipedia seriously and responsibly. Eddie
Regarding closure and conditions
@Callanecc:@Roger Davies: I am willing to agree with the one account restriction (I'd prefer a timeframe up to a year, but if consensus is indef, I'll take it). I'll also agree to the proposed topic bans which entail not being allowed to edit rail-related articles. Eddie05:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie, I'm going to be blunt here to clear something up given I'm probably going to be the one assessing the consensus. It doesn't matter what you are willing to accept, the community is discussing it's conditions for allowing you to return. If you don't accept them, you don't get unbanned (or get very quickly rebanned if you don't comply with them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I am watching the process unfold and I understand a one-account condition is an inevitable condition. I take whatever comes to Me at this point. Eddie16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Look, EddieSegoura came back, your wish came true! Do you remember him? By the way, Eddie, I remember when you tried running for adminship, and your request for adminship failed badly. Welcome back good ole pal. I hope you become a valued contributor this time, and not a vandal. 172.56.6.170 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds fair enough, I may appeal these down the road, but for now, thanks. It's a small price to pay for rejoining the community, but it beats editing with a chip on Your shoulder. Eddie06:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:2013WSLogo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:2014WorldSeries.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The only pronouns that should be capitalized in the middle of a sentence are "I" and "He," and the latter should only be capitalized when referring to God. Otherwise, they should not be capitalized at all. 24.249.49.231 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
December 2015
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Florence Finch, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationals–Mets rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:2016WorldSeriesLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
no references to support this as a topic in need of an independent article. Are we to expect a similar article for every pairing of teams? This article currently exists only to list when the teams play each other, something that can be done much better by a single article listing all of the games (which already exists). As a result this article is irrelevant, and is unlikely to be visited by readers anyway.
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.
Hello, EddieSegoura. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:2017WorldSeries.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello EddieSegoura! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)
For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.
Hello, EddieSegoura. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi EddieSegoura. Non-free content such as File:2018 world series.png cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. The file has been previously removed a number of times, but perhaps you didn't notice the edit summmarys left explaining why. Please don't re-add this file to the draft again until after the draft has been approved as an article. If as it seems here to be worried about the file becoming an orphan, you should understand that it still will be an orphan even if you keep re-adding it to the draft and it will still be deleted per WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#7; the only way to de-orphan the file would be to find a policy-compliant use for it in an exisitng article.
If by chance the file is deleted before either the draft is approved or you are able to find another policy-compliant use for it, then don't panic. Deleted files aren't gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date per WP:REFUND once their issues have been sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:2018 world series.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2018 world series.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, EddieSegoura. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
2017 World Series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
