User talk:Nestor Lozano

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

One strike warning[change source]

Note that on the Simple English Wikipedia we have a reciprocal ban policy that you can see at WP:ONESTRIKE. That means you can be blocked at any time for being disruptive. The fact that multiple users have had to address your edits in your couple of days here is not a great sign at the moment. Only (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with your edit summaries[change source]

Be careful with your edit summaries. You undid User:Only's edit with a summary that called it a good faith edit. A good faith edit is an edit that is bad for some reason, but the editor believes it is good. The information in Only's edit did not fit that definition: he was explaining a policy, he explained it accurately, and the purpose was so that you'd understand how to avoid being blocked under its provisions. I see that there have been issues with other edit summaries of yours. If that continues, you may find yourself blocked for disruption. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely - Reciprocal block[change source]

As I stated to you on June 27, you are subject to our one strike policy due to your indefinite block on the English Wikipedia. In just the last 30 minutes, you have nominated articles for deletion that are clearly not deletion worthy (which has happened several times in your time here), reverted a valid comment on an RFB, and reverted an admin's block notice to multiple users. You are being disruptive to the Simple English Wikipedia project and, therefore, are now blocked indefinitely. Only (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements/responses[change source]

One strike exists for exactly the situation you outline. People come here to try to start over, en.wiki was using us as a dumping ground for bad editors. It caused a lot of problems here. So now we give you exactly one strike. Only warned you, he didn't have to. So ignorance isn't an excuse. I will also note that talk page use when you are blocked is only for unblock requests if you aren't making one then this "discussion" is done. Any further discussion by the blocked party will result in talk page access being removed. So if you want to request it, request it, if not we are done here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm going to issue a formal response to multiple aspects of my block here and request comments before officially appealing. I think it's important at this point for admins to know my opinion on this matter and for me to know the opinions of admins on this matter. I'm going to format this like an official community discussion at AN or ST so that each person's statements are clear and obvious. If you will, I'm preparing a block appeal in the same manner that a user would appeal a community ban. I am going to request specific comments from, @Auntof6:, @Enfcer: and @Eurodyne:, although any other user is welcome to comment. All comments should be constructive and should assume good faith.

Statement by Nestor Lozano[change source]

  • Regarding the "one-strike" rule: I am personally opposed to this rule. Just because someone is blocked on another Wikimedia project and then breaks the rules here does not necessarily mean that they are a troll. Someone could be blocked for violating polices on one project, and then comes here for a "clean start", and not be aware of the difference between polices here and on other projects. Therefore, I personally don't think that the one-strike rule is very fair.
  • Regarding the so-called "invalid" deletion discussions: At least two of the discussions I opened were not completely invalid. this nomination actually has two users agreeing with me (what a concept). Additionally, this request was closed as "keep" but Auntof6 acknowledged that my concern was valid. Therefore, I don't agree with the statement that all of my recent deletion nominations were not worthy and should not have been filed.
  • Regarding the Request for Bureuacratship: I left a good-faith oppose vote on this RFB based on some admin actions that I strongly disagreed with. The only reason why I removed "valid content" (if you even want to call it that) is because this edit and the summary that goes along with it is clearly showing an assumption of bad faith on behalf of Chrissymad, and therefore I took that as inappropriate and removed it. Notice that I specifically used the "good-faith edits" summary in my reversion. Additionally, this comment by There'sNoTime suggesting that my vote be discounted and that I'm only here to disrupt is also kind of hostile. I am here to contribute productively, but I won't accept any comments that assume bad faith on behalf of me or any other comments that are hostile against me.
  • Regarding the removal of block templates: In my opinion, none of these block templates were valid. First of all, admins shouldn't be blocking without talk page access unless the user abuses it AFTER being blocked. Just because they are an LTA does not automatically imply that they will abuse talk page access (or at least it shouldn't). Second of all, if an admin does indeed block without talk page access, they most definitely should leave a block template that points them directly to the admin email and/or mailing list, and does not mention the {{unblock}} template. Mentioning the unblock template when the user doesn't have talk page access is deceptive, and may cause the user to attempt to appeal on-wiki and then get angry when they discover that they cannot. Thirdly, there was one instance where the blocking admin didn't leave any notification of the block at all. This to me is a major no-no. On the personal non-WMF wiki that I run, I've desyopped two admins for failure to notify affected users about their actions. Notifications are essential.

Statement by Auntof6[change source]

I may or may not say something later about the validity of your block. For now, I will just say:

  • I believe you have shown bad faith by removing some sections from this page without archiving them, sections that directly or indirectly addressed your block. Removing those sections makes it harder for people to properly evaluate what you have asked.
  • Regarding this rfd: I did not say I thought your concern was valid. I said I understood it.

--Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by There'sNoTime[change source]

I'm not going to legitimise this any further than making this statement - you were checkuser blocked on the English Wikipedia, showing that you were at the very least abusing multiple accounts or accounts + IPs. Recent behaviour here suggests a continuation of that abuse, and I support Only's decision to block you. The fact you do or don't agree with the one-strike rule doesn't come into this. I wasn't uncivil or "hostile", merely direct and to the point. As it was put very well on your declined English Wikipedia unblock request "dude just admit it... you got caught" -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yes I was checkuserblocked on the English Wikipedia, but that does not necessarily mean that I was abusing multiple accounts. The only other accounts that I have is an alternate account for public areas that I have never used and don't intend to use. I was blocked incorrectly on the English Wikipedia, and the phrase "you got caught" is not accurate. I wasn't caught for anything - rather I was mistakenly blocked. However, I have personally chosen to not appeal further over there to avoid unnecessary hassles. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you were indeed uncivil/hostile by blatantly assuming bad faith at RFB, solely based off of my block on EN and my "invalid" deletion discussions (which weren't even invalid). -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that your block was not mistakenly placed. You were found to be sockpuppeting with good-hand and bad-hand account(s). If your block was mistakenly placed, or otherwise unfounded, then it would have been overturned. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 07:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it again: I was not sockpuppeting. If you actually read my EN Wiki decline thoroughly, you would notice that the first line by Oshwah says something to the effect of "I am not a CheckUser". This means that Oshwah technically can't confirm or deny anything, and is declining solely based on what he believes may have happened. However, what he believes is the farthest you can get from the truth. I am not interested in discussing the EN Wiki matter further, and I request that the EN Wiki block be left alone. Let the discussion and appeal here run its course without interference from EN. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet checkuser evidence was the basis for your block, so you were sockpuppeting. Stop lying because it's getting really fucking old -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you now to stop assuming bad faith. You yourself are not a checkuser so you really have no authority to be telling me that I'm socking. There have been numerous times where checkuser evidence has been misinterpreted and/or mistaken. As I've noted previously, the only reason why I'm not appealing there again is because I don't want to deal with the hassle. If you continue to assume bad faith, if I'm unblocked here I will impose an interaction ban between myself and you. Additionally, as noted to Chrissymad below, if you truly think I'm socking, point me to the master on Simple English Wikipedia that you think I'm related to. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 14:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's nothing to do with me but I think both of you need to calm down. @There'sNoTime: Generally you take stuff a bit far - you took the incident with me (see talkpage history and admin noticeboard) way to seriously and acted like it was a witch hunt. Just take a step back, calm down, and realise that not every non-admin is a sock. @Nestor Lozano: Stop baiting everyone - if you don't want to be unblocked then bugger off, and if you do, request properly and stop being offensive to everyone. Please consider - MiloDenn, Talk, Contribs 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
At this point, I don't think there's anything more that I really need to say here. As noted previously, I'm waiting for a statement by Eurodyne and a further statement by Auntof6. If these users choose to decline to comment, I will file an official unblock appeal with the information that I have. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 14:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enfcer[change source]

I was debating if I should enter my opinion on this or not, and against my better judgement, I think I should put a few thoughts out there.

  1. "One Strike Rule"  : You were advised of that policy by Only here. It then became your responsibility to read up on our rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines. It is a judicial tenant of most if not all civilized societies that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", which applies here. While we do have many editors that come here after a block on their home wiki, they learn what they can do here, and either become productive editors, or continue being a problem editor. I am not going to dive into why you were blocked on En.wiki, or look at your edits. The simple truth of the matter is you are blocked there for being a Sock. Regardless if you are or are not it was the ground for your block here. You have also not archived your talk page appropriately. Many different edits to your page with warnings about your conduct, were removed inappropriately, and not archived, making it harder for the community to review this.
  2. "Invalid deletion discussions"  : Your own statement state that at least 2 of your deletion requests were valid, implying others were not. This is not to say all were, but more then a couple were not, and therefore shows either a lack of knowledge of our practices, policies and guidelines, which goes back to point #1, or your intentions were to be disruptive. You were warned prior to the 1 Strike Rule being applied, so you got at least 2 Strikes, before being blocked.
  3. As this one deals with my RfB directly, I recuse myself from discussing this point.
  4. "Removal of Block Templates"  : Couple of different things I would like to point out:
    1. It is only the place of an Admin or Crat to alter Talk Templates for blocked users, otherwise this may be seen as an attempt to hide something for the effected user.
    2. Talk Page access being removed from LTA editors is common practice. It is not always done, but depending on the history the Admin has with the editor(s) they may know it is justified from the start of the block. And the simple fact that I did not add the second template stating I had revoked the talk page access, for an LTA editor, is a mute point. In fact looking at all the general block templates they all refer to {{unblock}}. So I did not use an inappropriate template, as those templates are what the community has set out for us to use.
    3. On the personal non-WMF wiki that I run, which has no bearing here. You are free to set your own guidelines on your wiki, but our here are set by the community, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

It is my personal opinion, that your better option, for an unblock, does not lay with the Administrators of this project, but with the community. I will be more then happy to post a comment of Simple Talk if you care to follow that recommendation. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With your last comment, are you trying to say that the community has established that notifying a blocked editor is not necessary? If that is the case, I will take immediate steps to change that as soon as I'm unblocked. Notifications are always necessary, because if an editor is blocked and doesn't fully understand what "Blocked" means, that's when we can get into conduct disputes, etc. Regarding simple talk, I wouldn't mind a comment there once Auntof6 decides to provide a further comment or not, and once Eurodyne comments or declines to comment. Once all users have either commented or declined to comment, I would appreciate a message at simple talk. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 23:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even address the point about not notifying editors of being blocked. But there are times when it is impractical, the main time that would be would be on a range block, when there are multiple IP's to block. I make a concerted effort to notify, but it is not always possible especially in the example of an IP range. Also "if an editor is blocked and doesn't fully understand what "Blocked" means, that's when we can get into conduct disputes" again this goes back to my previous comment about ignorance is no excuse, which is a fundamental rule of law, which also applies here. See Competence is Required. But by your own admission you removed the block templates, because the had {{unblock}} in them. That is our main means to notify them of being block, so you were essentially committing the same violation you are accusing the Admins of. That template, talks about emailing the Simple Wiki Mailing list if they can not use the {{unblock}} so removed their chance to know how to go about being unblocked. That is what I was referring to as the community has established guidelines. It is within those templates how to go about requesting unblocks, in two different formats. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point made, point acknowledged. My opinion still stands, though. I must also note though that I didn't commit the same violation that I'm accusing admins of - rather I removed the block templates and was going to find one similar to EN Wiki's template for TPA removal, but I was reverted and blocked before I could do so. I still want to wait for further comment from Auntof6 and comments from Eurodyne before posting a thread at ST - but if I don't here from them wihtin 48-72 hours, I'll give the OK to post at ST. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 23:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you won't be posting at ST as you are blocked. If any IPs or socks do post there, they'll be reverted and blocked -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I would give Enfcer the OK to post at ST on my behalf, per the comment by Enfcer "It is my personal opinion, that your better option, for an unblock, does not lay with the Administrators of this project, but with the community. I will be more then happy to post a comment of Simple Talk if you care to follow that recommendation" -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 12:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010[change source]

(Uninvoled) - Only came because I saw "Statement by There'sNoTime" and I was intrigued,
Anyway back on topic - FWIW I agree with the block, We all make stupid mistakes when we sign up to EN everyone has however to be blocked for CU reasons is a clear indication you were abusing more than one account (and your knowledge of EN protection[1] is rather amazing!), The only reason you didn't appeal is because you probably had no leg to stand on! - If anyone is blocked accidentally they appeal it which you haven't....
As for the block here - ONESTRIKE seems a bit harsh but then again your removal of editors comments as well as RFD nominations is a clear indication you don't have a good understanding of how this place (or EN) works so IMHO the block should stand,
I'm all of second chances but I get the impression if you were given another chance you'd only mess it up again and it wont be long before we're here all again,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eurodyne[change source]

Statements by other users[change source]

Note: if you want to make an unblock request, you're welcome to using the unblock template,but I'm not participating in this kind of unnecessary "discussion" Only (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unnecessary. I'm looking for the opinions of other admins/users involved with my case before making an unblock request. If I don't see enough consensus from this discussion that I have a chance of being unblocked, I'm not going to even bother wasting admin time with an official appeal. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So instead you're going to waste everyone else's time with this unofficial discussion. Only (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wasting everyone's time. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I want to discuss my block before official appealing it, as I feel that I wa blocked unjustly for the reasons outlined in my statement at the top. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request[change source]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nestor_Lozano (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)


Request reason:

Given the contents of the above discussion, I am requesting unblock officially at this time. However, this is not just a request to "unblock me". In an effort to address all of concerns raised by the editors above, I will agree to the following restrictions (self-imposed) upon being unblocked:

  • An indefinite topic ban from all matters related to requests for deletion (RFD). This includes nominating articles for deletion, commenting on a deletion discussion, and performing non-admin closures on deletion discussions. However, this topic ban does not include tagging articles for quick deletion when they undoubtedly meet one or more of the QD criteria
  • An indefinite topic ban from all matters related to requests for permissions (RFP). This includes requesting permissions for myself, nominations for other users to gain permissions, and commenting on permission requests. Another user is welcome to nominate me for permissions and I will accept such nominations unless there are exceptional reasons not to. However, under this topic ban, I will not nominate myself for anything
  • An indefinite but partial topic ban from the administrative areas of this project. This ban prohibits me from editing or otherwise interacting with anything in the project namespace or otherwise related to the "backend" areas of the project, except the following:
  • Reverting vandalism and warning vandals
  • Reporting users to VIP
  • Making valid requests for admins at AN
  • Posting threads of general discussion at ST
Under the restrictions outlined above, I request that my account be unblocked at this time. -- Nestor Lozano (aka Catalan) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not given a reason why you should be unblocked. This request sounds more like bargaining, hence, I'm declining this request. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not a sysop, but here is my opinion! Having read your previous statements etc. you seem fairly eager to be unblocked. This could be for two reasons:

  • Either you just want to vandalise again
  • Or you actually want to make helpful, sensible contributions

You must surely realise by now that if you do anything wrong at all you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked. That is why I think he should be unblocked: if he does anything wrong it takes no time at all to block him, and if not then all the better for simple wiki: we have gained a helpful contributor. I think that there would need to be strict parameters, possibly even stricter than what he has already proposed, but I think at least giving them a chance could work. Finally I don't quite understand why everyone is accusing him of being a sock - is there any proof that he is doing that on here? MiloDenn, Talk, Contribs 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the one strike rule is to avoid the just give us another chance requests where we unblock and reblock again. Very rarely once its been used is it undone until the originating wiki's block is lifted. The idea being if he wants to edit here he needs to rehabilitate himself on his original wiki. His block here was about disruptive editing, not socking, his en.wiki block was socking and disruptive editing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's fine then. The only reason I mention socking is because several people are accusing him of that here, which seems rather unfair. MiloDenn, Talk, Contribs 16:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should make it clear, its not that it can't happen. Just that I can only think of one or two times where it has. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  (change conflict)  I would seriously stop with the messing around with the above[4] as well as the unblock requests - As I said you're inch away from having your TP access revoked so whilst you have talkpage access I would seriously stop editing this page altogether, Not trying to give you false hope but in a few years time under certain restrictions you may be able to come back who knows however at present it's not happening so whilst you've got TP access I would leave your talkpage and this site as a whole well alone. –Davey2010Talk 16:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]