User talk:TijuanaBandito

Hello, TijuanaBandito, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! Max Semenik (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Max Semenik (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Glenrothes[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Glenrothes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC) {{unblock|I don't really get why I'm blocked. I just want to get back to constructively updating football articles, why is this tirade happening? And who is Doughnuthead?--[[User:TijuanaBandito|TijuanaBandito]] ([[User talk:TijuanaBandito#top|talk]]) 09:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

If you are not a sock of User:Doughnuthead, as you yourself claimed here, then your account is compromised and we still have to keep the account blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Okay guys you got me, it is User:Doughnuthead. But I had genuinely good intentions. If you look into this accounts contributions, you'll see I remained completely under the radar for nearly 5 months - and would have continued to had I not blown the whistle on myself. But that's the point you see, I've been in and around this site since 2009 when I was just 12 years old, and there's people here now admins who weren't even registered back then haha. Yeah there's blame on both sides though, I'm only banned because, if you look into the history of my original account, you can see I created my own ban discussion - and you lot fell for that back in 2012! Yes a 15 year old tricked a bunch of grown, scholarly men and woman! I went off the site for 3 years cause I found better things to do, but I came back. Initially I tried to get Doughnuthead unblocked, even displaying my maturity growth. You still declined me. I figured the only way was to make another account and just avoid getting into trouble. Enter yesterday. I felt like I couldn't keep the charade up, that you all deserved to know. I feel I was doing you justice, but now I see. Despite all my past mistakes, you all treat me like some sort of criminal with no chance of redemption, and through all my years on Wikipedia it is full of conservative thinking know it alls who think they can put down the underdogs at every turn. But I just wanted another chance, and you threw it back in my face back in May. This was my only option, you need to understand this. But I would still like you to consider me for unblock, as I don't think I could make any clearer I'm able to make this site a more productive place. Eg contributions from this account.--TijuanaBandito (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you feel that your path to redemption lies in gloating about your lack of integrity, then it does appear you have more growing up to do. Kuru (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2015 (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.

So, your justification for why we should unblock you is that you violated your ban. Uh... No. Talk page access revoked.

If you really want to help the site by starting a new account, forget about your old account. WP:CLEANSTART is technically a valid option. If you're truly over your past mistakes, then WP:CLEANSTART won't be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A clean start is not a valid option, Ian. "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Kuru (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if he never revealed himself ever again, never gave anyone any reason to think he was Doughnuthead, and became a model Wikipedian (upholding the five pillars) under a new account, would the ban be enforceable? I am not saying that the ban would be uplifted or that any previous accounts would be unblocked: if anyone found out who he was, it's back to being blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, openly encouraging a banned editor to evade his or her ban is totally unacceptable. Editors have been indefinitely blocked for less than that, and for an administrator to do so is absolutely appalling. You are, in effect, saying "you would stand a good chance of getting away with it, so go ahead and do it". What kind of standard is that for an administrator to uphold? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Statement withdrawn. I did not mean it to be encouragement to go against the five pillars, but to follow them. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]