W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Dominic3203

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.


June 2025



<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that 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: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
:You are indefinitely blocked for disruptive use of Citation bot, excessive citation errors, and unwillingness to address the legitimate concerns of other editors. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks ↗. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=Vanishing is for users in good standing, not blocked editors. PhilKnight (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)|reason=After careful consideration, I have decided to vanish ↗ and promise not to create sockpuppet ↗ on any Wikimedia. This is because the search engines still refers my username "Dominic3203" as an active Wikipedia account that I cannot interact with actually (this is false info, I have to remove that by vanishing).

Please unblock me, once and for all. Dominic3203 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)}}


{{unblock reviewed |1=I genuinely care about the English Wikipedia, as well as making sure all references got updated. This is not the result I had expected. As per Wikipedia:Standard offer "If an editor shows unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner." I do have a viable suggestion, "If the bot went haywire, There should be an "abort & rollback" button to halt the bot and rollback everything." One simple button could make a huge difference. Dominic3203 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC) |decline = 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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks ↗ for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)}}
: "It's all the bot's fault" is in your case the ''opposite'' of "good insight into the circumstances that led to the block". ----JBL (talk ↗) 18:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll WP:HA ↗ Dominic3203 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla Thank you for considering my unblock request. Please also focus about my suggestion for an “abort/rollback” function. Researches indicate these features are standard in many software contexts because they reduce user anxiety, lower the cost of mistakes, and encourage constructive exploration.

Abort (Cancel) lets users stop an action mid‑process, while Rollback (Undo/Back) reverses completed actions. Both should be clear, responsive, and predictable, with safeguards for irreversible steps. Thoughtful design of these functions supports a more forgiving, user‑friendly environment and can strengthen participation and confidence on the platform.

Also, the button should be accessible. Wikipedia is a collective work, admins are not supposed to obstruct legitimate halting / undoing bots' behaviour. Dominic3203 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

:You are describing the (undo) function which can be found in the article's history. It's also available as rollback ↗ and as a tool in Twinkle ↗ and RedWarn ↗.{{pb}}As a blocked user you have access to your talk page in order to appeal your block, not for complaints about Wikipedia's functionality or any other purpose. Commenting on your appeals is not harassment.{{pb}}Any further comments which are not related to appealing your block may result in your talk page access being revoked. Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed |1=I abide the rules as in the standard offer Dominic3203 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC) |decline = You were warned many times and blocked once previously for misuse of tools, and you continued to misuse them. "abide the rules as in the standard offer" doesn't come close to addressing the competence issues identified here. OhNo<span style="color: var(--color-progressive, #36c);">itsJamie</span> <sup><b style="color: var(--color-progressive, #F00);">talk</b></sup> 13:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)}}

Unblock discussion



Thank you for requesting unblock here on your talk page. I have a reputation for granting high risk (questionable) unblocks. However, I need greater assurance that you will not edit disruptively if unblocked. Here you blamed someone else for your remaining blocked. ↗ Can you now see that it was your inability to compose an adequate unblock request that led to the declined unblocks? Here you blame the bot for your disruptive misuse of the bot. ↗ Do you now understand that you are responsible for edits you make with a bot? You have cited WP:Standard offer ↗. Making at least 500 constructive, problem-free edits over at least six months on another project would certainly have weighed in favor of unblocking you. I see you have not edited the Chinese language Wikipedia since May 25, 2025. ↗ Why is that?

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks ↗ for more information. Thanks.

{{admin note}} Link to revision with prior discussions ↗. My reservations should in no way discourage any other admin from unblocking if they are so inclined. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:Link to prior pertinent ANI discussion ↗. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)