User talk:Aguahrz

Economy of Embu county moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Economy of Embu county. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Refugees in Kenya moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Refugees in Kenya. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time cause it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i didn't copy text, i did my research from many sites then analysed it, i have been analyzing my work since 21st December Aguahrz (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly made copyright violations. Since you think that you didn't, and that copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, it would be a bad idea to remove this block. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Declined requests for active site-wide blocks must remain. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot remove the declined request until the block is removed, per WP:BLANKING If you remove this declined request again, you will lose access to this page. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

But my Block has already expired but still i can't edit Aguahrz (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Your block doesn't expire, it's indefinite unless you get a successful appeal Kowal2701 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I apologize for the copyright violation in my contributions and understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's copyright policies. Moving forward, I will create original content, properly attribute sources, and ensure all materials comply with Wikipedia’s licensing requirements. I have reviewed the relevant guidelines to prevent future infractions. I kindly request reconsideration of my case and assure you of full compliance in my future contributions

Accept reason:

This request is not great, but the comments below give a reasonable assurance that the user has taken the time to understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and how seriously copyright is taken here, so it makes sense to give them a chance to prove that is the case. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Aguahrz (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! Your unblock request is pretty vague, and might appear to be AI-generated. It could help being more precise. Which guidelines did you read? What did you learn from them, and can you explain it in your own words? If you found content in a copyrighted source, how would you add material in a way that doesn't constitute a copyright violation? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Aguahrz (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Aguahrz (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, your replies were empty, was that an accident? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Having gone through the Wikipedia copyright and plagiarism policy, One needs to either have original material or give due credit for one's contribution; copying from any copyrighted sources without them being in the public domain or carrying the proper license is prohibited.

If I happen to find valuable information in a copyrighted source, I will make sure to write it completely in my own words while still capturing the main idea and will also make sure to properly cite it to give credit where due without violating any policies. So i wont be unblocked ?

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aguahrz. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I violated Wikipedia's guidelines by creating multiple accounts to bypass a ban on my main account. I apologize for that mistake, I felt So uncomfortable Because my ban hadn't reviewed and i wanted to create articles, i am sorry. I promise to respect the guidelines from now, Please Review My block

Decline reason:

Duplicate request, only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

.

I was blocked on both accounts so I thought i should Request for both. I didn't Know that i was only allowed To request one, i apologize for that.

Aguahrz (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I violated Wikipedia's guidelines by creating multiple accounts to bypass a ban on my main account. I apologize for that mistake, I felt So uncomfortable Because my ban hadn't reviewed and i wanted to create articles, i am sorry. I promise to respect the guidelines from now, Please Review My block Izno

Decline reason:

I suggest you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please 🙏, That time i hadn't read the Guidelines but i understand them now please Review my block, Please 🙏. I've learned my mistake . I'm Sorry please, I will follow the guidelines from now on please, Please Just give me a last chance. One last Chance.

One last Chance please Aguahrz

Decline reason:

Given your inappropriate use of multiple accounts, I recommend refraining from editing the English Wikipedia for six months, which is the standard offer in these circumstances. After six months, you may request to be unblocked again. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

I don't think there is an admin willing to unblock you without a six month wait. In the meantime, you can participate in another Wikimedia Foundation project where you are not blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been evading your block, again. Per WP:3X, you are now banned from the English Wikipedia. This does not prohibit you from contributing to other Wikimedia projects, but it means that you may not edit again here without the consensus of the community - no individual administrator or checkuser may unblock you moving forward. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, strike that - I see that you were not indefinitely blocked at the time you were using the CLA 254 account, so technically you've got one more chance before the ban is enacted. You can apply for unblock in six months per the standard offer, but if you're caught socking again the ban will be enacted and the standard offer will no longer be on the table. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it probably doesn't make much difference now that this user has so royally shot him/herself in the foot, but all edits by the CLA 254 account on 6, 7 and 8 January were made while this account was indeffed for copyvios – my block here wasn't lifted until 11 January. Gayle157 is in any case the fourth sock – there was also Aguahrz77, who it seems was never added to the SPI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, shoot - I must have misread the SPI case archive. Let's do a proper job then. You indef blocked on 5 January 2025. The Ajohn77 account doesn't count towards [[WP:3X}} because it was used prior to that block. CLA 254 was used from 30 October 2024 to 8 Jan 2025, including the period covered by your indef block, so that does count towards WP:3X. The Aguahrz77 account, which I have just confirmed, from 8 October 2024 to 6 January 2025, which also includes the period covered by the block, so that also counts. You are correct - we have a history of socking prior to and following an indef block, with Gayle157 being the third account used since an indef, so the conditions for 3X are more than satisfied. I am therefore enacting that ban. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Its already 3 months please unblock me , I have learned my lesson about Copyright infringement , Vandalism and sock puppetry, Please, It won't happen again , I'm sorry, I want to start a fresh, This will be my main account User:Girth Summit Aguahrz (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you are considered to be banned, not just blocked, no admin may unilaterally remove the block, there must be a community discussion. This brief statement is far from sufficient to bring to the community for a discussion; you must demonstrate that you have learned a lesson. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Plus you've been evading your block through the Glamoirs account. That resets the SO clock - no appeal will be considered until six months go by without your involvement in this project. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Gody Tennor

Hello, Aguahrz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gody Tennor, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Economy of Embu county

Hello, Aguahrz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Economy of Embu county, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gody Tennor

Hello, Aguahrz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Gody Tennor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Economy of Embu county

Hello, Aguahrz. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Economy of Embu county".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Refugees in Kenya

Hello, Aguahrz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Refugees in Kenya, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Blanking

Please note that you are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while you remain blocked. If you wish to appeal your block, by all means do so, but do not remove earlier declines. It would also be appreciated if you didn't remove anything, as doing so will only inconvenience the administrators reviewing your case; they will still be able to access all the removed content in the page history, but need to work harder to do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Got it! Aguahrz 08:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello,

I am writing to sincerely request that my account be unblocked.

I acknowledge that I used multiple accounts, including after being blocked. I understand that this constitutes sockpuppetry and block evasion, and I take full responsibility for that. I was wrong.

My intention was not to disrupt Wikipedia or act maliciously. I genuinely wanted to continue editing and contributing. If you review the edit history of the accounts, you will see that my edits were content-focused and not vandalism or harassment.

I now fully understand that using alternate accounts to evade a block is a serious violation of Wikipedia’s policies, regardless of intent and have taken time to read and understand the relevant guidelines, and recognize that I should have appealed properly instead of creating additional accounts. I have learned from this mistake and will not repeat it.

I sincerely apologize for my actions and for any disruption or additional workload this may have caused administrators.

I am requesting one final opportunity to contribute under a single account, in full compliance with Wikipedia’s rules. I am willing to accept any restrictions or conditions deemed appropriate.

Please, before making a final decision, kindly consider my appeal. I am open to answering any questions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

@User:Izno @User:331dot @User:Girth Summit Aguahrz (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

UNBLOCK

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hey! I am requesting you to please review my ban. Its been 1 year since my last appeal. I understand that using Multiple accounts to evade bans violates Wikipedia policies and i understand that now , i accept my mistake and am sincerely apologizing for it My intentions weren't to impede wikipedia i had intentions of continuous contribution. I sincerely apologize for all this inconveniences. If you check my edit history in User:Anyrmson I was just contributing in good faith. At first block in this main account i was just a new editor had didn't understand wikipedia thoroughly, I now fully understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please give me a single chance to redeem myself and i accept any restrictions that come with it . I understand that i should have request for unblock through the correct procedure rather than creating sockpuppet account, I'm not gonna justify myself, I understand it was wrong and i really apologize about it and request you to put a consideration in this.

Decline reason:

You had a sock blocked two days ago, my guy. asilvering (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Aguahrz 09:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Aguahrz, here's the fundamental problem. You were blocked more than a full year ago. You asserted then "I understand that I violated Wikipedia's guidelines by creating multiple accounts to bypass a ban on my main account." Just a day later, you said you understood your sockpuppetry and wanted one last chance. And then, three months later, in April, you again said that you learned your lesson about sockpupppetry. You continued to make new sockpuppet accounts.

Now, you claim that you understand sockpuppetry "now" even though you already claimed you understood it three times over the previous year. And all this time, you evaded your block hundreds of times with your Anyrmson account. You did not edit in good faith; you were evading your block with every single one of those edits, and you knew it. You intentionally violated the rules, the community's wishes, and edited in extremely bad faith.

As a result, your account is now banned, not simply blocked. That means that now, you can only be unblocked by the community itself, not a single administrator that has faith in your good intentions. And if there's one thing I'm sure about, there's just about zero chance that the community will take any request like this seriously without you following WP:OFFER, as you were urged to do multiple times.

That means a bare minimum of six months with zero involvement in English Wikipedia, including sockpuppet accounts. Ideally, you'll also contribute a different Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Simple English Wikipedia or a Wikipedia version in another language. If I were in your position, I'd wait a year or two of following the rules strictly before even considering trying to file an unblock request at the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay! Aguahrz 12:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hi there! It has been six months since my last block, during which I've followed all the terms and conditions required at WP:OFFER.

I'm aware that I'm currently banned, and that there would need to be a community vote before I could return, but I'm writing this appeal to request another opportunity.

I'm aware that I've violated several policies many times, many of which were also reasons for my original block such as repeated block/ban evading, and copyright violations. Coupled with these repeated violations, there were also repeated sockpuppetting. I continued to use multiple accounts and to repeat my mistakes, even though I claimed on prior requests to be more educated on said policy each time the matter has been raised. Unfortunately, when I look back now, I was never being entirely honest with myself or with the community about the actual level of understanding on these policies.

I accept that my mistakes were indeed my responsibility and not the result of anyone but myself. There are no excuses for any of the actions that have taken place.

I've since spent a fair amount of my time at WP learning some more about the topics at stake. From WP:SOCK, I learned that while having more than one account is not actually prohobited, having more than one account, used to present a deceptive face to the community and to gain an unfair advantage over the community cannot be tolerated. I also learned from WP:EVADE that blocks and bans apply to the user, and not to individual accounts, which therefore means that using/creating another account whilst under block/ban is an offence. And from WP:COPYVIO that I cannot copy information under copyright and paste it into Wikipedia without the rights holder or a competent authority licensing it correctly, whether via Creative Commons or similar licenses, or by purchasing a license ourselves.

In essence, these translate to: If I get another chance to edit on Wikipedia, I need to be transparent about my account usage, follow any blocks/bans in place instead of using a workaround to continue editing, and only upload/paste content under an appropriate free license.

Please give me a second chance. I regret my past behavior very much, and all my previous mistakes.

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=Hi there! It has been six months since my last block, during which I've followed all the terms and conditions required at WP:OFFER. I'm aware that I'm currently banned, and that there would need to be a community vote before I could return, but I'm writing this appeal to request another opportunity. I'm aware that I've violated several policies many times, many of which were also reasons for my original block such as repeated block/ban evading, and copyright violations. Coupled with these repeated violations, there were also repeated sockpuppetting. I continued to use multiple accounts and to repeat my mistakes, even though I claimed on prior requests to be more educated on said policy each time the matter has been raised. Unfortunately, when I look back now, I was never being entirely honest with myself or with the community about the actual level of understanding on these policies. I accept that my mistakes were indeed my responsibility and not the result of anyone but myself. There are no excuses for any of the actions that have taken place. I've since spent a fair amount of my time at WP learning some more about the topics at stake. From WP:SOCK, I learned that while having more than one account is not actually prohobited, having more than one account, used to present a deceptive face to the community and to gain an unfair advantage over the community cannot be tolerated. I also learned from WP:EVADE that blocks and bans apply to the user, and not to individual accounts, which therefore means that using/creating another account whilst under block/ban is an offence. And from WP:COPYVIO that I cannot copy information under copyright and paste it into Wikipedia without the rights holder or a competent authority licensing it correctly, whether via Creative Commons or similar licenses, or by purchasing a license ourselves. In essence, these translate to: If I get another chance to edit on Wikipedia, I need to be transparent about my account usage, follow any blocks/bans in place instead of using a workaround to continue editing, and only upload/paste content under an appropriate free license. Please give me a second chance. I regret my past behavior very much, and all my previous mistakes. |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=Hi there! It has been six months since my last block, during which I've followed all the terms and conditions required at WP:OFFER. I'm aware that I'm currently banned, and that there would need to be a community vote before I could return, but I'm writing this appeal to request another opportunity. I'm aware that I've violated several policies many times, many of which were also reasons for my original block such as repeated block/ban evading, and copyright violations. Coupled with these repeated violations, there were also repeated sockpuppetting. I continued to use multiple accounts and to repeat my mistakes, even though I claimed on prior requests to be more educated on said policy each time the matter has been raised. Unfortunately, when I look back now, I was never being entirely honest with myself or with the community about the actual level of understanding on these policies. I accept that my mistakes were indeed my responsibility and not the result of anyone but myself. There are no excuses for any of the actions that have taken place. I've since spent a fair amount of my time at WP learning some more about the topics at stake. From WP:SOCK, I learned that while having more than one account is not actually prohobited, having more than one account, used to present a deceptive face to the community and to gain an unfair advantage over the community cannot be tolerated. I also learned from WP:EVADE that blocks and bans apply to the user, and not to individual accounts, which therefore means that using/creating another account whilst under block/ban is an offence. And from WP:COPYVIO that I cannot copy information under copyright and paste it into Wikipedia without the rights holder or a competent authority licensing it correctly, whether via Creative Commons or similar licenses, or by purchasing a license ourselves. In essence, these translate to: If I get another chance to edit on Wikipedia, I need to be transparent about my account usage, follow any blocks/bans in place instead of using a workaround to continue editing, and only upload/paste content under an appropriate free license. Please give me a second chance. I regret my past behavior very much, and all my previous mistakes. |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=Hi there! It has been six months since my last block, during which I've followed all the terms and conditions required at WP:OFFER. I'm aware that I'm currently banned, and that there would need to be a community vote before I could return, but I'm writing this appeal to request another opportunity. I'm aware that I've violated several policies many times, many of which were also reasons for my original block such as repeated block/ban evading, and copyright violations. Coupled with these repeated violations, there were also repeated sockpuppetting. I continued to use multiple accounts and to repeat my mistakes, even though I claimed on prior requests to be more educated on said policy each time the matter has been raised. Unfortunately, when I look back now, I was never being entirely honest with myself or with the community about the actual level of understanding on these policies. I accept that my mistakes were indeed my responsibility and not the result of anyone but myself. There are no excuses for any of the actions that have taken place. I've since spent a fair amount of my time at WP learning some more about the topics at stake. From WP:SOCK, I learned that while having more than one account is not actually prohobited, having more than one account, used to present a deceptive face to the community and to gain an unfair advantage over the community cannot be tolerated. I also learned from WP:EVADE that blocks and bans apply to the user, and not to individual accounts, which therefore means that using/creating another account whilst under block/ban is an offence. And from WP:COPYVIO that I cannot copy information under copyright and paste it into Wikipedia without the rights holder or a competent authority licensing it correctly, whether via Creative Commons or similar licenses, or by purchasing a license ourselves. In essence, these translate to: If I get another chance to edit on Wikipedia, I need to be transparent about my account usage, follow any blocks/bans in place instead of using a workaround to continue editing, and only upload/paste content under an appropriate free license. Please give me a second chance. I regret my past behavior very much, and all my previous mistakes. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Aguahrz (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Is the Dj_Hiram account yours? It shows up as a match on my use of the CheckUser tool. PhilKnight (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  No its not; Not even close.

  You can check by other methods too!. It was created 6 years ago pf which i was 12 years Old i didn't know what even Wikipedia was.Aguahrz 04:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on WP:CHECKUSER evidence, I'm inclined to believe this user. It's a noisy range, but the two users appear to be different. --Yamla (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Please! Can someone put this into the relevant discussion board. Aguahrz 03:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, just dropping by to check on my unblock request that was submitted on the 28th August. It has now been exactly one week and I haven't had any discussions or acknowledgements yet.

I am just asking if an admin could please post my appeal thread to relevant discussion page according to unblock procedure, as I did request in my appeal. I understand if it is pending approval. But appreciate it greatly if someone could review at any suitable time and tell me whether it was declined or accepted. Thank you.@Girth Summit@CoffeeCrumbs Aguahrz @# @# 12:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I've transferred it. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

They said that a CU would have to explicitly clear the unblock first. So, @Yamla and @PhilKnight, am I cleared by the CU? If not, I would really appreciate knowing where the process currently stands and what, if anything, is still needed. Aguahrz 05:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

About the concerns raised by @Kowal2701 regarding use of LLMs, I apologize-I seem to have forgotten to respond to that portion of the appeal.

I'm not going to pretend that this was because I was a new editor or for any other reason; the truth is I used an LLM in virtually every single edit I made and continue to use an LLM even after receiving my block notification due to an edit that was pointed out to me using an LLM. This was wrong, and I take full blame for it.

I now know that Wikipedia strictly prohibits article editing/writing with LLMs. There are some permissible uses of LLMs that Wikipedia defines (Minor copyedits of writing already posted, without adding any new content, where a human check may be of use to check for errata, translating an existing edit from other language wiki), but I clearly wasn't adhering to that distinction, just editing with an LLM throughout my tenure on Wikipedia.

I have since read the relevant policies. I really do not want to make any false appeals or empty promises by saying what I’ve said to other administrators: that I will read the policy and have learned from my mistakes, when I’ve said something similar more than one time now. If I do get a chance to edit Wikipedia again, I want to show through my future edits that I have indeed learned something from this issue.

I am fine with my articles being checked over should I be unblocked. I am also fine with being blocked again, if use of LLMs continues to be a problem. Also, if being watched more closely or if some type of check applied for an appropriate period will lead to more confidence in the ability of me to edit Wikipedia properly, I will accept reasonable monitoring and further investigation into my actions.

Please grant me the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be a better editor. Aguahrz 06:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding @Victor Schmidt's copyright concerns; I admit that I violated copyright. I know that I copied it from its site in spite of copyright notice, copying many sections almost or without editing them. I know that you cannot copy a copyrighted piece onto Wikipedia and even with minimal change, it is not okay if it is just your personal version if you mostly copy it. Wikipedia demands an original written contribution by your hands, or else it must have another valid right of use.

Also I know that not all C. C. Licenses have Wikipedia's permission to use it. The noncommercial or derivative free license does not meet Wikipedia's standards while CC BY or CC BY SA do with proper citation.

Also I now know thatfair use is not a direct way to just copynonsubstantial parts of copyrighted materials. It has to fulfill our requirements criteria for non-free sources and in any case, cannot justify copying many paragraphs of copyright protected text.

I admit my last arbitration too was too concise with regard to these problems; did not display adequate learning of these issues. The responsibility for this lies with me. Aguahrz 06:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Victor Schmidt, You raised several concerns regarding my unblock request which i answered on my talk page. Incase that didn't meet you expectations i kindly request you to inform me please or post in the discussion board cause it has been 4 days since last comment and i dont want it to be archived without the issues raised addressed.

Thank you! Aguahrz 17:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my unblock discussion has been inactive for the past four days, so I was kindly wondering if someone could let me know the current status of the discussion. Aguahrz 17:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, yes you are correct that I can't simply give you a proof of me "really meaning it". There is one thing I can do, and that is to agree to have my edits observed and to hold me responsible for my actions. If I make the same mistakes or break the same policies I understand I could be blocked again. I hope that I can demonstrate through my future edits that I have really learned and I have really meant it.

I would also greatly appreciate if you would participate again in the discussion of my BA if you have any other comments or concerns. Aguahrz 18:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry if this comes across as nagging. Since the CU has cleared me and there are currently four users supporting my unblock request, could you please inform me what the next step is and what needs to be done for the appeal to proceed? I am willing to do whatever is required.

Thank you. Aguahrz 07:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)