Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:13, 14 June 2012

June 2012

Watch them 3RR on Kara Ahmed Pasha. Seems not to be clear vandalism, so the "bright line" rule probably applies here. I warned Bozo1789, so I probably should send you a note too. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Canuck

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

Request reason:

What I did does not fall under 3RR per WP:BAN "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban". Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:->

Decline reason:

As per JBW below. Mere assertion does not cut it, and you already know that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (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.

• You may or may not be right about the sockpuppetry, but, even if you are right:

1. Merely asserting that the account is a sockpuppet, without evidence, is dubious justification. You said that it was an "obvious" sockpuppet, in which case it should have been easy to justify your claim.
2. If you really did have enough evidence of sockpuppetry, then you should have reported the fact. Edit warring on such a massive scale as you did without making any attempt at all to get the sockpuppetry issue issue dealt with was not the most constructive way forward. You clearly have far more than enough experience to be able to find your way to either WP:SPI or a relevant administrators' noticeboard. (And, as far as "on such a massive scale as you did" is concerned, I don't believe I have ever come across a case with anywhere near so much edit warring in so short a period of time.)
3. Some of your reverts restored nonsense, which is not justifiable, no matter what. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I keep reporting his sockpuppets including this one too in vain. But when one of his sockpuppet is blocked, one another is created. Furthermore, I keep beseeching for a Ip rang block for Iaaasi, but the administrators has failed to give one. Therefore, the only way to be stopped Iaaasi is to be reverted every contribution that he makes to the project that does not fall under 3RR following the instructions pursuant toWP:BAN. And considering that Iaaasi has created almost 100 sockpuppets for now it falls under Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse. Also, said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaas, see:(this does not look like a mere assertion regarding sockpuppetry, Imho.--Nmate (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am now the third administrator to tell you that nothing you have listed in your unblock requests exempts you from edit warring. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:04, 14 June 2012 (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.

Conditional unblock request

I am willing to offer you an unblock with the following terms. Note that the following unblock offer does not find the original block to have been made inappropriately or on false grounds; it is merely a courtesy to allow you to prove your allegations.

1. You are unblocked immediately to file an SPI case on the user User:Bozo1789 to prove your allegations.
2. For the next 72 hours after the acceptance of this unblock (i.e. time equivalent to the original block length), you are only allowed to edit your own user talk page, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations and the subpages of those respective pages. You may not edit any other pages under any circumstances, with no exceptions.
3. If you are found in violation of the above term, any administrator may immediately reblock with a minimum duration of two weeks, but possibly more depending on how you violated the terms.
4. You may not remove this message until 72 hours after your acceptance message (i.e. when the terms of the conditional unblock have expired).

If you wish to agree to these terms, state "I agree" below, and sign your message. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is okay with me if i am also allowd to edit Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ,too, to be possible to prove my assertion.--Nmate (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you have not agreed to the terms of the unblock, and will not be unblocked. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K.--Nmate (talk)

If you agree, please state "I agree to your terms". You need to be explicit about it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree.--Nmate (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Several edit conflicts...) I see that I was mistaken in thinking that you had not filed a sockpuppet investigation report, so I have reduced the length of the block to 31 hours. My apologies for the mistake. However, you provided no evidence beyond similarity of usernames, which is not enough to establish sockpuppetry, and certainly nowhere near enough to justify the actions you took. I suggest that Deskana amend the above offer to read "31 hours" instead of "72 hours", but otherwise the offer seems to me to be reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)