| Revision as of 10:13, 9 May 2017 editTerabar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users681 edits →Unblock Request.: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:07, 28 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Some stroopwafels for you! == | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 08:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''3 days''' for ] and violating the ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding 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. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. —]''']''' 09:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| ⚫ | |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hey Terabar. Welcome back; I hope you've learned enough now. Remember: ]. All the best, ] -] 10:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| |} | |||
| ⚫ | : Thanks ]. But what do you want to convey from this if you you were to express this advice in a single line? Huh? ] (]) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ::Just this: don't get hooked again. When your sense of justice is being offended, you run in to defend what you deem right. Well, you may be right, but you'll need good sources to make your point. And then, still: ]. ] is just not worth it. ] -] 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == Unblock request. == | |||
| == Noticeboard Incidents == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I was only reverting the . At noticeboard it states ''"Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring;"'' The only fault that I committed was to revert the vandalism multiple times and was blocked for 3 days. Tender Nuke has been given 48 hours (2 days) block for continuously removing the sourced content and I have been given a 3 day block for reverting his vandalism. Is this fair? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times ( and ) but no action was taken. I have only reverted the removal of sourced content and nothing else. You can . Is reverting vandalism a crime on Misplaced Pages? '''I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me.''' With best regards always, ] (]) 10:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | decline = Just because something is well-sourced does not mean that it has to stay in an article. This is a clear case of a content dispute, one that you were warned about and then continued reverting. Now, I'm not saying that your addition is inappropriate in the article. But it's also absolutely not a '''requirement''' that it be included, and that makes it a content dispute. I suspect SpacemanSpiff let you off with three days this time around because it's been almost a year since your last block, but most admins would have blocked you for a week this time around. ] (]) 12:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :This is your third edit warring block, it should have been for longer than 72 hours (which was your prior edit warring block) but I just let it pass. I'll also note that you continued edit warring after posting at ]. —]''']''' 10:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Blocked == | ||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| I've blocked you for 72 hours for personal attacks, disruptive editing, and repeated false allegations of socking despite being warned. Calling allegations "opinion" or "suspicious" is sophistry and pretense. If you persist in this behavior after your block expires, you risk being blocked for considerably longer.--] (]) 19:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], thanks for informing me that I could have been blocked for more than 72 hours (3 days). When I was blocked earlier, the two users who reported me were confirmed sock-puppet accounts. You can check that even in block log. See and . Also, I clearly stated above that the only thing I was doing was to revert the removal of sourced content. Is that my only fault? Is reverting vandalism a crime on Misplaced Pages? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times ( and ) but no action was taken. So is it only my fault that I removed vandalism? '''I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me.''' With best regards always, ] (]) 11:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to unblock you and I don't support an unblock either (but that's a reviewing admin's call), you clearly don't understand what vandalism or content dispute are, both of you were edit warring, both of you were blocked, you for a longer duration because you've made edit warring a habit now. —]''']''' 11:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I was writing the following as an unblock decline reason, but I was beaten to it. I'll offer it anyway in case it helps:<p>While I'm sympathetic to you here, I don't feel I can unblock you because you are showing no understanding of what constitutes a valid exemption from the 3RR rule. Reverting vandalism is a valid exemption, but reverting the removal of sourced content is not. Removing sourced content should not be automatically seen as vandalism - it might be, but it might not.<p>Just because something is sourced, that does not automatically mean it is appropriate for an article and must be retained, and we frequently see sourced content removed validly. Of course, removing it without explanation is not acceptable, but again that does not make it vandalism.<p>As far as I can tell, this was a content dispute - one editor thought some content should be removed, while you thought it should not. And it should have been addressed by discussion and consensus, and not by edit warring.<p>If you make another unblock request with a convincing explanation of your understanding of all this, the reviewing admin might unblock you - but you really do need to show an understanding of what is allowed as a 3RR exemption and what is not, and of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. ] (]) 12:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2017 == | |||
| ::], thanks for being sympathetic towards me. I am grateful to you for that. I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, ] (]) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi. I'd prefer it to go through the proper unblock process. So please make another request using the unblock template, below here, and someone will review it. ] (]) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''You are suspected of ]''', which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the ], then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-socksuspect --> <strong><span style="font-family: 'Tempus Sans ITC'">] ]</span></strong> 06:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock request == | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason=I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, ] (]) 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)|decline=72 hours after so many offences is not excessive in my opinion. The user tenaciously argues, based on flawed understanding of policy, that he is not edit warring when he restores sourced content to an article. All content needs consensus to remain in the article, and is not immune to removal simply by being sourced. ] (]) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| ::I should note that you got unblocked the first time, sadly, you seem to be treating these as discrete events that aren't connected to each other. Your assurance did not last much longer as you continued to edit war after that, even if not at that article, this behavior has continued elsewhere. It's also no different from when {{U|Boing! said Zebedee}} declined the unblock request. While you appear to say what you think people want to hear, it doesn't seem to affect your behavior at all. I also note that {{U|EdJohnston}} alerted you about discretionary sanctions back then, that is applicable even now. —]''']''' 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' as a ] of {{user21|Siddheart}} that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is ], but using them for ] reasons '''is not''', and that all edits made while evading a block or ban ]. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)<!-- Template:SockBlock -->}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Please unblock me. The reason behind this is that '''truly I am not Siddheart'''. Siddheart is a different person whom I know personally through Faceboook. His original name is Siddhartha. He actually convinced me to edit Misplaced Pages and make some edits and so I did. I followed his edits on Misplaced Pages and was blocked for a suspected sock-puppetry as reported. I have no other words to say rather than to speak the truth. I can even disclose the personal conversation that took place between me and Siddheart. Whether you believe it or not, its up to you. If you want to decline my unblock request then you should should at least remove the tag of suspected sock-puppet of Siddheart as I am not Siddheart. I am just asking the concerned admin to give me a chance to edit Misplaced Pages. Thank you. ] (]) 11:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC) | decline = You seem to be admitting that you did indeed edit on Siddheart's suggestion. That's a violation of ] and indicates the block is appropriate. ] (]) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::: ], at that time I even went to the concerned article to resolve the dispute. I did what I promised. I even ] with ]. In today's scenario I was not aware that the removal of sourced content might not be a vandalism. Therefore it is my fault and I accept my fault. ] (]) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=], yes this could be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy on my part as I wasn't aware of this when I started editing Misplaced Pages on the call of Siddheart. Please forgive me for that as I wasn't conscious or aware about it that it could be ]. After his call, I edited willingly to improve the Misplaced Pages. As for now, I just want to edit Misplaced Pages without the invitation of any other Wikipedian user. So from now onward, there will not be '''any violation of ]'''. So for this reason, I request you to kindly Unblock me. ] (]) 13:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC) | decline = It is very likely that this is just another made-up story to get unblocked, your behavior here irrespective of the socking issue has been disruptive and the block should stand on that alone, however, the fact that your behavior coincides with that of the sockmaster just adds to the reason for the block. If these sort of frivolous unblock requests continue then your talk page access will also be revoked. —]''']''' 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Sockpuppetry done by Tender Nuke. == | |||
| ],<p> ],<p> ]<p> ],<p> Now ] is doing sock-puppetry by editing from a dynamic Ip. See his which he was previously doing from his Id. See ( , ) He is evading the block now. Can you take some action now? ] (]) 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Resolved. --] (]) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding 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. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] (]) 16:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=], Kindly unblock me to launch a ] against that ] and then you can block me if my report is found wrong. That user has been sockpuppeting from two different ids. He was reported earlier and was found guilty too. Thanks ] (]) 16:06, 4 May 2017 (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 | |||
| *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u> | |||
| *the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
| *#understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
| *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
| *#will make useful contributions instead. | |||
| Please read the ] for more information. ] (]) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| == Unblock Request. == | |||
| {{unblock|reason= I have been blocked on the account of edit warring with a user but that user is a sock puppet and he continues to remove edits critical of Hinduism. He was blocked earlier for abusing multiple accounts and edit warring and now he is doing it again. See and I only reverted his edits in order to prevent disruption. Admins can check that in block log. Further, I would like to tag ] who also reported him in sock puppet investigations. Kindly unblock me so that I can launch a sock-puppet investigation against that user and remove all disruptions. If my report is found wrong then you can block me again for two days as I have already beard the block of 5 days out of 7 days. Thankyou. With regards, ] (]) 10:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
Latest revision as of 05:07, 28 February 2023
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
Hey Terabar. Welcome back; I hope you've learned enough now. Remember: WP:TRUTH. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks User: Joshua Jonathan. But what do you want to convey from this if you you were to express this advice in a single line? Huh? Terabar (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Just this: don't get hooked again. When your sense of justice is being offended, you run in to defend what you deem right. Well, you may be right, but you'll need good sources to make your point. And then, still: WP:TRUTH. Criticism of Hinduism is just not worth it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Noticeboard Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
I've blocked you for 72 hours for personal attacks, disruptive editing, and repeated false allegations of socking despite being warned. Calling allegations "opinion" or "suspicious" is sophistry and pretense. If you persist in this behavior after your block expires, you risk being blocked for considerably longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Thank you. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Siddheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Terabar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please unblock me. The reason behind this is that truly I am not Siddheart. Siddheart is a different person whom I know personally through Faceboook. His original name is Siddhartha. He actually convinced me to edit Misplaced Pages and make some edits and so I did. I followed his edits on Misplaced Pages and was blocked for a suspected sock-puppetry as reported. I have no other words to say rather than to speak the truth. I can even disclose the personal conversation that took place between me and Siddheart. Whether you believe it or not, its up to you. If you want to decline my unblock request then you should should at least remove the tag of suspected sock-puppet of Siddheart as I am not Siddheart. I am just asking the concerned admin to give me a chance to edit Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Terabar (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You seem to be admitting that you did indeed edit on Siddheart's suggestion. That's a violation of WP:MEAT and indicates the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2017 (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.
Terabar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User: Yamla, yes this could be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy on my part as I wasn't aware of this when I started editing Misplaced Pages on the call of Siddheart. Please forgive me for that as I wasn't conscious or aware about it that it could be WP: MEAT. After his call, I edited willingly to improve the Misplaced Pages. As for now, I just want to edit Misplaced Pages without the invitation of any other Wikipedian user. So from now onward, there will not be any violation of WP: MEAT. So for this reason, I request you to kindly Unblock me. Terabar (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Terabar (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is very likely that this is just another made-up story to get unblocked, your behavior here irrespective of the socking issue has been disruptive and the block should stand on that alone, however, the fact that your behavior coincides with that of the sockmaster just adds to the reason for the block. If these sort of frivolous unblock requests continue then your talk page access will also be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 13 December 2017 (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.