User talk:Kaz
Due to prejudiced harassment, this page is regularly blanked in order to protect privacy. If you want a response from this user, please use the email
Indefinitely blocked
This is not an "infinite" block, but you are going to have to convince an admin you are going to stop being disruptive before being unblocked. Beeblebrox gave very clear warning to stop refactoring other people's edits on the article talk page, yet you have done so twice. There is a contentious requested move that you are deeply involved in, but today you decided to not wait for it to close, moved the page yourself, and sabotaged the ability of other editors to revert your move. Enough disruption. The standard template is below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Kaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |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=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |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=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- "Notification" four minutes before the move doesn't count. Indeed, calling it "notification" is dishonest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not being beligerent here, but in all fairness, that comment came weeks after the previous one being ignored didn't it? Kaz 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, you can't pretend nothing happened, that your edits weren't deemed disruptive. We are not bothered by the technicalities of the move but by the move itself--on top of the talk page behavior, the battleground mentality, and the level of disruption you managed to unleash on the article. That needs to be addressed if an unblock is ever to be requested and granted. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again with all due respect, How does That get addressed then? Imagining for the moment that I "unleashed" a "battleground mentality" at Crimean Karaites, without any evidence than "because they said so" are the edits of the users you are serving (e.g. this one [4]) and the articles de-listing [5] really better than my fully referenced clearly written and most importantly Neutral article?
- Moreover, I told you about attacking people with edit-summaries, and a few seconds later you did it again. Not good. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC):
- Well no one seems to have noticed or complained about that (unless privately to you) but anyway I apologised discretely and asked if you could remove such edit summaries so no one could get hurt by my exasperation on my own talk page and do something about blocking this page from harassment from by my stalker. So where do we go from here? Kaz
It is extremely easy to destroy a good article, but very difficult to build one especially when you are the only one of us who speaks English well enough to write an entire article about it, and when there are religious cults all over the internet (not WP) hell bent on twisting the facts about this tiny endangered ethnic group to back up their own religious ideologies who no-doubt have supporters on WP. As I said it is easy to destroy, but will any of you please have the integrity to read through the comparison of the articles to see if you have really singled out the right person here for blocking? [6] I do hope at least one admin will make the effort. Indeed it looks like two different topics. But Toddy1 calls it a POV fork if I try to write the article at Karaims. Heaven knows why he does not want the English speaking world to know the facts about us? Heaven knows why his team want to procure our history for themselves. If they are unusual Jews who hate Christ, fine! But why silence Karaims who love Christ? If they want to be Jews for Jesus then also fine, but then they should just move along no? But certainly it is not right to twist history. For those of you who can use a google translator I would like to leave you with this thought. If they are the peer-reviewed experts we are the fringe, then why does UNESCO take our side? Here [7] Please read page 61. If anyone reads Lithuanian I can also provide you with a Lithuanian government sponsored publication which also includes the Lord's Prayer. I really sincerely hope one of you will have the integrity to look into this matter seriously before any off the cuff responses. Do WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCN, and WP:BOLD mean nothing any more? Best regards to you all. Kaz 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- None of this addresses your most pressing issue: getting unblocked. This isn't the place to post walls of text about article disputes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Something confusing happened in an Edit Conflict. I have asked about "That" above.Kaz 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- My integrity does not hinge on your approval, I hope. I note that your defense, again, is that you were right and they were wrong. You are pretending that this encyclopedic article is where some sort of ethnic and historical fight is taking place, with sides and experts and UNESCO backing you up, but that is not the case. Continuing this attitude means that you will never get unblocked, since it guarantees that your disruptive behavior will continue. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why so angry? Did I wrong you somehow? Is this personal for you? I simply asked for someone to look into this move request seriously and not off-the-cuff. What exactly did I do wrong? Was I WP:BOLD ? Yes I was. Did I use WP:CRITERIA? Yes I did. And WP:UCN? Yup! Did I take other opinions and knowledge from users into account? Indeed I did, about 20 of them. Did I take it to the Admin noticeboards? Yup, several times. Did I wait for Admins to do something about this? For more than a month! Did I seek DR? Yes, but it has been closed down. Arbitration? Ditto. Now if this is about My typing errors and my pigs-ear of trying to undo the mess. Does the fact that I tried to undo it several times over mean nothing?
- On the other hand, if this is about personal attacks instead? Then I only gave as good as I got. But I also tried to deal with it discretely. So how long a block is normal for someone who apologises for a cuss? Or else, is it reasonable to block someone indefinitely for turning a bad article into a good one? Obviously I can just change my IP and get a new user name, WP blocks are pretty ineffective to be honest but with a 9 year clean history until I touched the Karaims article (and like I've never seen in all my 9 years here I see really bizarre reactions to my in this case adamant determination that there has to be logical neutrality and objectivity in this article like there are in so many others on WP. WP makes much mention of Good Faith. How come despite 9 years of good standing with WP as soon as I touch this article, assuming good faith in my behalf goes out of the window in favour of Straw man descriptions of me by literally a couple of really quite unsavoury characters?), I would prefer to do things honestly and openly by the book. I think it is best not to let Admin power get to one's head in cases like these, there is always someone higher to appeal to. Since I do not have any pride or ego to be hurt, I just want to know what honest steps I should now taken rather than doing things the way too many others seem to prefer. Kaz 23:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If I have been blocked for re-factoring, then look again, I have not done any of that since Beeblebrox did the definitive re-factor. If that is why I've been blocked then very simply, someone has made a mistake. In fact is is precisely because I thought someone might complain about the talk page being moved and because the Archive link did not work that I tried quite franticly to undo the move as my edit history shows. Kaz 00:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)