User talk:Relichal1

Welcome!

Hello, Relichal1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Yugoslavia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia 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. HighInBC 21:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Relichal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sock. I can't make a better case on your claim that I'm a sock, so you will have to provide some details. The best I can do not is to do what you did, just make a statement. I was not informed about any report against me. You just blocked me without any reason. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm familiar with the rules, this is against them. Even if it isn't it is done in a very secretive way. Few editors who clearly know each other have discussed me on the talk page of another editor without notifying me of any investigation. I happened to notice that discussion, and left some posts there. One of the editors who pushed for ban clearly lied that I have edited the same articles as one of the other editors and I have spent a good deal of time to see that I actually haven't edited a single article that is common with the other editor. Nobody there seemed to care that obvious lies are being said about me. I really didn't have to defend myself all around some corners where I'm being discussed without notifying me and without a proper report. It's a shame that the admin who blocked me went along with that. Relichal1 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious sock is obvious. And unlike many other kinds of discussions on Wikipedia, there's no need to notify editors about sockpuppetry investigations, though you were in fact pinged. Huon (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Relichal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What? How am I supposed to complain in this situation? If it is so obvious then it shouldn't be a problem to explain. I feel this is strongly against rools. No kind of report was made, and no kind of investigation was done. I think I deserve a proper investigation that will show I'm not a sock, instead of this.

Decline reason:

I'm sure you are already familiar with WP:UTRS.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proper way to deal with people who don't discuss in good faith

You need to open a RfC since there is not way to discuss with that editor you tried to discuss with. As far as I have seen, almost every discussion with him turns to RfC and accusations of sock pupperty and ban requests. I just finished one discussion where he tried to block me and another user because we didn't agree with his POV pushing. Just today the RfC had put an end to his POV pushing. I feel the RfC wouldn't be successful if another experienced editor had not joined, because nobody want's to deal with this POV pushing editor. The editor who started the discussion on had left and I initiated the RfC. 193.105.7.67 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Relichal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had it enough with the manipulative editor that managed to block this user. He has been trying to block everyone that doesn't agree with him and he has been very disruptive. There are much to say about this, but not to bother you with the walls of text, just follow up another one of his disruptive behaviors here. He already broke every each of Wiki bulletpoints on how to behave: 1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- In that discussion he already managed to ban another new editor that started the discussion. As seen from his appeals, he doesn't even understand what has happened. He directly lied to the new editor that his request is rejected, when the editor asked for a consensus to be established. 2. Assume good faith - He already made me open a RfC. He again is not discussing in good faith much like as in the Serbs of Croatia article, and I made that clear in the discussion (where I asked him directly to answer the crucial question and he refused). He again refuse to answer crucial questions. 3. Avoid personal attacks - he already reverted another user with the explanation "I know Croats ignore FR Yugoslavia, but it exsted." which is a clear personal attack on behalf of his nationality. He is trying to discredit that user with that personal attack by presenting him as a nationalistic Croatian editor. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - He again were fine to leave the edit in article that is in contradiction with itself. He again ignored all the valid arguments of the other side. No, he didn't ask for a dispute resolution, but instead went to ban the only person who represented the other side. Thank God I noticed this, because he exhibited the very same pattern of behavior of the Serbs of Croatia article. If you have the time, read trough 2 months of that discussion and compare it to what he has been doing now. If not I think that following this discussion you will find how disruptive and manipulative this editor is. And I can see he manipulated for this editor to be blocked, and this is not the first one he managed to block. I noticed it because this editor posted to the discussion or rather to call it "battle" I had with FkpCascais. I'm sorry, but you have been manipulated by him into blocking this user. I don't care if this user is blocked or not, but just do us all a favor and follow up the discussion for yourself. This disruptive behavior has to stop. Take time and carefully read Serbs of Croatia dispute on the talk page and you will see the same pattern of behavior on this article about Yugoslavia. I just thought this is the perfect way to get your attention, since he managed to manipulate several admins into blocking this editor.

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=I had it enough with the manipulative editor that managed to block this user. He has been trying to block everyone that doesn't agree with him and he has been very disruptive. There are much to say about this, but not to bother you with the walls of text, just follow up another one of his disruptive behaviors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslavia#Should_FR_Yugoslavia.27s_image_be_included_in_the_lead here]. He already broke every each of Wiki bulletpoints on how to behave: 

1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- In that discussion he already managed to ban another new editor that started the discussion. As seen from his appeals, he doesn't even understand what has happened. He directly lied to the new editor that his request is rejected, when the editor asked for a consensus to be established. 2. Assume good faith - He already made me open a RfC. He again is not discussing in good faith much like as in the Serbs of Croatia article, and I made that clear in the discussion (where I asked him directly to answer the crucial question and he refused). He again refuse to answer crucial questions. 3. Avoid personal attacks - he already reverted another user with the explanation "I know Croats ignore FR Yugoslavia, but it exsted." which is a clear personal attack on behalf of his nationality. He is trying to discredit that user with that personal attack by presenting him as a nationalistic Croatian editor. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - He again were fine to leave the edit in article that is in contradiction with itself. He again ignored all the valid arguments of the other side. No, he didn't ask for a dispute resolution, but instead went to ban the only person who represented the other side. Thank God I noticed this, because he exhibited the very same pattern of behavior of the Serbs of Croatia article. If you have the time, read trough 2 months of that discussion and compare it to what he has been doing now. If not I think that following this discussion you will find how disruptive and manipulative this editor is. And I can see he manipulated for this editor to be blocked, and this is not the first one he managed to block. I noticed it because this editor posted to the discussion or rather to call it "battle" I had with FkpCascais. I'm sorry, but you have been manipulated by him into blocking this user. I don't care if this user is blocked or not, but just do us all a favor and follow up the discussion for yourself. This disruptive behavior has to stop. Take time and carefully read Serbs of Croatia dispute on the talk page and you will see the same pattern of behavior on this article about Yugoslavia. I just thought this is the perfect way to get your attention, since he managed to manipulate several admins into blocking this editor.

 |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=I had it enough with the manipulative editor that managed to block this user. He has been trying to block everyone that doesn't agree with him and he has been very disruptive. There are much to say about this, but not to bother you with the walls of text, just follow up another one of his disruptive behaviors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslavia#Should_FR_Yugoslavia.27s_image_be_included_in_the_lead here]. He already broke every each of Wiki bulletpoints on how to behave: 

1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- In that discussion he already managed to ban another new editor that started the discussion. As seen from his appeals, he doesn't even understand what has happened. He directly lied to the new editor that his request is rejected, when the editor asked for a consensus to be established. 2. Assume good faith - He already made me open a RfC. He again is not discussing in good faith much like as in the Serbs of Croatia article, and I made that clear in the discussion (where I asked him directly to answer the crucial question and he refused). He again refuse to answer crucial questions. 3. Avoid personal attacks - he already reverted another user with the explanation "I know Croats ignore FR Yugoslavia, but it exsted." which is a clear personal attack on behalf of his nationality. He is trying to discredit that user with that personal attack by presenting him as a nationalistic Croatian editor. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - He again were fine to leave the edit in article that is in contradiction with itself. He again ignored all the valid arguments of the other side. No, he didn't ask for a dispute resolution, but instead went to ban the only person who represented the other side. Thank God I noticed this, because he exhibited the very same pattern of behavior of the Serbs of Croatia article. If you have the time, read trough 2 months of that discussion and compare it to what he has been doing now. If not I think that following this discussion you will find how disruptive and manipulative this editor is. And I can see he manipulated for this editor to be blocked, and this is not the first one he managed to block. I noticed it because this editor posted to the discussion or rather to call it "battle" I had with FkpCascais. I'm sorry, but you have been manipulated by him into blocking this user. I don't care if this user is blocked or not, but just do us all a favor and follow up the discussion for yourself. This disruptive behavior has to stop. Take time and carefully read Serbs of Croatia dispute on the talk page and you will see the same pattern of behavior on this article about Yugoslavia. I just thought this is the perfect way to get your attention, since he managed to manipulate several admins into blocking this editor.

 |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=I had it enough with the manipulative editor that managed to block this user. He has been trying to block everyone that doesn't agree with him and he has been very disruptive. There are much to say about this, but not to bother you with the walls of text, just follow up another one of his disruptive behaviors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslavia#Should_FR_Yugoslavia.27s_image_be_included_in_the_lead here]. He already broke every each of Wiki bulletpoints on how to behave: 

1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users- In that discussion he already managed to ban another new editor that started the discussion. As seen from his appeals, he doesn't even understand what has happened. He directly lied to the new editor that his request is rejected, when the editor asked for a consensus to be established. 2. Assume good faith - He already made me open a RfC. He again is not discussing in good faith much like as in the Serbs of Croatia article, and I made that clear in the discussion (where I asked him directly to answer the crucial question and he refused). He again refuse to answer crucial questions. 3. Avoid personal attacks - he already reverted another user with the explanation "I know Croats ignore FR Yugoslavia, but it exsted." which is a clear personal attack on behalf of his nationality. He is trying to discredit that user with that personal attack by presenting him as a nationalistic Croatian editor. 4. For disputes, seek dispute resolution - He again were fine to leave the edit in article that is in contradiction with itself. He again ignored all the valid arguments of the other side. No, he didn't ask for a dispute resolution, but instead went to ban the only person who represented the other side. Thank God I noticed this, because he exhibited the very same pattern of behavior of the Serbs of Croatia article. If you have the time, read trough 2 months of that discussion and compare it to what he has been doing now. If not I think that following this discussion you will find how disruptive and manipulative this editor is. And I can see he manipulated for this editor to be blocked, and this is not the first one he managed to block. I noticed it because this editor posted to the discussion or rather to call it "battle" I had with FkpCascais. I'm sorry, but you have been manipulated by him into blocking this user. I don't care if this user is blocked or not, but just do us all a favor and follow up the discussion for yourself. This disruptive behavior has to stop. Take time and carefully read Serbs of Croatia dispute on the talk page and you will see the same pattern of behavior on this article about Yugoslavia. I just thought this is the perfect way to get your attention, since he managed to manipulate several admins into blocking this editor.

 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

178.130.41.173 (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]