Jump to content

User talk:KahnJohn27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KahnJohn27 (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 27 February 2016 (→February 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guru Arjan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khusrau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assyrian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Joseph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Theft Auto Online, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro (newspaper) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Stop reverting at Muhammad Iqbal; discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Go to the article talk page and establish a consensus for your version of the content. Tiderolls 13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you have the time here's the quote from the policy page: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As I have advised, you really need to better acquaint yourself with the policy. Tiderolls 21:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls: So does that mean I'm edit-warring just because I reverted removal of an edit few times because of their illegitimate reasons to remove sourced content? Don't think so. I don't want to indulge in an edit-war nor I will. And I don't see how anymore of this is important as I already said I will discuss. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls: Why have you blocked me? I didn't do any edit-warring and I already said I wasn't going to. You didn't even give a notice that I've been blocked. You are over-stepping your boundaries over a small thing and have given me a draconian block of 1 week. Please unblock me now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tiderolls 08:29, 19 February 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The administrator has blocked me over a trivial matter which isn't real. He claims I have been edit-warring though I didn't. I only reverted a few times and was never going to revert again and get into an edit war. Yet he has given me a long block of 1 week. As I said earlier I'm not going to revert again, get into any edit-war and will discuss the whole thing out. In fact, I had myself reported my reverted him. If you see my getting into reverting again then please do block me. But I promise I won't revert again and get into an edit-war. Therefore I ask to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

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 Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2016 (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.

@Tide rolls: I did that only because User:Justice007 removed the sourced content over a completely false reason here. I even mentioned this to you on your User talk: Tide Rolls and I myself reported to you that I had reverted it and I told I won't revert again. Even then you claim that I'm edit-warring just because of a few reverts. I am not edit-warring and I'm not interested in it. And if actions speak louder than words, then look at Talk: Eminem where I took a consensus to resolve the situation about Proof and Dawn Scott's deaths as people had doubts whether they were relevant to the article. So from all of this, it can clearly be seen I'm someone who does not want to indulge in edit-warring nor I had any intention to do so. And you're reason for blocking me is wrong. Please unblock me, I promise I won't get into an edit-war and won't revert again. If you do see me reverting it again and edit-warring, then please block me. But for now I request you to not to impose such a long block on me, this block also hampers any ability for me to discuss and talk about the edits with other editors. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made the same promise after your last edit warring block. Tiderolls 09:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls: I did and I haven't indulged in any edit-warring since then and nor I was ever going to. You are misunderstanding this issue. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you are misunderstanding the issue. I stated as much in my warning to you and you insisted on reverting to your version of the content. That is edit warring. Tiderolls 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls: No I'm not. I reverted VERY FEW TIMES and only reverted ONCE after you told me. That too because Justice007 gave false reason to remove sourced content that too without caring to discuss first. That is not edit-warring nor I was interested in getting into an edit-war and nor I will. This block is unnecessary and inhumanely long. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until you understand the policy the block periods will only increase. One more time I will advise you to educate yourself with regard to the edit warring policy. Tiderolls 10:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Seems you won't try to understand anything and blame me for something did not happen. This is completely inhumane and power abuse, you're trying to belittle me for not agreeing with you. I only reverted a few times. I did not get into any edit-war and nor I was going to. That's it regardless of what you believe. Your block is unjustful. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2016 (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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My earlier unblock request had been declined because the reviewer thought I did not address the reason for my block and also because of other reasons. I do understand the reasons of as to why I was blocked. The admin blocked me over edit-warring. If the admins need an assurance, then I promise and assure that I will not get into an edit-war, talk and discuss instead of reverting continuously and will not cause any disruption. If the admins do see me doing that then please block me then, I won't complain against it. I have made many useful contributions to Wikipedia and that is the sole thing I wish to do. I will not make any disruptive edits. Hence I ask admins to please forgive me this once and unblock me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

overtaken by events; block is now indef, and for block evasion. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (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.

@Tide rolls: User:SheriffIsInTown has reverted again without waiting for the discussion to be resolved. Aren't you going to block him as well for edit-warring? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Did I block you before I warned you? 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem here is that you seem to be contradicting yourself. Only a couple of days ago you said "I only reverted a few times. I did not get into any edit-war and nor I was going to" (and can you show us where in WP:EW it says it's acceptable if you only revert a few times?) Now you appear to be saying that you understand you were blocked for edit warring and that you won't do it again? So which is it - were you not edit warring and the victim of inhumane power abuse, or do you accept that you were indeed edit warring? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notice

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block was set to expire today, but User:Drmies has somehow extended it indefinitely over some claim of sock-puppeteering. I've never done any sock-puppeteering. From the notifications I've received and this SPI investigation, Drmies seems to claim that an editor by the username of Lakhbir87 is my sock-puppet over a CU check due to apparent "behaviour similarities". I've noticed that Lakhbir87 reverted the article to stop User:SheriffIsInTown from edit-warring after I was blocked. On his talk page, some admins even claims that his and mine account have technical connection. However, the user is not my sock-puppet and I have no connection at all with him. I don't even know who this guy is. Therefore, the judgment of Drmies of thinking me to be him is completely wrong. Hence, I ask the admins to lift the block as it is based on false grounds.

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=My block was set to expire today, but [[User:Drmies]] has somehow extended it indefinitely over some claim of sock-puppeteering. I've never done any sock-puppeteering. From the notifications I've received and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KahnJohn27 this SPI investigation], Drmies seems to claim that an editor by the username of [[User:Lakhbir87|Lakhbir87]] is my sock-puppet over a CU check due to apparent "behaviour similarities". I've noticed that Lakhbir87 reverted the article to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&type=revision&diff=706109697&oldid=706020299 stop] [[User:SheriffIsInTown]] from edit-warring after I was blocked. On [[User talk:Lakhbir87|his talk page]], some admins even claims that his and mine account have technical connection. However, the user is not my sock-puppet and I have no connection at all with him. I don't even know who this guy is. Therefore, the judgment of Drmies of thinking me to be him is completely wrong. Hence, I ask the admins to lift the block as it is based on false grounds. |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=My block was set to expire today, but [[User:Drmies]] has somehow extended it indefinitely over some claim of sock-puppeteering. I've never done any sock-puppeteering. From the notifications I've received and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KahnJohn27 this SPI investigation], Drmies seems to claim that an editor by the username of [[User:Lakhbir87|Lakhbir87]] is my sock-puppet over a CU check due to apparent "behaviour similarities". I've noticed that Lakhbir87 reverted the article to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&type=revision&diff=706109697&oldid=706020299 stop] [[User:SheriffIsInTown]] from edit-warring after I was blocked. On [[User talk:Lakhbir87|his talk page]], some admins even claims that his and mine account have technical connection. However, the user is not my sock-puppet and I have no connection at all with him. I don't even know who this guy is. Therefore, the judgment of Drmies of thinking me to be him is completely wrong. Hence, I ask the admins to lift the block as it is based on false grounds. |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=My block was set to expire today, but [[User:Drmies]] has somehow extended it indefinitely over some claim of sock-puppeteering. I've never done any sock-puppeteering. From the notifications I've received and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KahnJohn27 this SPI investigation], Drmies seems to claim that an editor by the username of [[User:Lakhbir87|Lakhbir87]] is my sock-puppet over a CU check due to apparent "behaviour similarities". I've noticed that Lakhbir87 reverted the article to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&type=revision&diff=706109697&oldid=706020299 stop] [[User:SheriffIsInTown]] from edit-warring after I was blocked. On [[User talk:Lakhbir87|his talk page]], some admins even claims that his and mine account have technical connection. However, the user is not my sock-puppet and I have no connection at all with him. I don't even know who this guy is. Therefore, the judgment of Drmies of thinking me to be him is completely wrong. Hence, I ask the admins to lift the block as it is based on false grounds. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KahnJohn27&oldid=707171003"