User talk:RavShimon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RavShimon (talk | contribs)
681 edits
→‎Socks of Klaksonn: unblock granted
Line 47: Line 47:
RavShimon reverting the Shia Islam article to the same Klaksonn-preferred version passes the [[WP:DUCK]] test in my eyes, and I blocked accordingly. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
RavShimon reverting the Shia Islam article to the same Klaksonn-preferred version passes the [[WP:DUCK]] test in my eyes, and I blocked accordingly. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


{{unblock|Well, I can't say about that, as I don't know the history behind it all. All I can guess is that it was an unfortunate co-incidence of timing. I have reviewed the edit in question and I see that it was made immediately after a number of other back-and-forth edits; this was my attempt to revert to a pre-war state. The alteration of certain demographic information was due to my belief that its previous alteration had been part of that war. The other purpose of my edit was the removal of honourifics and change of "the Prophet" to "Muhammad." I only just noticed the deletion of the tags you mentioned and I fully admit it was irresponsible of me not to see that they were being removed as well. I shall in future try to be much more careful about matters like that. I can definitely see, though, how all this would appear highly suspicious, and I cannot say I'd feel any differently in your place.
{{tlx|unblock|Well, I can't say about that, as I don't know the history behind it all. All I can guess is that it was an unfortunate co-incidence of timing. I have reviewed the edit in question and I see that it was made immediately after a number of other back-and-forth edits; this was my attempt to revert to a pre-war state. The alteration of certain demographic information was due to my belief that its previous alteration had been part of that war. The other purpose of my edit was the removal of honourifics and change of "the Prophet" to "Muhammad." I only just noticed the deletion of the tags you mentioned and I fully admit it was irresponsible of me not to see that they were being removed as well. I shall in future try to be much more careful about matters like that. I can definitely see, though, how all this would appear highly suspicious, and I cannot say I'd feel any differently in your place.
I am extraordinarily anti-POV, myself, and I do so hate seeing people misuse the WP system; I believe a review of my edit history will not only easily confirm that, but will also demonstrate that I do not have a single-agenda posting pattern, so I'll say no more in my own defence in that regard. Just please tell me at this point: if that is not sufficient for you, what ''can'' I say or do to resolve this matter or to convince you that this charge is unfounded?}}
I am extraordinarily anti-POV, myself, and I do so hate seeing people misuse the WP system; I believe a review of my edit history will not only easily confirm that, but will also demonstrate that I do not have a single-agenda posting pattern, so I'll say no more in my own defence in that regard. Just please tell me at this point: if that is not sufficient for you, what ''can'' I say or do to resolve this matter or to convince you that this charge is unfounded?}}

{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | [[Image:Yes check.svg|50 px]]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |

'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
<br><br>While I am not sure I believe your "co-incidence of timing" explanation, after spending the last half-hour reviewing your edits, I agree that they do not match the usual pattern of Klaksonn and his legion of socks. Many of your contributions to the project have been quite good, so I am going to extend the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] to the breaking point and un-block your account. If you really are Klaksonn hiding under a sheep skin, 41 days must be a new record for one of your sock accounts; but do not worry, I will be here to catch and block you when you screw up and show your wolf's teeth. If you are, as you said, an innocent bystander caught up in this tempest, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience of your block, and would strongly urge you to exercise caution when wading into a conflict before you have learned all of the facts. As you have have seen here, when a relatively new account reverts an article to the same version preferred by a slew of preceding sockpuppets, most admins will believe you are just the latest sock and block accordingly.

''Request handled by:'' [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user={{PAGENAMEE}} active autoblocks] on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small>
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}

Revision as of 04:28, 5 March 2009

Welcome!

Hello, RavShimon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello How do you know that Sam Moran was born is Sydney? do you know him? Welcome to Wikkipida! it's a lot of fun! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sam Moran, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sam Moran

I've left a reply on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK, I understand the need to protect Wikipedia from abuse and I bear no ill feeling toward the process. However, I am not an alter ego of any other user--banned or otherwise--and am not sure on what basis I have been determined to be so. Furthermore, I see nothing particularly wrong with any of my edits; at worst I may be guilty of bad judgement (albeit always with good intent). How can I get this resolved?

Decline reason:

Krazilec has left compelling evidence that this account is being operated by the same person as had disrupted the Shia Islam article previously. Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 5 March 2009 (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.

Blocking administrator has been contacted for clarification. Please await his response before we act on this. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that consideration. RavShimon (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of Klaksonn

In August 2007, Klaksonn (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely due to persistent disruptive editing where he consistently pushed a pro-Shia POV. Since then, he has been utilizing sock puppets from both anonymous IPs as well as newly registered accounts to continue pushing his own agenda. (See suspected socks 1, sock 2, sock 3, checkuser, and sockpuppet investigation for more details on those.)

After hitting the article sporadically during the beginning of the month, in late February socks of Klaksonn came back with a vengeance and began inserting their own POV into the Shia Islam article, largely via mass deletes of {{fact}} tags, changes to the demographics section, and the removal of references that do not support his cause. Examples of this include:

At this time I semi-protected the article for three days. However as soon as the protection ended, socks of Klaksonn returned to revert the article back to their own preferred version:

At this point, rather than continue to play whack-a-mole with this long-term disruptive editor, I then semi-protected the article for six weeks. The very next edit to the article was RavShimon (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who made essentially the same revert to the article as the previous dozen Klaksonn sock reverts.

RavShimon reverting the Shia Islam article to the same Klaksonn-preferred version passes the WP:DUCK test in my eyes, and I blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Well, I can't say about that, as I don't know the history behind it all. All I can guess is that it was an unfortunate co-incidence of timing. I have reviewed the edit in question and I see that it was made immediately after a number of other back-and-forth edits; this was my attempt to revert to a pre-war state. The alteration of certain demographic information was due to my belief that its previous alteration had been part of that war. The other purpose of my edit was the removal of honourifics and change of "the Prophet" to "Muhammad." I only just noticed the deletion of the tags you mentioned and I fully admit it was irresponsible of me not to see that they were being removed as well. I shall in future try to be much more careful about matters like that. I can definitely see, though, how all this would appear highly suspicious, and I cannot say I'd feel any differently in your place. I am extraordinarily anti-POV, myself, and I do so hate seeing people misuse the WP system; I believe a review of my edit history will not only easily confirm that, but will also demonstrate that I do not have a single-agenda posting pattern, so I'll say no more in my own defence in that regard. Just please tell me at this point: if that is not sufficient for you, what can I say or do to resolve this matter or to convince you that this charge is unfounded?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

While I am not sure I believe your "co-incidence of timing" explanation, after spending the last half-hour reviewing your edits, I agree that they do not match the usual pattern of Klaksonn and his legion of socks. Many of your contributions to the project have been quite good, so I am going to extend the assumption of good faith to the breaking point and un-block your account. If you really are Klaksonn hiding under a sheep skin, 41 days must be a new record for one of your sock accounts; but do not worry, I will be here to catch and block you when you screw up and show your wolf's teeth. If you are, as you said, an innocent bystander caught up in this tempest, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience of your block, and would strongly urge you to exercise caution when wading into a conflict before you have learned all of the facts. As you have have seen here, when a relatively new account reverts an article to the same version preferred by a slew of preceding sockpuppets, most admins will believe you are just the latest sock and block accordingly.

Request handled by: Kralizec! (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RavShimon&oldid=275097857"