User talk:ZORDANLIGHTER

Topic ban

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Cailil ^talk 19:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

--Cailil ^talk 19:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

And blocked, again...

I should have been more careful when unblocking you - while I accept that you are now willing to abide by your topic ban (and hence that the Arbitration Enforcement block is no longer appropriate), I failed to spot that you've been engaging in sockpuppetry and block evasion throughout the period you were blocked. I have therefore reinstated an indef block on this account, this time for block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui ^雲_水 08:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yunshui ^雲_水 . I am not going to say anything against this decision , but I feel that the block must be reduced to a small period of one month to two months. I have seen that another user wrote in your talkpage that I am a disaster for this website. First thing most of the sockpuppets were reported by myself. This is something most socks don't do.Darkwind mentioned Um, okay. Blocked, and I'm going to try not to wonder too hard why one would report oneself for socking... . Even in the last case Dord has mentioned Once again, we see self-reported socks. . Secondly some of the sock accusations are wrong , unfortunately they appear in my casepage. I have no relation with Sourcepen and Momanogilgiti. Third I don't think all my socks were simply creating disaster as mentioned by another editor in your talkpage. I will not do any sock puppet again . that's the reason I reported myself . ::::The thing is that first i had an editing dispute with large number of editors on Total Siyapaa talkpage( when the article was protected), and all of them turned out to be LanguageXpert socks. This created a wrong impression in my mind about Wikipedia editors. Later on I had an editing dispute with darknessshines , for which i ultimately faced topic ban. :When my block was existing , I found that darknessshines was blocked for two months.Now that made me think that Wikipedia adminstrators always support the wrong people.Look i am a human being not a machine . All this is psychological .When i want to edit a wrong information about a page and correct it I was not expecting such resistance. (first time I was blocked by dangerous panda for 24 hours as i was removing comments made by languagexpert sock on total siyapaa talk page , unfortunately he was trying to suppress negative reviews and inflate box office gross). Editing Total Siyapaa turned out to be a nightmare because of LX socks. ::If you see my talk page history large number times LanguageXpert socks have vandalised my talkpage here , again ,and again , again and again , once again ,offensive language , personal attack . :::::I promise I will never create anymore block evading sockpuppets . Kindly make sure that indefinite block should not be forever : as long as i am alive till death , I am ready to accept two months block. ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Honestly, I don't care what you're "ready" to accept. You socked your way through an arb block to violate your topic ban. Maybe read WP:STANDARDOFFER, but that will require you to contribute to some other project constructively and come back here after the specific time. Kuru (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (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.

• First, you'd be very surprised how many socks self-report. Secondly, please read WP:NOTTHEM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So, Kuru (talk) i will have to wait for six monthsZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a troll Ahmur786 constantly vandalising Ajay Devgan 's page . This version by [1] states Ajay Paaaaagli (born: Chammak chalo with the reference

http://www.koimoi.com/actor/ajay-devgn/

Ahmur786 could be LanguageXpert

Look at these serious vandal edits[2] [3]

He is editing from mobile to avoid ip detection. How come administrators are silent how a person's name is changed like this.

Darkness Shines (talk) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)

But still nobody is correcting it . I am blocked and I can't do anything--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I won't create any socks again ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Promising not to create more sockpuppets is a step forwards, but there are other issues to, such a edit warring, vandalism, lying, and so on. Under the circumstances, I think that Kuru's offer that you take up Wikipedia:Standard offer is the best you are likely to get, and I suggest that you take it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2014 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Six months have passed ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, they have, but you have continued socking, so you will not be unblocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:44, 11 April 2015 (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.

I am not কসমিক এম্পারার . Check User will prove it.@Titodutta: @Vanjagenije: ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)