User talk:Banu hoshech

I am not Shrike iedited one article that he didn because I agree that his version is more neutral. Please unblock.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banu hoshech (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2011

Maybe you should ask administrator help.Use this tag: {{adminhelp}}

Just delete tnull.And expalain to to them that we are not socks of each other--Shrike (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

not the same person as Shrike ijust happen to agree with him on one issue.

Decline reason:

I find it pretty difficult to believe that you would use the exact same edit, with the exact same wording, on the exact same article, as someone you just happen to "agree with on one issue". A bit far-fetched as a coincidence. - Vianello (Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banu hoshech (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 February 2011

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).

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

Request reason:

I used the "undo" button which restores the exact same version as before, because I think it is better. What do you find so farfetched about using "undo"?

Decline reason:

The fact that your edit history shows you haven't used it, perhaps? — Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (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.

I changed the above from an 'adminhelp' to an unblock request template Chzz ► 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it again I not that user.The user just reverted disruptive edits by other user that all.--Shrike (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

i don't know what you mean about editing history. I retored the version of Shrike from 08:32, 15 February by umdoing the 2 editd by passioless that came after it. Do you think I edited the article by hand, character by character to remove 2383 characters and arrive at the exact same version

Decline reason:

I do not find this persuasive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 20 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

i amsorry you don't find this persuasive. What can I do to persuade you that I did not happen to arrive at the samew version as shrike by manually editing , but actually restored his version? Seems this is quite a normal thing on wikipedia. What if I undertake not to edit any article that Shrike edits?

Decline reason:

In addition to the other concerns which have been mentioned, your knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia seem beyond what can reasonably be expected of a new user. That is what seems most convincing to me, but there are also a few other pieces of circumstantial evidence, not in themselves convincing, but they contribute to the overall probability. These include the fact that two of the three articles you have edited have also been edited by Shrike (not just one, as you stated above) and striking similarities in use of English. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (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.

I agree that it seems very probable you used undo to instate the edit. That your very first action on creating your account was to zoom directly to that particular article and undo that particular edit, after the Shrike account was apparently placed under 1RR restriction, is what is concerning to most, I think. - Vianello (Talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrike account was NOT placed under 1RR, rather, all articles related to the conflict are on 1RR. Regardless - I'm sorryu that my first edit gave rise to that suspicion and would like to dispell it. What can I do? Let me repeat the offer not to edit any article that Shrike does.

I stand corrected, then. I'd like to hear out what the other previous declining/blocking admins have to say. - Vianello (Talk) 09:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not at all convinced based on the edits. The fact that the suspected sock dropped by a couple of times to say "he's not me" pretty much sealed it. WP:DUCK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this certainly seems like a no-win, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If he doesn't deny that it's the same aCcount, you could point to that as proof that it's the same, and since he does deny it, you use THAT as proof. Again what am I supposed to do?

OK, if you are not Shrike, then who recruited you to support him on his behalf while blocked? –MuZemike 07:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one recruited me, and shrike was NOT BLOCKED when I restored the version he created. Is it too much to ask that yOu spend a few minutes actually looking at the relevant facts of this issue, before rushing here with incorrect assuptions ?