User talk:Bekaro

hello

October 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:Aboutmovies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/Josh24B. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk: Barnabywoods. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bad faith is also against wikipedia policy, as you teamed up with Jason Sosa and edited closely on same subjects closely. it also seems also rather hypocritical of you to call others bad faith and personal attacks when he does said thing to others acording to your history.

I recommend using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Bekaro (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you provide evidence, all you're doing is spewing more personal attacks. You've provided no evidence that Jason or I are going against any of the site policies or guidelines, you're just wikilawyering by misrepresenting a less-experienced editor's disagreement with our corrections (that were within site policies) as attacks by us. You tell one more lie attacking me, and I will bring you in front of the administrators, since your account so far only exists to attack me. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You had no argument against it, so it seems more like you are spewing more personal attacks. ironicly enough. both you and jason seems close acording to your history. you made personal attacks against him and me aswell, included bad faith.

you already did bad faith and personal attacks against me here based on CAPITALIZATION alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josh24B#Comments_by_other_users

if that is not bad faith, then what is?Bekaro (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"spewing more personal attacks"...? I commented solely on your actions, the evidence was in the post right above mine, you have provided no evidence that any action I've taken was in bad faith. You have the same writing voice as a prolific sockpuppeteer who has a grudge against me, notice that the admins involved in the SPI thought it was a good idea to check.

Also,

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I only commented soleny on your actions aswell, the evidence was quite in your history that can be checked in contribution. so it seems indeed you did bad faith. you have the same writing style as when you insulted others with personal attacks.Bekaro (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs. Links to actions I've taken. Provide them, or you have no evidence. The burden of making your case lies on you. If you do not provide evidence, you are only making a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICANTHEARYOUBekaro (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC) ironicly enough here.Bekaro (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for CU-confirmed block evasion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:26, 25 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Like stated, Ransacktheplace is my other account, havent used it for anything else. that said if I am in a range or the network I am on are using the same ip adress, then asuming something else, would you kindly provide the block log on witsstein and how long it was and that I somehow escaped said block date it was set for Witsstein? was it until november? december? anything else that I evaded somehow? if not, then Ians personal attack and extremely bad faith against Barnabywoods http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aboutmovies&diff=517849947&oldid=517841072 and Ched here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=prev&oldid=510993512, his editing with Jasonasosa if you check contributions for evidence, which all in all, seems correct. like I said, aslong as he is given a warning, then perhaps he can learn not to use so many bad faith and personal attacks against other users. or to be so paranoid. Bekaro (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of the sock issue, there's nothing in this unblock request nor the further commentary below that makes me believe that the editor is willing to interact constructively with others. This is a community project, and such battleground mentality is unwelcome. The WP:NOTTHEM nature of the unblock request flies clearly in the face of how to request an unblock. My personal advice: take some time away from the project. Come back in a few months when your anger is gone for good, and you have a willingness to act within a community - as it stands, this block is protecting the community. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (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 recommend checking the community project yourself. hence the battleground that evidence was given is unwelcome. as stated, check the WP:NOTTHEM thus proving that the blacklisting was was incorrect. hence why my personal advice: check what [[WP:GAB| means. come back in a few years when your anger is gone for good and you have a willingness to act constructively and without personal attacks and actually give list of reasons point by point why the blacklist was given, if not, then it seems rather that you want to continue to censor the community for your own political reasons and opinions then the facts presented. since none I presented was given any counterargument for. exacly NONE counterargument for what I posted. thus proving my point.Bekaro (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM, and you're continuing to misquote me to attack me, what got you in trouble to begin with (on this account at least). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF

and read WP:NOTTHEM yourself. your continuing to not have any evidence that can be checked by checking contribution, which what got you in trouble to begin with. though only on this account at least. so your personal attacks and bad faith is continuing. thus since you have no evidence to your defence, then I am glad you admit to it. or perhaps give explanation between your trouble with ched? That said, you going against the religion of christanity with hypocrisy shows that you are indeed insulting other peopels religion by claiming it is part of it, so you would stop that aswell. your Anti-semitic,Anti-Christian hypocrisy cult might be something out of the 80s and very well be a real religion, but certainly not something others need to accept on this site WP:POLICIES since it apparently keeps encouraging you to keep breaking the rules and policy of wiki, though Ian is so engrained in it by looking at the Contributions history, it seems more likely people will confuse him with a neo nazi skinhead instead of some Anti-semitic, Anti-Christian cult member.

if not, then the "Please refer to contributions for evidence. " lies on you. we can check contributions you made to see if you are lying or not.Bekaro (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]