User talk:Ghaij625
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Ree625! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 12:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
September 2023
[edit]
Hello! I'm 98Tigerius. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2023 Women's European Volleyball Championship appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 00:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
NOT my account!
[edit]user:Czello user:Daniel Case Hello, I see that you tagged me in one of the administrations' page. I just wanted to inform you that the latest editor on the 2025 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship page is NOT my account. Investigate if you will but please also note that the duration of my ban is 2 weeks and I shouldn't be associated with someone else. Noted. We don't believe you that this is just some incredible, unfortunate coincidence. So ...
Edit: Daniel Case Well this is just plain stupid then. The second editor wasn't even in my IP address so you're acting with no proof. You could practically sabotage everyone who's banned, using this technique to extend their ban. Unprofessional.
- Funny. I have no idea what your IP address is. All I see is an edit very similar to the one I blocked you for (among other things). And the IP of the address I blocked resolves to Thailand, the focus of your edits.
I hope you investigate on that editor too, by the way.
- Because you're no doubt hoping that just because you don't have the same IP (at least, you think) you will be declared innocent of any block evasion/sockpuppetry and unblocked. I know some things about the process that I can't divulge beyond saying that it's a lot more complicated than that. What I do know that I can say is that a) it's much, much easier to prove guilt than innocence, and b) we can go by behavioral evidence as well, which is often (as it is here) much stronger than technical evidence.
Wikipedia is a privately owned and operated website, and we as the user community reserve the right that we would have almost anywhere in the world (including, certainly, Thailand) to exclude people permanently or temporarily who do not meet our standards of acceptable behavior online. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Funny?? In my eyes what's funny here are your policies. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
- Look, I'd understand even if there wasn't a proof but instead, a high chance. But this isn't even it!! Copying the edits of someone else who was involved in edit warring (Yes, I accept) and by doing so extending their ban doesn't take any effort, AT ALL. I'm very much aware how I've been acting could affect your decision, and I respect it, but I stopped insisting at one point and I wish you could see it.
- Also, if you look at the page you could see it's about a sports event. In all the previous tournaments I've seen that the flags of the hosts were ALWAYS used, which is why I insisted it should've been done in 2025 edition as well. I'm not even associated with Thailand, far from it, I live in Europe.
- I don't know how many IP addresses one can create, but wouldn't it be easier to block the IP address of the actual responsible instead? Taking the psychological aspects into account to make your decision is really considerate and I admire it, but I'm asking you, please, consider my progress too. I'm far from the attitude I've shown earlier.
- Don't get me wrong. One month block isn't that terrible (even if it's injustice) but what will happen if someone else joins and makes the same edit? Will I get a one year block then? Please reflect on this decision. Thank you. Ghaij625 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- "What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?" That's something that governments usually guarantee without imposing the same constraint on private parties. Your relatives can throw you out of their house based on something they believe you said or did, even if you didn't do it, without any legal recourse on your part. Likewise with us, because this is a privately owned and operated website. You don't, as far as I'm aware, have any sort of constitutionally protected or guaranteed right to edit Wikipedia in any country on the planet. And even if a country were to pass a law or something saying that you did, under United States case law (the law under which we operate) that could arguably be considered a taking and be held unconstitutional and unenforceable.
- This is how private property works to guarantee peace and prosperity for all. This is how it has always worked, and always will unless we find some better model.
- So now you're insisting that this IP range just happens, almost exactly a day after I blocked you, to happen by an article that less than a thousand people—a very small fraction of the English Wikipedia's total daily readership—are viewing every day at that point ... and decides, for reasons it doesn't bother to explain in an edit summary, to go into the edit history, copy your edit with its technical coding, and redo it?
- Please look at my user page, if you haven't bothered to already. You'll see in the very first line that I was decidedly not born yesterday. You are far from the first editor blocked for IP block evasion who's tried—emphasis tried—to use this Shaggy defense strategy. And perhaps I can't blame you—it has a perfect record, in that it's failed every time it's been used. It appears that that streak is not about to be broken.
- It is possible, perhaps, that that edit was, indeed, not made by you. However, in that case, I think it likely that someone acting at your direction or behest did it (maybe you called or emailed someone back in Thailand and asked them? Hmm?) If that is what you did, it's called meatpuppetry and is functionally no different.
- And regardless of your editing behavior, as I read things you're still wrong on policy. Past practice on other articles is irrelevant in the face of clearly enunciated policy. And I can't see how MOS:INFOBOXFLAG can be any clearer than "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes ... [they] should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used." (Does that last sentence sound like something you might have benefited from reading before you embarked on this little crusade?) There is a short bulleted list of specific (so far) accepted uses that does not include "identifying the host nation in articles about sports tournaments" That doesn't mean it can't ever, of course; it does mean that there should be consensus for that broad a use.
- The usage of those flags for the host nation in infoboxes for past women's volleyball world championship tournament articles (and, yes, I did look there and, you are right, they do have them) does not mean that you can just go ahead and put those flags into the infobox for the upcoming iteration of the tournament. It very emphatically does not mean you can remove the inline note telling you not to do that every time you restored the Thai flag. By doing that, you made it very clear that you were aware of this consensus-based policy decision and didn't care. That's not so easy to forgive as you have forfeited ignorance as a defense.
- And, doing this in an infobox made things that much more egregious as these sort of edit wars (thank you for admitting to that) have historically been so thorny and protracted in the past that the Arbitration Committee has declared all infobox-related editing to be a contentious topic area, with admins empowered to enforce policy in those areas more strictly than normally.
- The proper action to have taken in this situation would have been to have gone to the women's volleyball task force talk page, and/or the WP:VBALL talk page, started a thread where you point out the contradiction, and ask whether the use of host-nation flags in the infoboxes of articles about past women's world championship tournaments was something project consensus favors as a local exception to INFOBOXFLAG. If not, then the flags should have been removed from the articles about past tournaments as inconsistent with the MOS guidelines. Someone could still do this.
- "I don't know how many IP addresses one can create, but wouldn't it be easier to block the IP address of the actual responsible instead?" I sort of thought that's what I did ... take a look (In fact, I didn't just block that IP, I blocked the entire /64 range it's on (about 500 or so IPs) since those ranges are usually dynamically assigned to a single user under IPv6 so blocking just one address doesn't do much).
- Lastly, could I extend your block if I believe you have been socking or meating again? Yes, of course. You've not done much to restore good-faith presumptions, you must admit. I wasn't thinking of going to a year but now that you mention it I'd consider that.
- And I might be the merciful one. I know a lot of the other admins who do this sort of thing, and more than a few of them might, as they have the authority to do, block you indefinitely). Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- No Sir i swear i don't know them please don't punish me😭
- But seriously, you really believe the chances of that person being unrelated to me is THAT slim? Just one question: If it was a random Thai nationalist and they were inspired when they saw my edit, would it still be worth extending my block? Because I think that was the case.
- Lastly, I'm typing this out of hope, I don't really know if it might help but if you look at my page, you'll see I've always done my best to contribute to the volleyball pages. I never meant to sabotage. In fact I myself have removed many misleading edits before...
- It's not even a matter of my block anymore. As long as people don't repeat my edit and I'm held responsible for it, I'm happy with one month block. The only thing I want is for YOU to believe me. But I also don't want to bother you anymore I know I've been... difficult to deal with. Ghaij625 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Edit: Yeah i was about to fix it but thank you Ghaij625 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)