User talk:MarcusMaximus0

January 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I recommended you open an account so we could start discussing things with you, I most definitely didn't mean you should carry on with edit warring and make gross personal attacks other users. Consider yourself extremely lucky to only be blocked for 31 hours; I would have made it closer to a week. When you come back, please discuss your changes cordially on the talk pages without attacking other users, or you will see yourself reblocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know darknessshine has shaken your confidence as a admin by calling you "biased" and so on however I will not tolerate unilateral and disruptive edits by users who freely hurl insults and get away with blanking pages because it hurts there national pride I think you should of been more brave and blocked darknesshines indefinitely when you had the chance his use of abusive words go unabated as well as his disregard for sourced information and I will continue to remove his nonsense pov pushing MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines has not shaken my confidence at all; I still believe I am a neutral administrator. As for "unilateral and disruptive edits by users who freely hurl insults": do you have any sense of WP:IRONY? In any case, nationalist butthurt is not a valid reason for ignoring Wikipedia's policies; Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire. Rather, follow our norms. If you continue to edit war and make personal attacks without regard to this, you will be blocked indefinitely in a heartbeat. And, by the way, I'm ignoring the fact that this clearly appears to be a bad hand sockpuppet account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are neutral I appreciate your blunt way of administrating and I don't object to this block (since I didn't moan and appeal against the block by producing crap excuses like "I was angry that's why I did it like some users do i.e darknesshines) however on a sense of "irony" no I don't feel any since he instigates virtually every single conflict by either stalking editors or canvassing to get them blocked MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad

Does not say 371,013 were killed, he says 3 million. Please self revert your misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly embrace states 3 million and if you are capable of reading it states that the number could be between 300,000 to 3 million get a grip please MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what page number? Page 10 is currently cited, and no-were on that page does it say 371,013 (which BTW is an impossible number, all figures are rounded to the closest 100,000 or million mark) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] go through that list and see in fact this site alone gives a slurry of information from several reputable sources I await your reply MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source, it also does not explain why you have misrepresented a source, self revert now. Find a reliable source for the low end figure and add it to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

darkness read

The high estimates of how many Bengalis were massacred are almost 10 times the low estimates: WHPSI: 307,013 deaths by pol.viol. in Pakistan, 1971. D.Smith says 500,000 S&S: 500,000 (Civil War, Mar.-Dec. 1971) 1984 World Almanac: up to 1,000,000 civilians were killed. Hartman: 1,000,000 Bengalis B&J: 1,000,000 Bengalis Kuper cites a study by Chaudhuri which counted 1,247,000 dead, and mentions the possibility that it may be as many as 3,000,000. Porter: 1M-2M MEDIAN: 1,500,000 Rummel: 1,500,000. Eckhardt: 1,000,000 civ. + 500,000 mil. = 1,500,000 (Bangladesh) Harff & Gurr: 1,250,000 to 3,000,000 The official estimate in Bangladesh is 3 million dead. [AP 30 Dec. 2000; Agence France Presse 3 Oct. 2000; Rounaq Johan: 3,000,000 (in Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)) Compton's Encyclopedia, "Genocide": 3,000,000 Encyclopedia Americana (2003), "Bangladesh": 3,000,000 Indo-Pak War, 1971 B&J W. Pakistan: 8,000 India: 2-3,000 S&S India: 8,000 [sic] Pakistan: 3,000 [sic] TOTAL: 11,000 Eckhardt (Indo-Pak War): 11,000 Clodfelter India: 3,241 Pakistan: 7,982 [TOTAL: 11,223] WPA3 India: 3,037 Pakistan: 7,982 TOTAL: 11,019 Hartman: India: 10,633 Pakistan: 17,000 [TOTAL: 27,633]

MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

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).

MarcusMaximus0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See discussion below, posting on behalf of user. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think given the discussion below, this request is moot. This editor was given the standard offer and has accepted it, so no unblock would be forthcoming. If and when it does, it will probably be the original account that is unblocked. -- Atama頭 18:18, 3 February 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.

Sigh I have been through this many times now A checkuser is done previously and no I dont edit kashmir related articles like he did i.e K2 etc so save me some time and unblock me MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in fact he exclusively edited mountains in disputed Kashmir take a look at this [2] and his ip range was 86 to 81 mine is 109 to 35 to 86 elockid unblock me please and I wont take your rubbish allegations further MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed when you place tags on his blocked accounts he never responded probably accepting his block in that account and swiftly making another he has never defended himself how can I even be associated with his edit history ? MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{unblock}} template. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have posted your request on the blocking admins talk page [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is my ip MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) my IP range is 109, 31 (sorry not 35 got confused) and the one which got me into this crap 86 109.150.59.99 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Ok @ dark 109.150.59.99 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to use that template so thanks darkness MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the IP 86.135.17.215 was you? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link me the contributions page MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong IP, I meant 31.52.189.228 And 86.184.209.127 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was me and I only denied it because in all honesty you got me pretty pissed and I made this account on maggogs advice MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a further comment that ip you gave shows his edits are totally different to mine all he did was add "occupied" to every single kashmir related article and Sylvester Stallone? MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hate to have to say this but the 86 range has been used by Nangparbat , you have the same ISP and you both geolocate to the same area. It looks like WP:DUCK was used. Better wait till the blocking admin comes around. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BT is the largest ISP in UK millions of people have ip 86 we just happened to edit Pakistan related issues I repeat I have no interest In Mountains or human rights In India MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, this looks pretty clearly like a correct sockpuppet analysis. If I'd been aware of User:Nangparbat beforehand, I would have clearly stated that you are the same user. If you would come clean then perhaps we could remove your ban and you could start editing more in line with community norms; this is better than working as a sockpuppet anyway, because it saves both your time (making edits that get reverted, changing your IP, etc.) and ours (blocking the IPs, reverting the edits, etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will support that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I come clean I am Nangparbat a account I made several years ago when I didnt have much sense of wikipedia let alone wiki policy can I at least talk to a arbitration committee for a possible unblock~ I never really got this offer from other admins it was just "leave wikipedia forever and never use it" I feel teary eyed maggog:) MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about you darkness your not working for RAW after all regards MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing if its not too much to ask what steps can a blocked account take to regain confidence of wiki admins? (as you can see I was just given a plain old block with no choice of redemption or punishment besides block such as ban on reverts etc) MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want the full story of my exile from wikipedia and my morphing into a sock account I will explain ALL MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With editors who have a history of problems (e.g., sockpuppetry), we usually extend the standard offer. It's a bit harsh, in that it requires someone to wait for 6 months, but it is a way of jumping back into the community. I cannot recall ever seeing someone be turned down for the standard offer when s/he is willing to accept it. Would you be willing to accept it? I would certainly post on your behalf at ANI; getting anything shorter than 6 months would likely be problematic (even if I personally supported it, I would probably get overruled by other admins who would just reblock you). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as stupid as it sounds I never knew what sockpuppetry was back in 2007-2008 I kept on creating new accounts thinking my old one expired after that I was just told "LEAVE" and yes now that I read your comment it is a bit harsh frankly I thought anyone who had sock accounts would just have to stop using wikipedia for a lifetime sort of a death sentence and I repeat I never ever had a chance to make up for it it was just full on blockage whatever I did and whatever I said and no one explained to me anything about redeeming myself except you. Since your the first admin to talk to me and offer me this I will gladly wait 6 months for the chance to edit as a legit user MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my word I wont come near wikipedia editing for 6 months as long as I am able to repent for my sins :) MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing to pester you with I have dealt with so many admins in the past no one I mean NO ONE ever mentioned [4] standard offer I am concerned about admin quality and moral to be honest but you today have definitely saved that image If I could give you a barnstar of truth and honesty I would (no im not kissing your ass well maybe a bit) MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a wholly uninvolved admin, but one who has read through the threads, I would support a possible rehabilitation on acceptance of the standard offer. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen him very active for the past year which is a really good sign (I monitor the target articles). Considering the recent edit warring incidents, I would recommend editing restrictions such as 1RR on all Indian and Pakistani articles, broadly construed until the community feels that the restriction may be lifted if a standard offer is sought. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also notified Hersfold. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not at all convinced by the sincerity here, especially given that you've been editing while logged out multiple times in the past few weeks (I'm not counting the edits to this talk page above, I mean actual article editing). However, if you can completely commit to no editing in the next six months, and demonstrate that you have improved on the disruption that led to your original blocks, I suppose we can consider the standard offer. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold my edits were not the problem my account making i.e sock creation was the issue in fact several of my edits are still preserved I did not add nor blank pages (well only a few) as I said its the fact I made so many sock accounts that got me indefinitely blocked not my edits. Yes I will stay away for 6 months even more if you want me to. From this day on I will not edit for 6 months or whatever you decide. I will watch your discussions to see what decision you have come up with I am of to university will be back 5pm London time (Yes I am not a troll I am completing a pharmacy degree I have brains :)) also due to this I have exams so I wont be able to edit for at least 5 months regardless of an unblock. One more thing I do not want to pee you guys off but I am pretty disgusted by the fact you (Hersfold, Greyanomoly, Nishkid64 etc) never informed of this redemption method and made me languish as a sock puppet for so many years :( however I shall forgive your ignorance see you after 6 months. (I will respond to any questions on this talk page or wherever you decide)

Regards, Nangparbat

Do I need to do anything now ? you guys have not replied please let me know your decision asap MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't think there's anything else to do. We had numerous different community members opine that we would be OK with the standard offer, including an admin who has blocked you in the past, so I personally consider that good enough. A few other points:

It's usually best not to insult administrators in your unblock request (WP:NOTTHEM), no matter the circumstances.
I am working on sitewide restrictions for the topics anyway, so a 1RR restriction might become moot.
We would have to agree to a civility restriction for you as well. Granted, the other editors don't have this, but it isn't particularly difficult anyway; it basically means not saying "[insert editor here] is a dickhead." Even if the other editors do it anyway, well sticks and stones, and they're just digging their own graves anyway. I've never had a civility restriction, but I'll gladly put myself on one at any point (backed up by allowing anyone to block me) just to prove that they're not so difficult to adhere to.
We would definitely ask you not to edit under any account but this one after the 6 months expires. If there are pressing needs for exceptions (e.g., for me there's User:OgreBot and User:Magog the Ogre 2), I'm sure you could ask an established administrator who would grant it. This is mostly already policy ([{WP:SOCK]]), so, again, it should be pretty easy.
When you're unblocked, I would personally recommend a mentor of some sort; someone to walk you through these things.

In any case, it looks like your 6 months began yesterday, so that will give you until August 1. If genuine, I appreciate your willingness to work with us and abide by the rules. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will stop feeling sorry for myself. Anyways Magog I don't think you realise how much you cheered me up I owe you Thank you once again see you in 6 months hopefully goodbye. MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]