User talk:NelsonSudan

WP:AN

To let you know, with regards to [1], I have posted your request for an unban on Tobias Conradi to the administrators' noticeboard on your behalf for community consideration; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unban of User:Tobias Conradi requested for the discussion. –MuZemike 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

I saw a post by you on a talk page on my watchlist [2], and thought that you deserved a reply.

People will award you barnstars if they think you deserve them. Liking you has got nothing to do with it. One editor who awarded me two barnstars had a few weeks earlier created an ANI complaining about me; he/she eventually realised that he/she was wrong about me, and that my insisting that things were properly formatted made the articles that he/she was working on better. Eventually that editor got blocked, because of his/her behaviour. I treasure the two barnstars from him/her, partly because I deserved them, and partly because I succeeded in working successfully with someone who was initially very difficult to get on with.

Please do not solicit barnstars; it devalues the whole concept.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you have posted what you have posted....Because you fall into the same category as User talk:Taivo who I have posted queries about barnstars about. I asked him if he thought it was ok to continue to host a barnstar from a dicredited editor who'd been banned as a Sock Puppet....I guess I have to put the exact same question to you? As for devaluing barnstars...Frankly, I think you and User Taivo should look closer to home. If a Editor is held in so little regard that he is banned from WP, how much regard should a barnstar awarded by him hold?

Frankly, I always suspected that barnstars were as trivial as I have now learned they are and when I aske for one, I was kind of asking tongue in cheek....I also asked User Taivo who I don't think is likely to ever be minded to award me one.

NelsonSudan (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not understand from my post that I value the two barnstars from the editor who got blocked more highly than I value the others?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not get the point...Those Barnstars were from a discredited editor; in the eyes of WP (who don't rate the editor as deserving to edit) they are worthless.......that you continue to display them devalues barnstars. Pretty obvious to me. They are effectively bogus barnstars. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

There was a lot of input above; I would not be patient enough to read it all..........If any one wants to tell me something with the minimum of word count, that would be welcome. NelsonSudan (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I sincerely apologise for jumping to an unfavourable conclusion about you; it was neither true nor deserved nor welcoming. I will henceforth endeavour to treat you as I would any other editor. I hope that this unfortunate introduction into Wikipedia won't deter you from contributing further. Best regards for the future. Sincerely, Nightw 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Night w; apology accepted. NelsonSudan (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the thread below, I guess I was two days too quick. Nightw 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. 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. TN X Man 17:58, 22 August 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).

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

Request reason:

Standarads here have sunk to their lowest level. .I have been blocked for "block evasion". No further explanation given. To "defend myself", I atleast need to know what is being alleged? NelsonSudan (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. You are 100%, guaranteed to be Redking7 and I can prove it easily. Tnxman307 blocked you based on contributions, because you're editing the exact same topics that Redking7 did, even many of the same articles. But the real smoking gun is your IP. Here you admit to editing with the IP address of 84.203.64.52. Looking at the sockpuppet report archive for Redking07, it is shown that Redking7 previously used the IP addresses of 84.203.65.99, 84.203.72.8, and 84.203.69.86, which are all Smart Telecom addresses in the same city (Dublin). You basically outed yourself as Redking7 from the start. Nothing short of a solid checkuser result can be a stronger connection than that. -- Atama頭 19:35, 22 August 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.

Certainly. It is very likely you are Redking7 (talk · contribs), evading their block. TN X Man 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Redking7.......A day or two ago I was accused of being User: Tobias Conradi......This is hardly justice. I can't make an argument...How can I prove I amn't either of them? Isn't it supposed to be "Guilty until proven innocent?". Why is it on me to prove I am not Redking or T Conradi etc? What have I done wrong? My edit history is there for all to see. No abuse. No blocks. Nothing. Other editors will barely take ten nanoseconds to read any of this. That's the truth. You have the power...to abuse. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about you being Tobias. However, if you've copped to using the same range as Redking has and are editing in the same topic areas in the exact same manner as he, you're more or less hoisting yourself on your own petard. (I've seen enough banned vandals to tell if someone is evading a block with a cursory glance, and your behavior at AN kinda revealed you in my eyes, ears, and nose to be a sock. I was merely wrong on the puppeteer.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can message Tobias on meta:User talk:Tobias Conradi. It might also be worth emailing the following. At least one is bound to be interested in nominating the rule change described at [[3]]. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have Meta talk pages as well. * = administrator, # = arb.

John Carter; Chairboy; *CBDunkerson; GoodDay; *#PhilKnight; Mxn; RashersTierney; Sarah777.

Good luck. 78.149.199.123 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it; you are judge, jury and hangman....No other editors it looks like are even going to spend a nano second to speak up one way or the other. You were wrong on one count but presume you are right on a new count. I can't defend myself. How can I prove I am not Red King or Tobias Conradi. What did either of them do I wonder as well? Any one bothered to look at any of that either? ....I don't have any other voice in any of this. And this is fair? NelsonSudan (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing stupid. Tobias is on WP:List of banned users and the reason for his ban is given there, as well as a link to the ban discussion. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith! I did not know about that list...Also, now that I have looked at it...I see it says about Tobias "Banned for continued incivility and personal attacks. Multiple second chances were given, but eventually the patience of the community regarding his tendentious editing was exhausted and, following a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted. Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked." Frankly, I would be glad if you would point me to where Tobias gave his defence? Seems a bit one sided. As for Red King...His talk page is still accessible (unlike Tobias). Apparently he was banned for one or more of about a dozen edits relating to his view that the Republic of China did not have diplomatic relations with some other countries like Germany etc. He was right. It doesn't so why was he banned? The Administrator who banned him was a person who was himself banned a few days later. Does that matter either? "Nanosecond justice" I suppose. Either way I am neither Tobias Conradi or Red King so why am I being banned? NelsonSudan (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviorally and by admission of technical evidence, you are Redking. That is why you are blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the evidence. How can I defend myself? I don't know what "behaviourally" means in the context...and you haven't told me what the technical evidence is. Are you serious about trying to be fair here? NelsonSudan (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atama has provided the technical evidence (above), and "behaviorally" means exactly what it means. You're playing dumb now, and it's getting old. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a discussion forum where editors who have been shafted by the fascist admin corps can get together and compare notes. The best place for that is Tobias Conradi's talk page over at Meta - if you don't want to talk publicly his details are here: [4].

You haven't admitted anything - that's a trick they play to trip people up. Don't admit anything. I'd be interested to have your assessment of the proposed rule change (see link above) - good idea or bad? 86.163.101.132 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, he already has admitted he's using Redking's IP range. Note the link Atama included in her unblock decline.

As an aside, since you seem to only be using this page as an anti-administrator soapbox, I've requested it be protected and your talk page privileges revoked. You may still seek unblock at unblock-en-l@wikimedia.com as Redking7, but as for this account, it's likely over. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske, where's the diff to support your claim? And why do you refer to Atama as "her?"86.163.101.132 (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is his admission he edited under an IP - given the response he gave, this IP - prior. And I generally assume gender based upon name. I don't know the actual gender, I'm taking a guess at it.

If you look at User:Atama's userpage and show the userboxes, you will see that he identifies himself as a male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.21.147 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]