User talk:BerndGalama

Welcome!

Hello, BerndGalama, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Prodego ^talk 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Prodego! :) BerndGalama (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information you gave me, there was no active block on your account. My apologies if I missed one, but I can only see the what you you give me. Prodego ^talk 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you not to demand an apology. If you can honestly say that you edit well and even have objective proof, like GA or FA, then that is all the proof you need. I saw your complaint on ANI. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked on numerous other accounts, and shouldn't just create a new one without any link to the previous ones. Try unblock requests on an existing one and you may have more success (although I doubt it with your history). Fram (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • autoblocks)

WP:ANI

There appears to be consensus that the unblock was premature, and that your account is being used for sockpuppetry. I have re-blocked you for two reasons, 1) I don't want to see any disruption to Wikipedia, and 2) I don't want you editing out enough rope to hang yourself - you seem to have the uncanny knack of talking yourself into trouble, rightly deserved or not. I don't intend to let that happen, to see you talk yourself into being banned. Give ANI the rest of the night to come to some decisions, and then it will get dealt with. In the mean time, don't sock or anything silly. SGGH ^ping! 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a seemingly thoughtful message. Blocks should come with an explanation. However, the last two sentences are inconsistent with the block length. The block length is indefinite. The likely event is that the ANI thread will lose interest and this person will be forever blocked. If there was truly concern that this user will hang herself/himself, a 24-48 hour block would serve the same purpose but not be subject to leaving the user permanently blocked.

Others know more history, I do not. Reason #2 is inappropriate to cause blocking. Reason #1 is a standard reason for blocking. It's a better reason than blocking for punishment. However, there is no clear explanation of the original disruption. The ANI post says there was no disruption. Was there vandalism? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk. As I said there, there is consensus that the original unblock may have been an incorrect decision. Also this and some contentious BLP which I understand relates to his old account's blocking. Lastly, while "preventing him from talking himself into a block" may not be official blocking reason, should he have remained unblocked he may have continued contentious editing like the above (and admin baiting, see the userpage history) which is itself disruption. Disruption is covered by the block rationale, so the reason serves two masters, in effect. Furthermore, I shan't let it drift. Am watching the userpage. SGGH ^ping! 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]