User talk:Bladesmulti/Archive 7

Copyright questions

Though I do have mixed feelings about your latest actions regarding me, I am impressed by the research-work you did. You really investigated a lot; I've seen things I wasn't even aware of. So, thanks for all the work you've done. And that is not sarcasm. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query about editor whose copyvio you deleted

I was looking at [1] because I found some copyvio added today, and I see you've deleted some. Did you warn him? His talk page has been moved as he's been renamed and has no history. So I'm wondering if he ignored warnings or if you didn't warn him. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I checked you contributions and you didn't. Please do so in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, I had warned him many times, [2]-[3] I had also reported to an admin,[4] and had some copyright violations deleted. You can ask if he understand what is copyright violation or not, he would say that he understand[5] what is copyright infringement, and still violate. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to जैन - I'm talking about ProudJain now RightBKC, I can't see that you warned RightBKC or ProudJain. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also told him not to use multiple accounts. Yes those discussions involved RightBKC,[6]-[7]-[8] at the top it says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RightBKC". His talk and user pages are a result of bad page moves, otherwise you could find the history in his talk page of this account where I had also warned about edit warring as he was recovering the copyright infringing material. Although admins can still see the deleted history of user talk pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a software glitch so even I, an Oversighter, can't see anything. He says he fixed the current problem where I reverted him this morning. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I Got your message on my email. No, I am not much active on Wikipedia, although I would like to be. Any specific reason you are asking? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. --Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Karma in Jainism's status. It was months ago. I have written on your talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle

Bladesmulti! How are you? I was just reading this SPI, after Joshua Jonathan told me about it. I'm pinging Cailil as well, for reasons I think you understand. Blades, leave Joshua alone and do not report him to dramah boards. No more ANI, no more SPI, no more AE. Also no ANEW, no COPYVIO, no AN, no BLPN, no RSN, no nothing. If I left one out, feel free to supply it yourself. For now I will allow you to interact with Joshua on user and article talk pages, but that's it--it's time for this disruption to stop because if you don't stop it, I will, by way of blocking your account. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is correct. And, by the way, Beh-nam is in Canada, and LouisAragon in the Netherlands. They aren't related and I hope to get that made clear. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Cailil, his outburst was unreasonable. There was a genuine concern which was agreed by some other editors too including two other admins. I think if there was no evidence at the spi page it could be easily called outright disruption, but an uninvolved editor calling it disruption (and a warning to block) might be more appropriate, and why not take action this time itself if the evidence is junk there? If there is clear evidence of obviously baseless report an uninvolved admin would take cognizance. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies as hounding, as far as I'm concerned, and I have blocked you for a week. I'll paste the appropriate template below, but this is not acceptable, Bladesmulti. I was not kidding. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, having long positively interacted with both Jonathan and you, I am disappointed that it has come down to this. You raised genuine concerns about insufficient attribution and close-paraphrasing initially (although I think the appropriate venue would have been Jonathan's talk page -> project noticeboard etc, and not WP:AE) but the more recent complaints against Jonathan at Talk:Hinduism and the latest SPI have become less meritorious IMO, and seem more personal and obsessive. This can't be pleasant for either Jonathan or you, and is not really helping us improve wikipedia's coverage of Hinduism. May I suggest that you take a day or two off to shake this off. Other editors and admins can review the SPI case in the meantime, and I trust that there will be no objection to your block being shortened once this issue is set aside. Wouldn't want to lose you as an editor over such, hopefully temporary, tiff. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing Abecedare. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I don't think that I was harassing or making personal attacks, I have never done that. I had tracked the contributions only for citing them on an SPI. Yes I was told by Drmies to stay away from the SPI, ANI, FTN, ANEW, etc. But I am not getting that how it could be implemented as I was already working on an SPI. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, Drmies note above is very clear about the areas to avoid and yet you went and edited the SPI page. You left drmies with no choice but to block you. I suggest you reformulate your unblock request acknowledging your mistake and trying again. Or just take a week off because you're obviously getting into a negative feedback loop of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be same as don't wikipedia for a week or I would block you? If there was an actual editing restriction, may I know where it was officially placed? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you blades. Note that the restriction is in place and you can discuss whether or not you should be restricted. But you can't flout it as long as it is in place. How you chose to go forward from here is your choice. You can leave your request in place and perhaps another admin will see things differently --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blades, I just want to make a couple of comments. Don't think of this as an "editing restriction". This is a harassment block. When Drmies warned you to stay away from certain forums, he was simply giving you fair warning as to what he would construe as continued harassment. Second, you specifically asked Drmies on my Talk page: "Am I allowed to post more on that SPI?" He replied, clearly, no. And that was hours before the diff Drmies provides above as to the basis for the block, an edit to the SPI you made.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, please see your email. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Drmies made it clear, and I believe this can be reconsidered. The edit does not appear to attack or offend, also, familiarity with all the involved party might have made things more tense/disproportionate. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bladesmulti, the moment you tell us that you will not make the kinds of edits specified earlier, edits which we can only interpret as attempts at harassment, you can be unblocked. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain this to me? Why is Bladesmulti not allowed to make a SPI post about a probable sockpuppet? I'd love to evaluate the unblock request but there is tons of history I'm missing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't answer the thrust of your question, but your use of the word "probable" is unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a history of harassment--that's what the SPI is, and what the earlier AE request was as well. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that AE was acted on, you should stop repeating it was meritless. Bbb23 you had closed the SPI well before commenting. If this is harrassment, then this block is so too. Over. That edit very clearly makes no personal attack by any stretch of imagination. Know that an uninvolved admin making this block would have received less resistance. @Joshua Jonathan and Magog the Ogre: please consider. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmritasyaPutra, don't play the same game that Bladesmulti was playing. ArbCom has nothing to do with supposed copyright violations in that topic area--I can't believe that you would seriously suggest there was any merit to it as an AE request. Now, if you believe that my block constitutes harassment, bring me up--on AN, on ANI, or, why not! make it an ArbCom case. In other words, put up or shut up. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had said the AE was not harassment. This Is. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stirring up a pot that I have precisely zero desire to stir up, I am going to grant this unblock this request. I do so very hesitantly, as reversing the actions of another administrator should only be done with caution. But if admins weren't allowed to reverse each other on occasion, then we wouldn't have the unblock template. Also, I do this with full disclosure. My explanation is as follows:

Bladesmulti asked me privately by IRC to evaluate the case. I realize this is admin shopping, but given that no other admin was willing to take on the case (to decline or accept the request), I am taking it anyway. I take very seriously my role in evaluating unblock requests when they are given to me privately. I have accepted and declined them before.
Upon investigating the request, I found that it had merit. Bladesmulti does seem to have a strong case that the subject is a sockpuppet, something which I am looking into separately. While the frivolous and/or frequent filing of SPI cases often is harassment, I do not believe that we should be blocking users for pointing out likely sockpuppets, even if they are warned not to do so.
Most importantly, Bladesmulti has agreed to refrain from any further activity related to the SPI for the duration of the original block. If, afterwards, he is foolish enough to go back to the request without following the process of escalating the issue (e.g., asking to be able to submit the links on ANI), then that will be on him. Because Bladesmulti has agreed not to further disrupt, the block would only have further value to discourage future misconduct for fear of punishment. But in my private conversation with him, I believe that Bladesmulti has learned his lesson and will continue to be careful. I have asked me to contact me privately before any future actions regarding JJ.

I do not want to give the impression I am doing this lightly, because I am not. I am all too aware of the harm that lone wolf administrators can perform when they undo blocks, especially in such circumstances. I also realize that every story has two sides.

Still, if anyone has questions about this, please contact me on my talk page or by email. I am happy to be transparent.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the SPI has shown no socking

See [9]. Bladesmulti, just a minor point - did you look at the time differences? (I haven't read through the entire SPI to check). Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even a case, there is a far bigger time difference in this SPI that I had filed. It is about much about what they are editing and how. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Are you saying that you don't accept the results of the SPI? Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

Please self revert your latest sanction breaking edits, else I will report you for breaking them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: can you provide specific diffs although I think I understand which one. But those edits specifically violate the last concluded RfC and adds "pseudoscience" without any article talk page discussion. I may be wrong. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I have reverted this POV vandalism. Let's stick to what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see BullRangifer's change has been reverted already. None of my contributions were breaking the sanctions, unless Alexbrn had described his changes under 4 hours and had any agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall be reporting you. I hope you get at the very least a six month ban for deliberate sanction breaking. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you for breaking sanctions. By the way, the last time I asked you to self-revert, you refused, and got a 36 hour block !!! Think about it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. I had asked if other user had explained his contributions in 4 hours or had any agreement for them. If answer is no, then again we are wasting time. Those changes were already decided through the RFC that you had observed more than I. Even on AN, no one voted for overturn. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Undiscussed reversion at Ayurveda, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, I have mailed you. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have carefully judged the reason, for which John had blocked. I realise the main reason and I assure to John that I wouldn't create these circumstances again. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Blocks are to prevent disruption and I judge that unblocking will not result in disruption. John (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]