User talk:Greek And Proud

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Igoumenitsa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BALKAN block imposed

You have been indefinitely blocked for balkan-related disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=I admit that I used this account: Greek and Proud. I'm new user in Wikipedia and didn't know the basic rules and how to appeal blocks. I was immediately blocked with only two edits: although I feel I overdid it but it was too late for me to respond. While I used this account,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CrazyMartini, I started to understand what is disruptive and what is constructive created a number of articles and I have improved them, opened discussions and asked for opinions by other users. I really didn't know how to be 100% ok with the rules but I learned each day new stuff and functions, and I'm really sorry for being considered a disruptive member (and I was in my very start). In case, if there is a possibility for me to be unblocked, I will refrain from edits that may be considered disruptive and always ask for opinions.Greek And Proud (talk) 2:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) 9:26 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)}}

This user was banned because he was/is a meatpuppet that targeted Albanian users to possibly help some users who are under editing restrictions. The administrator who banned him did that exactly for this particular reason(meatpuppetry) and general disruption. Then the user created a new account trying to deceive the community and avoid being reported/found, but his activity seemed to me too obvious and part of general instructions that could be given to a meatpuppet so I notified an admin. The admin considered my concerns reasonable and contacted a checkuser who verified my suspicions. As all my suspicions/reports so far have been proven correct I should comment that those articles he created with his good hand account aren't a product of his own creativity but they were sent to him by some other users to help him avoid suspicion and report. This may sound like a general and unfounded assumption but this was one of the factors that initially lead me to suspect his other account as a sockpuppet and report him. Eventually it was proven to be a sock so the verdict of my suspicions and suggestions is on the outcome.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: (1) if this user should be unblocked, I recommend he should be allowed to shift to his newer and better-behaved account CrazyMartini (talk · contribs) (currently blocked as a sock). These patriotic usernames named after the editor's nationality and national pride and all that are an embarrassment and not conductive to collaborative editing. (2) The original block on this account seems not to have adhered to the rules of the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions clause (no prior warning, immediate indef block after very few edits), so it might not be valid as proper arbcom enforcment but should be treated as a "normal" disruption block (i.e. lower threshold for overturning). (3) The editing of the newer account, while still motivated in parts by typical national POV concerns, seems to have been generally acceptable and in some instances quite positive, and the unblock request above looks sensible, so in the interest of WP:BITE I think it should be given some consideration, unless Zjarri's meatpuppetry suspicion can be substantiated further. (Not taking admin action myself though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the choice of username is unfortunate, this appears to be is a bona fide new user who should be given a second chance. Zjarri's behavior so far has been atrocious, the very paradigm of BITEing newcomers. He instantly BIT this newcomer, screaming "meatpuppetry" without any evidence whatsoever, posted no less than TWO warning templates within THREE minutes, and then ran to WP:AIV to have him banned as quickly as possible. I have never seen a new user treated so badly. We have to keep in mind that this is a brand new user, who knows very little about wikipedia (regarding reverts, usernames, sockpuppetry, etc...), yet he was indef blocked after only 2 edits, without anyone to mentor him or any guidance whatsoever. However, since then, he has shown that he can learn and contribute constructively. I believe with some mentoring, he can become a productive member of the community. But here is Zjarri again, doing everything in his power to prevent this user being given a second chance! This is clear bad faith, battleground attitude, and biting of newcomers. Regarding the accusations of meatpuppetry, unless substantiated, they are themselves disruptive and hence sanctionable. His accusations are wild and quite paranoid, especially the ones about the creation of new articles. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, you have reported dozens of Albanian users and gotten them blocked and banned, so you should be very familiar with how things work. You have also reported ZjarriRrethues (falsely) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Report_date_March_13_2010.2C_01:24_.28UTC.29 as a sock only three days after his first edit in Wikipedia, so please don't preach against BITING. CrazyMartini is a sock of an indefinitely banned user, because a vandal. I disagree that he ever be back in Wikipedia, we really don't need these people. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict is on the actions of the admins which are a ban and a ban of a sock, so my assumptions however some users label them were correct so far.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His second account created a number of small but interesting articles. I disagree that he is vandal. About Igoumenitsa he reverted one of Kushtrim's previous edits. At least his contribution [[1]] is much more constructive that Kushtrim's [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)To be precise he was reverting Kushtrim and Balkanian's word with another banned user MKDLion (talk · contribs). 2 completely new users tag-teaming in an article against another user for a subject that by checking the history of the page has been removed by certain now under restrictions Greek users many times is a strong argument that proves that these two were by no means randomly editing but were following a certain editing pattern.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this weird argument we should have already indef banned Balkanian&Kushtrim&Zjarri. since they engaged in edit war against MKDLion&Greek&Proud, not to mention that this childish edit war was initiated by Kushtrim (who is the definition of a revert only account). By the way, I see that the specific user (Crazymartini) has made good edits in a variety of articles and I agree per Fut's comments.Alexikoua (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a noticeable difference portrayed in my&BW&Kushtrim's contributions. Unless you claim that MKDLion has created the same amount of articles of the same quality as me or BW. I wouldn't label reverting those edits as edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a noticable diferrence between the specific user and Kushtrim, something you mysteriously avoid to mention.Alexikoua (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that both sides here should stop the bickering. More of this is not likely to help the reviewing admins come to a sensible decision. Disengage please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to unblock you on the following grounds:

You are subject to a one revert restriction on any of the articles covered by ARBMAC (see area of conflict). This means you may make a maximum of one revert (excluding grossly obvious vandalism) within 24 hours. Exceeding this restriction will result in an immediate block.
You are on final warning regarding the articles covered by ARBMAC. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, decide to impose a block without warning if your edits in this area are determined to be disruptive.

I strongly encourage you to work for consensus in the area of conflict; using talk pages will go a long way to both making yourself more productive at Wikipedia and avoiding conflicts. You don't have to agree with everything everyone does, but you do have to show that you're willing to work with other editors, and not simply revert pages.

Please let me know if you are OK with these restrictions. If so, they will be logged as an official sanction under ARBMAC. I do still have to get the blocking administrator to sign off on this, but I think he will be OK with it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Should these restrictions go into effect, they would be in effect indefinitely. They could be lifted at a later date via an appeal to the community at ANI or appeal to ARBCOM. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Shirik is free to unblock this user if this user agrees to the restrictions above. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I’m sorry for my delay but I had to read all the mentioned rules and restrictions and I will respect all of them. I have no problem and I will not disappoint you. Thank you and sorry if my presence caused such a disturbance. Also, I would prefer to edit in future with [User:CrazyMartini] because with this I have created a number of articles and opened discussionsGreek And Proud (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I am leaving this account blocked as a technical matter; you should not have more than one account, and have requested that you use the other account. Please note that if you are found to be deceptively using multiple accounts again in the future, it is likely that you will be blocked. Please let me know if User:CrazyMartini still appears to be blocked. I don't see any autoblocks affecting it, but I could have easily missed something. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]