User talk:Keithstanton

Dear all.

All comments by me will be answered here so keep a lookout once you have left messages. Obviously if I write on your talk I expect you to talk back there so we don't lose track of conversations.

G'day

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your behaviour so far is well below the standards expected of a Wikipedian. I am about to revert all of your deletions on the "Persecutions etc" article. This is not the way to go about editing Wikipedia. Please ensure that your edits are policy-based and can be justified to the community, otherwise you can expect to be blocked in short order. These Balkan articles in particular are subject to serious sanctions for poor wikibehaviour. If you have any questions, please ask them at my talkpage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya mate! Don't take offence! I am only taking out the ones which don't fit the description of the article title. As they are not cases of persecution they don't really belong. What you wanna doPeacemaker is look at the summary on all the edits so you can see what it what. It's all explaned. Ta buddy. Keithstanton (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Please stop doing egregiously controversial edits in an active hot topic area covered by WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on the Arbmac offenders register. Keithstanton (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will be shortly. Pull your head in. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithstanton, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Keithstanton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Hi,
Selectively notifying editors about a discussion on another page is canvassing. Stop that now. Ballot-stuffing is not the way to neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how does it come to ones attention that an article is being nominated for AfD? You're one of those that needs to know as you are very knowledgable in that area of editing. Keithstanton (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination.

In principle, I suppose you could notify regular editors of the article, but most of them would have it on their watchlists anyway (I do) so they would find the AfD anyway without any notification. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work. Meanwhile I'm gonna sop canvassing as per your advice because I don't want another block. Meanwhile, do go and cast your vote, I mean you do know about it now :)))) Keithstanton (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with bobrayner's comment, not to mention that if you're basing your arguments on logic and policies you should focus on getting as many neutral users as possible to review the AfD, not votestacking. You really don't need votestacking so learn from AfD I started. Knowing that there would be intense votestacking (as was the case) I tried to make the AfD as much accessible as possible and indeed the vast majority of people that aren't "regulars" of these subjects but happened to glance my request at some board, supported deletion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that. Keithstanton (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBMAC

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This warning relates to your disruptive editing in relation to Serbia and Kosovo; this includes starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment with political soapboxing such as "A lot of the page is the regular Serb propaganda which forever looms when such article is created. The fact is that the amount of Serbs to have been victims of crimes is small compared to those to have been victims at their hands in the wars they have started", and making personal attacks at [1] and [2]. If you continue to comport yourself in this vein, without regard to our site policies listed at WP:5P and the principles in the above-mentioned decision, I anticipate that you will be topic-banned and/or blocked in short order. Sandstein 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Keith, you can be a productive user but you really can't go on with edits like this one [3]. A couple more of these edits and someone will report you and you'll get a topic ban, so take a step back and start with small edits and discussions on the talkpages.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on what's wrong with it? It's the de facto truth isn't it. All the info sourced as per the article was transfered. Keithstanton (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's de fact true, which everybody that has some knowledge of the Yugoslav Wars knows that it is. We still should differentiate time periods, which really don't change the content. How about this: pick a topic and write an article about it and I'll help you polish it and upgrade it to DYK.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much ZjarriRrethues! :) Keithstanton (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please revert yourself(Kosovo status process) as it doesn't matter content-wise(it still says the same thing with more adjectives and we all know who Milosevic was and who won the war, there's no need for such a reminder), you're just exacerbating your own position. Reverting yourself would show that you do realize the situation and are making steps forward. Do that and start thinking about your article subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Barnstars like this one also exacerbate your position, so please remove it[4]. I'm just trying to help here and get you on a proper, policy-based and efficient editing pattern.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no no. That was given for that exact reason. I congratulate the fine admin on his work. Keithstanton (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you can't phrase your views in this manner so in the future please keep calm and carry on. Also, canvassing is not okay[5] as bobrayner has told you. If your edits are correct, they'll get noticed by the community. Thank you for reverting yourself on Kosovo status process. Now start thinking about your article subject and we'll work on that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Hi Keithstanton. Here you tried to deny a user's unblock request. Please do not do this: firstly, you are involved with the dispute, so are not well placed to make the decision; secondly, you are not an administrator and do not have the tools to answer an unblock request. You are welcome to comment on unblock requests (but please only do this if you have evidence or information that would be useful for a reviewing admin to know - anything else tends to just make the process very messy); please refrain from trying to answer these requests yourself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, that was not intended to go on that part. I admit I never saw until now that it went into the blue box. Infact you may as well delete it because Evlekis should be able to see the comment in his history, thanks. Keithstanton (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and if I see any more flagrant attacks like that on anyone's talkpages (or anywhere else for that matter) you will be the next one blocked. Do not let your own beliefs escalate to such severe accusations of nationalism and attacks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Out of order and provocative. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tough. You know the rules here, you're on 1RR. Keithstanton (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you going to do? Revert every day? I am not the only editor to approve of the revisions you have been reverting. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Please explain yourself there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher of the Balkans

I've already provided references that support that "Butcher of the Balkans" sometimes refers to Mladic here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision,

you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. v/r - T P 16:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would dearly appreciate the standard offer to have myself able to edit again on English language Wikipedia. It has been close to three years since my account was banned. I understand I was blocked by arbitration enforcement for my militant attitude and my inability to work in a professional environment with other editors. I also used sockpuppetary tactics to two occasions (User:Hope meets success (see here[6]) and User:Cognoscerapo (nuked December '13, I haven't been active here since.) ). This was wrong, and I have no intention to edit using any other account than this one. I would like to show anew to the community that since the time I have not been logged in, I am able to make very valid contributions and all in tune to rules as laid down, and nothing that will upset fellow veteran editors. I would be very happy if someone can advise me farther on what the best thing to do is under this circumstance. Please let me know. My warmest regards to all Wikipedians. --Keithstanton (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As mentioned below, your block is an Arbitration Enforcement block. You will need to follow the directions at WP:AEBLOCK to appeal this block. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:45, 3 March 2016 (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.

As your block is an Arbitration enforcement block, your appeal needs to be sent to ArbCom per WP:AEBLOCK. Blackmane (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You admit above to using two sockpuppets, but one of those has been linked by CheckUser to an editor with an extensive history of using multiple sockpuppets. Are the two you mention the only accounts other than this one that you have used? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson. The one linked to an editor with an extensive history of using multiple sockpuppets (Evlekis), was User:Cognoscerapo however it wasn't a very accurate checkuser verdict because a user called User:Cannot be detected came onto my talk page just as I was blocked and insulted User:Joy [7] and it seems that this user was checked(user) to Evlekis who it seems is "always" active. However, I never knew anything about this until extremely recently because once Cognoscerapo was banned, I quit editing. 8 months after Cognoscerapo was banned, NawlinWiki stopped talk page access (though I don't know why, I never once abused my talk page, I didn't even appeal). Had you checked technical evidence you'll have seen that I operated Cognoscerapo from the same work device that I used for this account (though not today, I am in a library, not home or work). The "Cannot be detected" account was not used by me or any colleague of mine where I work (there are just four of us so I know for sure), so it cannot have generated the same technical evidence. As for have I ever used any other account to edit? Well, when I created Cognoscerapo I did actually create one other account, but do you know what? I never used it, and what I called it along with the password was all stored in my Apple iPhone which I upgraded in 2014, and besides the battery f*cked up in it, and as you know, iPhones have unremovable batteries and since I have a new phone, I don't see the need to pay megabucks to get the old handset working just to regather details of an account when thousands are created each week and most never used. For the time being we can safely say that the account I created is out of harm's way and will not be used for pushing tendentious viewpoints on contemporary Balkans affairs. The reason I am saying this is so that when you check when Cognoscerapo was created, you'll no doubt find the "sleeper" for which I cannot even recall the password. I don't want anyone to think I am harbouring it because I wish only to edit as Keithstanton ( my name) but I do want it known that Cognoscerapo's edits are mine because despite the disappointment they caused, I did mean each one genuinely but unfortunately they weren't appreciated by a handful of editors. FTR Evlekis' viewpoints and mine were "totaly" different, he generally pushed pro-Serb POVs whereas I edited from an angle that was neither pro nor anti-Serb but as you know from reliable sources, much of what Serbs say goes against their claims and reveal their "enemies" were the (more) truthful ones during the 1990s. Anyhow, so you know, I have begun an offline appeal request and you'll probably get the details of it soon. Any quetsions, please leae a message and I'll keep watch. Keithstanton (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]