User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2015/October

Hi changes on Bebe Rexha nationality

Hi,

in my knowledge, Bebe Rexha was born in New York by ethnic Albanian parents. Her parents were born and raised in the Albanian regions of Debar (her father) and Gostivar (her mother) in FYROM. All Albanians of those regions have Macedonian citizenship but Albanian nationality in their passports. I never heard that Bebe has a Macedonian passport. But even if she has one why you chose citizenship over nationality??? As much as I know she's an American citizen with Albanian nationality, which makes her an American-Albanian. She's very proud of her Albanian origins.

A little background info: Albanians make 30% of FYROM and they have their rights stipulated by the Ohrid Agreement, which among other rights makes Albanian a co-official language and the using of Albanian flag an obligation in all state buildings and events. In FYROM there are 3 Albanian parties that are represented in parliament and government, including the vice prime minister+ministers and they speak Albanian in both parliament and government. It's funny when you listen to the parliaments sessions in FYROM, because the Albanian deputies speak only Albanian and the Macedonian deputies speak Serbian. The lands where the Albanians of FYROM live belonged to Albania till the early til 1945. Since than they have always tried to divided their land from FYROM and reunite with Albania. Even though the Ohrid Agreement achieved a fragile peace, the situation between two ethnicity is always delicate. That's also an other reason I doubt Rexha has applied for a passport that states the Macedonian citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.5.52 (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Pokerkiller

The account User:Secret was unblocked. Why did you block the new account? Dustin (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

What one arb giveth.... another taketh away....

Unless poor secret breached an unblock condition it seems rather unkind to let him in and then chuck him out again the same day. Comes across as seriously suboptimal

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Yes, I mentioned this just a minute ago! I don't understand this... Dustin (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

At the point we unblocked, we were unaware that he had been socking for months. This information was not shared in his unblock request, despite being clearly of material relevance. i'll let Lfarone comment further, because typing on a phone is nearly impossible. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that the pokerkiller acount? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was the oneused to evade the block. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is a violation of the rules and deserves a block. Perhaps a finite block would be acceptable? HighInBC 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly one account or the other should be blocked indefinitely. But I think, maybe, some form of block other than indefinite might not be inappropriate. Granted, there were extremely strange "extenuating circumstances" leading to the original block, and, maybe, theoretically, such circumstances might recur, which I guess could be used as a reason to keep the block indefinite, but I would still myself maybe not basically ban someone indefinitely for coming clean about socking after the fact. Not remembering all the circumstances leading to the original block, I could even understand that the circumstances might make someone seek a form of "vanishment" clearly contrary to policy, but maybe not entirely unreasonably. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite, and an appeal will be heard (if made) after a minimum time. That time will be on the order of months, but how many we have not finished discussing. If a future appeal is successful then it is not unlikely that it will be with a one account restriction, but they will have a choice of which single account they wish to use. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf if it's just a simple case of socking, this should be left to the community to deal with. If the ArbCom intervention is no longer needed, which it obviously isn't, or ArbCom wouldn't have accepted Secret's unblock request, then it should be returned to the community to deal with. Re-block Secret for a finite amount of time commensurate with the behaviour - I'd say 1 month, and see what the community has to say about it. Nick (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There are reasons which cannot be made public which mean that we will not be placing this block under the community's jurisdiction. I am not able to go into more detail than that, so there is no point anybody asking. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And if there is material which is not publicly available that is the way things should be done, except I suppose in those instances when the individual(s) most directly involved wish to make that information public, which I am not sure is going to be the case here. And I hope we all know that if someone says "I can't talk about that," they really can't go into any sort of detail about what they can't talk about without, well, talking about it. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)