User talk:Loosmark

You are free to ask questions here:

Welcome to the elections!

Dear Loosmark, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 12:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Loosmark, your disclosure on other accounts in your nomination statement currently reads "I have no alternative accounts." Could you amend this to indicate whether or not you have ever edited from another account? I am asking all candidates to ensure that their disclosures are full and categorical. Thanks, Skomorokh 13:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean another account as in from somebody's else account? Obviously no, I have only ever edited under Loosmark account. Dr. Loosmark 14:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors had prior accounts which they abandoned for whatever reason. If you could just add the above claim " I have only ever edited under Loosmark account" to your nomination statement that would be perfect. Sorry for the bother, Skomorokh 14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

np, i will add that to my statement. Dr. Loosmark 14:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Loosmark. Skomorokh 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "try to make wikipedia a nicer place for content creators by desyoping some d*ckhead admins who are here merely to play the "wikipedia game"." is entirely appropriate. May I politely request that you tone that down or remove it altogether from your statement? (For starters, arbs can't just desysop whoever they want, but calling people dickheads is not civil.) /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the Arbs can desyop whoever they want, however if an admins starts to create trouble and drama on regular basis he needs to be deysoped. But fine, I will try to tone done my statement in accordance to the wikipedia civility standard. Dr. Loosmark 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of my questions page is fine. Dr. Loosmark 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added there. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and Answers

Thank you for answering my questions so promptly. I was partly prompted by the work I did on the use of historical sources Franco-Mongol Alliance case, which was private at the time but was subsequently disclosed: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Report on use of sources. Good luck in the elections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Avi (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:AN#Ban discussion: Loosmark and sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not abused multiple account. I request who "informed" the checkusers about alleged "irregularities" in my editing is disclosed.

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence very conclusively shows that you have used several dozen accounts. In addition to the technical evidence, the concerns we were presented with brought to light a number of behavioral similarities, which we felt were unusual enough to merit a closer investigation. As for who brought this to our attention, that is not relevant to any appeal, nor is there any reason you should be told. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (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.

Here is the list. That is a lot of sockpuppets. In what way do you think that operating that many accounts is not an abuse of multiple accounts? What is the legitimate reason that you think you have for using so many accounts? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One year

Loosmark, I have blocked your account for a full year as a matter of arbitration enforcement under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. You've been socking to evade a six month topic ban.[1] The matter is further compounded by deception in the candidate statement where you did not declare any of these 40+ socks. So we have WP:SOCK, WP:DIGWUREN and WP:GAME violations of a very serious nature. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's got enough blocks for a WP:ABUSE report if someone cares to file one for his IP. AndrewN ^talk 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ban

Loosmark, there has been a consensus at AN for a community ban. This means you cannot edit on en.WP under any account without the consent of the community or arbcom. Moreover, you have been blocked for one year, owing to the wildly over the top sock farm you ran in a sanctioned topic area (whilst standing for this year's arbcom election so less). After one year has gone by, if you don't try to edit here or cause any other disruption on Wikipedia, the standard offer may be open to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will respect the decision of the community, and will not edit wikipedia anymore. I apology to everybody and ask that somebody puts that tag "retired" here. Dr. Loosmark 11:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not get {{retired}}, you got {{Banned user}} && {{sockpuppeteer}}. Jack Merridew 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doing nothing wrong award

	You did nothing wrong
	you did nothing wrong Drowningseagull (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^that was one of your socks, LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.9.165 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for the trouble I caused Wikipedia and I only hope you can forgive me over these 8 long years singed Loosmark

Decline reason:

I've blocked the account that posted this for block evasion; that's a rotten way to try to get unblocked here --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:33, 2 February 2019 (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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polish Radio Stations before WW2

Template:Polish Radio Stations before WW2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Honda RS125

The article Honda RS125 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is another, better article for this bike, Honda RS125R

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]