User talk:Mobile historian

September 2009

Your recent edit to Maltese nobility (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr/Blogspot, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. Lawrence's Church, Vittoriosa

The article St. Lawrence's Church, Vittoriosa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is not about what its title claims it is about. There is one passing reference to the St. Lawrence's Church in this article (referred to as the Church of Saint Laurence), the remainder of the article appears to mostly be about various random points in the history of Malta.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SnottyWong talk 13:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maltese nobility, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Maltese nobility was changed by Mobile historian (u) (t) deleting 18102 characters on 2009-11-03T19:09:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign titles of nobility in Malta

The sources are better, but please read Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section and make changes to the lede, also known as the lead paragraph. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Bearian (talk)

As much as I want to fulfill your request on my talk page, I lack the knowledge to do so. I have zero familiarity with Maltese nobility. I have seen brief mention of the Barba, Bianchi, (Busco/)Bosco, Cardona, Crispo, Gomez, Guevara(/Guara/Grayera), Lascaris, Navarro, Piscopo, Ragusa and Torres families while foraging for genealogical data on distant relatives of mine, but my foraging has not yet led me into the genealogies of post-15th-century Maltese noble families. Sorry. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Hi there. I reverted your addition of a request for arbitration to Maltese Nobility. The correct venue for such a request is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests Nancy ^talk 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you a sock puppet of banned User:Tancarville? You certainly appear to be so. If not and all works out well, you may want to read WP:RS, WP:ELNO and a few more of our guidelines before starting to lob personal attacks and rushing to arbitration.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk note - Hi, I have temporarily removed your post to Arbitration/Requests as it needs to be reformatted. I am happy to assist you to format your request properly, but I'll need some additional information first.

• Who are the editors you wish to officially name as "involved parties"?
• Has there been any attempt at dispute resolution elsewhere? Eg. WP:ANI, WP:RFC, etc?
• Can you provide some diffs for examples of the actions you believe require Arbitration review.

Please respond here on your page. Regards, Manning (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I am not a sock or puppet. By now your computer probably verified that. Secondly, it is clear that there's some kind of agenda against the subject. Is it plain ignorance or green eyed envy? Whatever it is Wikipedia is not the place for these people.

The references are real. For goodness's sake, an entire report was even presented to the British Parliament! How much more notable can that be?!

I am identifying the two individuals I named as involved parties.

There has been no attempt at dispute resolution. I am not going to bother because it would be pointless exercise given the rude and shallow attitude of those two 'editors'. I object to Wikipedia allowing such people pontificate from the comfort of some back street garage and come up with a cheapskate dismissive attitude.

I am new here. I realize that past edits by somebody else may have raised concerns about verifiability but I am (now, was) willing to discuss most points that could have been raised.

Other readers already commented favourably on the revised format. All were positive until this incident. Sadly doubts have now been sown in their minds but this notwithstanding, the references are all at hand and readily available.

Yes, there is a highly informative website which has been cited. It is the only site known to have so much readily avaialble information on the subject. Have a look at that site and see the primary sources cited over there. It even has pictures of the documents. You will also see that that site actually bothers to compare and criticize publications. So much for self-promotion!

I am really shocked with the attitude of those two editors and I am very disappointed with the fickleness of those who first commented favourably and are now talking about something sinister. Are these people for real?

Please go ahead and reformat my complaint according to the required form.

The actions for arbitration review:

I am asking that the pages be restored to before they were vandalised by these so-called editors.

As for this Bali ultimate's lightly veiled panic threat just because he got reported for an arbitration, you can decide for yourself what this 'editor' is about. In addition, please look at the language used by this 'editor'. Crass and vulgar.

I am angry and shocked with all this. Please revise your policy and get rid of these 'editors' and their shameful talk, if not for the contents of the articles under discussion at least for the benefit of Wikipedia.

Thank you Mobile historian (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk note - OK, like all editors you are entitled to request the ArbCom to intervene and I will happily assist you. However I will point out that it is extremely rare for ArbCom to examine a conflict that has not previously been through some other form of dispute resolution. As a consequence do not be surprised if ArbCom simply dismiss the request with an instruction of "Take to alternative dispute resolution". Regardless I will go ahead and format your request. Manning (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Manning (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you can expect this case to be soundly rejected until such time as other steps in dispute resolution process have, in the very least, been attempted. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not, mind you, that given the extremely uncivil talk this fellow's spitting out, that's likely to go well. This sort of "How dare these peons question me??" language, heaped with insults and threats, is exactly Tancarville's style.  Ravenswing  10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here look at these http://www.taktos.net/Files/Booklist.pdf http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1878/jan/21/question-9

Now RGT and whatever the the other one calls himself, run along and go back to your computer games, or whatever you like doing best. Mobile historian (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Terrific; so the Gauci books exist. Not that that was my question or concern. As far as your second link goes, no one doubted that the Royal Commission existed either. What we did ask for is basic: evidence not linked to Charles Said-Vassallo, whose credentials as a genealogist are self-proclaimed only and verified by no one, and whose antics as a self-promoter are on record; inline citations to your references; and for the articles to be trimmed dramatically as per WP:UNDUE. You've chosen instead to launch a barrage of insults in violation of WP:CIVIL, showing an unacceptable lack of good faith. This brand of unacceptable behavior is what earned Tancarville an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia, and I strongly suggest that meeting Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles and sourcing on your part will prove more productive than picking fights.  Ravenswing  13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you're going to revert the edits and take back that rubbish you wrote about me? If that is so, it might be good start to be civil to each other. AAAaand (probably with an accent) you and your friend can stop your nonsense about socks and puppets. We might even become friends (unlikely) Mobile historian (talk)

I've yet to be uncivil here; it is you who has been repeatedly and reflexively insulting. You may, of course, choose to address the concerns posed to you instead of further combative behavior. That's up to you.  Ravenswing  17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget Civil. That obviously doesn't work for you and your little friend. Instead, let's try reason like adults. You were invited [[1]] to check the article. Instead you went off on a witchhunt [[2]] and your little friend thought he should amuse himself by talking faeces.

Whilst you were on your little roll, your mantra was "most of the rest of the sourcing is cited as coming from works by a Charles Gauci" and you asked for verifiability. Now that has been verified but you've got ahelluvalot of egg on your face. So now you say that that was never your "question or concern"!!! Aaaand what exactly is the job you say you have?

Look, at least one of us is a grown up. Just admit you messed up badly on this one and revert your (and your little friend's) edits and I promise I'll try make those articles shorter and put in lots of other references. As for the other source which seems to be upsetting you, it's a great site and you should appreciate other people's efforts. Life isn't just about you and your favourite little hockey stick. Mobile historian (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be under some strange misimpressions of what Wikipedia is about and how things are done here; I strongly recommend you read through WP:PILLAR, which will help a lot in that respect. First and foremost, WP:CIVIL is not optional; you do not get to throw insults around just because you feel like it, and you can be temporarily or indefinitely blocked if you persist. Secondly, I suggest reading WP:OWN; these are not your articles, them conforming to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices are not contingent on any demands on your part, and any editor has the right - and, indeed, the duty - to ensure that they do.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a schoolyard where adversarial behavior or taunts are appropriate or welcome. Questions have been raised about Charles Gauci's credentials as a genealogist, based on his self-promotional behavior on Wikipedia last year. Such questions are our responsibility to ask if we have doubts. Answering them to our satisfaction is your responsibility, if you are the one to whom such questions are posed. It's not a matter of "beating" anyone.  Ravenswing  23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I see your point about more verifiability, credentials and all that and I agree that things should improve. But it seems that your issue is a little more basic than that. Look:-

Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner: You and your friend fail!

Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree: You and your friend fail!

Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks: You and your friend fail!

Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 3,097,322 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss: I've tried but you're aloof.

Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others: Suggest you ask your friend to read this carefully.

Be open and welcoming: My first time here and boy I sure don't feel welcome. I think I might as well leave you alone to play with barnstars which seem to be more important than putting together an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; because prior versions are saved by default, no damage you might do is irreparable: Doesn't this sound familiar to you?

To you and your little friend: Read my lips: Stop being disruptive and petty. If you want improvements give me a chance, and you must stop your nonsense about me being someone else. Now, will you kindly revert those edits, so we can finally put this behind us? Mobile historian (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you care to read the articles which you and your friend vandalised, you will see that there's no mention of genealogy which seems to be the bee stuck in your bonnet. The articles describe the history and what the subjects are about. The only genealogy shown was a short and peripheral table for Gerald Strickland. Anything else is via external links Mobile historian (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Abitrator, before the request for arbitration gets dismissed just because RGT and his fetid friend are saying that one should first attempt an alternative mode of dispute resolution, and because I am hopelessly outnumbered by so many vain people who pass their time by awarding each other silly barnstars and green stamp triple crowns, and because I am foolish enough to actually believe that you will order those two peons to revert their edits, I have one last question: Hey RGT, Why are you so quiet now? Do you have some sort of hidden agenda on the subject? Just before your little friend started getting his hands dirty, you said that you wanted to check the sources [[3]]. What you wanted was verifiability of the Gauci books. I also looked up what you said about WP:V in 2008 [[4]] where you complained that you couldn't find the Gauci books. After the arbitration request was filed you started saying that that was never your "question or concern". Don't give us abbreviated gibberish and litanies of wikipolicies. Just show me - and every one here - that you can really uphold WP: AGF. Aaand if you repeat more silly accusations about me being someone else, I might go as far as asking that you get permabanned from Wikipedia for one reason or another (OMG, will you get a life after that?!) Mobile historian (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attacks. It's bullying, and prevents any presumption of good faith. It's also not allowed. If you choose not to, I'll take this up at WP:WQA.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour. [[5]] . Apologize, revert your and your friend's vandalism and then I might feel better. Thanks for the tip: WP:WQA: I'll try remember that one next time you and your friend think you can get away with it. Mobile historian (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility alert

I've mentioned you here [6].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After advice i received at WQA i've mentioned you in another place. Here [7]. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Re block evasion by Tancarville (talk · contribs). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's a shame.

I declined to respond to your previous missive because you were explicit in your intention not to converse in a civil and civilized manner, and further comment from me under the circumstances would get no one anywhere. The situation being what it now is, this is my last chance to get through to you.

Plainly you're an energetic fellow, and possibly the next time around you will not only turn that energy to learning the rules, but will believe they apply to you. Perhaps there are venues and forums where your self-proclaimed "nobility" buys you deference, but there are genuine celebrities using Wikipedia - Bill Gates, Sir Ian McKellan, Roger Ebert, Mark Cuban, Christopher Cerf and many, many others from Nobel Prize winners to government ministers to film stars to industrialists - who neither receive any more of a voice than any other editor, expect the suspension of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their favor or require others to kowtow to them as a precondition to acting in the civil and good faith fashion which is Wikipedia's norm; I urge you to emulate their example.

Properly sourced, and at a proper length, those two articles had elements of skilled execution and may have been assets. They won't be, now, and no one is to blame for that but yourself. That's a pity and a waste.  Ravenswing  06:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

• Mine is one of those rare reasons why the block should be reversed. I have been accused of being someone else. I am not User:Tancarville, I am not anyone else. I am a new editor but unfortunately two editors provoked a very angry reaction from me. * I made many edits randomly but always in good faith. Whenever anyone asked me to improve, I complied [8]] and even asked for more guidance [[9]]. Some edits are extensive but these were upheld as soon as other editors realised my good faith [[10]]. *Feeling more confident with the system, I then sourced people who might have in interest in the subject I edited, always with a purpose of improving. User:Ravenswing is an obvious candidate because he had issues in the past with the subjects. But instead of helping, User:Ravenswing immediately [[11]] accused me of beig a User: Tancarville sock. Another editor Bali ultimate took this to mean he could reverse my edits and planted a sock tag to my identity. His reason - in his words - was that I was filling the encyclopedia "with crap" [[12]]. Neither User:Ravenswing nor Bali ultimate gave me an opportunity to defend myself from their onslught of accusations. Given my very short life on Wikipedia and the fact that I already have a proven case history of showing a propensity to act on constructive criticism, I found this treatment highly offensive. So I reacted, strongly. I was even angrier once User:Ravenswing clearly realised but never admitted, that his original concern (of verifiability) was misjudged, he did not take the cue to rectify his mistake. *I had no wish to communicate with Bali ultimate because he was the first to be rude and when he did finally complain, I used his own tone to put him in his place. Check my ISP, I am not User: Tancarville and I am not someone else's sock or puppet. After I was blocked User:Ravenswing started saying that my edits had elements of skilled execution and may have been assets. * In my case the block reason seems to be two: that I am a sock and that I was rude to User:Ravenswing and Bali ultimate. * The first reason is untrue, as for the second my actions were first provoked by the rude comment and those editors' continued insistence that I was a sock. * I promise to behave better in the future, but I would like peace of mind that their wrong impression that I am a User: Tancarville sock is removed completely, so please verify my ISP and have me unblocked. Thank you

Decline reason:

Account is quite possibly a sock puppet, and appears to be part of a spamming campaign. The risk to Wikipedia is not worth the potential benefit of unblocking. See discussion below. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

 Note: I've emailed the en-functionaries list to request help from a checkuser. I'm not sure whether the data is stale, but I'd like to know before making a decision. I've also asked the blocking admin to post a summary of the behavioral evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would note that I blocked solely on my perception of block evasion, although my attention was drawn by a complaint of inappropriate commentary made at WP:AN. I worked to the principle that once block evasion is apparent then other concerns become moot. My comment regarding "mischief" is that of the editing of Maltese nobility to a similar pov to that of the blocked account. My response to Jehochman's enquiry is at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just pestered the functionaries to see if we can get help from a checkuser. I am sorry it is taking so long. Unblock requests should be processed promptly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do take as much time as you need to check. I would like to add one other observation: My angry outburst may have been fanned by looking up some other editors' talk pages where a common caveat reads something like "don't get offended by my tone of edits" "go somewhere else" etc, which is all very macho and taken in the spirit of Fun when reading them, but not when those same editors suddenly butcher a researched article, point suspicions and accusations and throw you in a dustbin, leaving Wikipedia with a dismembered piece which "looks good according to policy". This is hurtful to the good-faith editor and confusing to the reader. Please consider this aspect too when deliberating. Thank you Mobile historian (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser User:Fred Bauder is looking into this matter. My inclination is that you are either not the same editor, or that you are the same editor, but you've shown signs of improvement. As Less pointed out, you know something about Wikipedia policies, and I've noticed that you've made at least some contributions that were not reverted. Do you understand that Maltese nobility has been a troubled area, and that if you want to edit here you'll need to consult with other editors, try your best to follow verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view? I suspect that Checkuser will produce an indecisive result. If that is the case, I may unblock you provisionally with an expectation that you'll be extra careful in what you add to articles, and that you'll take care to be polite to other editors. Please hang on a bit longer. (In the unlikely case Checkuser comes back and says you've been trying to deceive us, we'll talk about next steps in that case.) Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CU reports

Stale

. Have you used or created any other accounts on Wikipedia? Awaiting your reply. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To first paragraph: Point taken. I assure you that I am not User: Tancarville and that in the knowledge that I am not the person I have been falsely accused of being, all I would like from fellow editors is some constructive guidance on how to formulate an article on this troubled subject which is acceptable to WP policies. In fairness to all, I should also add that any article about the subject would be incomplete without reference to User: Tancarville's website. Thank you. Mobile historian (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) * P.S. If your deliberation is positive, I will require a reversion of those edits and deleted articles, (and a removal of the sock tag!) in order to enable me bring the articles in line with WP policies Mobile historian (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To second paragrpah: No. But I have access to shared computers if that's relevant.

Which is User:Tancarville's website? Do have you been in contact with that user? Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've answered my own questions already, but feel free to reply. At this time I have requested spam blacklisting MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#maltagenealogy.com_and_saidvassallo.com. That will hopefully save a lot of volunteer time going forward. As for this account, I think it is more likely than not that the block is needed to protect Wikipedia. On balance, I think the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock are not worth the possible gain. Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To first paragreph: The site links from www.maltagenealogy.com. It's relevant because it makes available a lot of old documents which have been ignored by some publications but mentioned in others. I have a few reservations about the site's contents and claims, and I have corresponded with him to this effect, but on the whole it's very informative.

To second paragraph: As long as the reason is policy for general good and it's made very clear that I am not User:Tancarville or a sock puppet of his, I don't mind your decision. If WP ever reconsiders its position on the irksome subject of Maltese Nobility and its related issues, I'd like to have a go at improving the articles (the present one is hopelessly incorrect). Please come visit our country some time. Thank you Mobile historian (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One last request (please!). I'm not after any blood of any sort, but those two editors need a bit of talking to. Mobile historian (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just for my own two cents on Mobile historian accusations, a casual glance at the timestamps on my comments on the Royalty and Nobility WikiProject talk page would show that far from "immediately," it took me a full day and MH's startling filing of a RfA without any attempt on his part to discuss the issues in a civil or good faith fashion for me to wonder if this was a sock of Tancarville. (I agree that Bali's comment about "crap" was provocative and uncivil, but WP:CIVIL specifically enjoins us from responding to uncivil comments in kind, never mind twenty for one.) As far as "not giving him an opportunity to defend himself," no one's prevented him from having his say, and he chose to exercise that say with insult and to advocate that other editors be prevented from editing his articles and be permabanned; the further irony was in him demanding I revert my "vandalism" of his articles, when in fact I had made no edits to either one and only filed the G5 on the second article after the indef block. From my perspective, today's discussion has shown neither that Mobile historian regrets his incivilities nor demonstrates any resolve to cease them, and I suggest that evidence of both be a precondition to removing any block.  Ravenswing  23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have allowed User: Ravenswing to insist[[13]] that I am a sock of User: Tancarville. Now there seems to be some other furore about yet another account which also has no connection to me. I am amused by Wikipedia’s investigative skills, which are a shade less efficient than those of the Salem Witch Trials. Hello, I am not someone else! To persist in your error is devilish. Remove the ridiculous claims that I am someone else and that I am someone else's sock! What's this other nonsense that MY (and I mean mine not someone else's) edits were spamming a website? Do you people want references or not? The real issue here is not me is it? The real problem is the attitude of the established wikieditors who just blow hot air amongst themselves. I must remember to apologise to Bali ultimate for having misunderstood him about his comment that my edits [[14]] were crap. What he must have meant to say was Wikipedia is crap. Mobile historian (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

• I was indefinitely blocked [[15]] by Jehochman after an incident where I was falsely accused by User:Ravenswing and Bali ultimate of being a sockpuppet of a blocked account User: Tancarville. Without any warning whatsoever Bali ultimate then [[16]] went on to tear up my articles. I reacted like any outraged person would. Bali ultimate then took offence and reported me for abusing him (what cheek). User:LessHeard vanU blocked me immediately because he believed the false claim that I was a sock of User:Tancarville. I then requested that the block be lifted but the reviewer Jehochman concluded that On balance, I think the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock are not worth the possible gain. I agreed with his conclusion as long as the reason is policy for general good and it's made very clear that I am not User:Tancarville or a sock puppet of his. But instead of doing so Jehochman went on to refer to me as a probable sockpuppeteer [[17]]. User:Ravenswing later removed at least one article created by me because he said it was created by a banned user (G5 CSD).[[18]]. User: Ravenswing is now [[19]] also saying that I am a meatpuppet of User: Tancarville as well as of User: Vassallo5448. Meanwhile User: Ravenswing's recent hate-antics appear to be annoying other editors, see examples here [[20]] here [[21]] and here [[22]] * All this is wrong and must be reviewed. *I am neither a sock nor a meatpuppet of anyone. I hold my own ground. My account is new. You have enough resources to verify that my ISP and my geographic position show that I am neither user: Tancarville nor user: Vassallo5448. * This is my only account and I was never banned before but User: Ravenswing has also deleted my articles (see above) using the G5 procedure when it is a straightforward conclusion that those articles were created by me and not by a banned user. * I might have over-reacted to the high-handed attitude of user:Ravenswing and User:Bali ultimate but they were the ones who drew me into User:Ravenswing's issues and User:Bali ultimate's insults. * I am no rocket scientist but but it doesn't take much to realise from User: Ravenswing's recent activity that he has a big issue with User: Tancarville and his website at www.maltagenealogy.com. That is none of my business, but I can't help noticing that he was awarded by User:LessHeard vanU a special barnstar (How sickeningly childish) in connection with his hate campaign against that user [[23]]. *As for convincing the reviewing administrator(s) to unblock me, these are the reasons:- **there is no evidence that I ever disrupted Wikipedia. I held my ground against a blatant rudeness by Bali ultimate and even User:Ravenswing is in agreement (see above) that Bali ultimate's comment about "crap" [[24]]was provocative and uncivil. WP:CIVIL specifically enjoins everyone from responding to uncivil comments in kind, but this duty has a higher bearing on administrators like Bali ultimate who are supposed to help newbies like myself. Twenty for one served him right and it ends there. ** the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, namely that there was a false perception that I was someone else's sock and that User:Ravenswing has some kind of personal issue with someone else which I don't want to get into and I should not be penalised for someone's prejudice against someone else. ** The block should never have been imposed. ** I never caused damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and I will continue making useful contributions. User:LessHeard vanU (see above) commented that my contributions have a similar pov of the blocked account. I am not familiar with that particular pov but I do know that an article describing the past is based on verifiable facts, so there’s very little room for different points of view. **Jehochman said that on balance, he thought that the disruption and harm likely to result from an unblock of my account are not worth the possible gain. I disagree. It is clear that by not unblocking my account Wikipedia has allowed User:Ravenswing to follow up his false accusations with impunity, and the biggest loser of all this is Wikipedia for having allowed him to do that. The unblock should be made to help me make useful contributions on matters Maltese, with the added avantage of stopping User:Ravenswing's silly personal campaign against Malta. My contributions are objective and neutral. The contents are all verifiable. Seeing that User: Ravenswing appears to have an issue with a particular website, I promise to put in other published book and magazine references instead, as soon as my edits have been reverted to how I left them last. I will also make the articles shorter because that too seems to be an issue. Lastly, I want my edits protected from the people mentioned above. Thank you. Mobile historian (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A quick look at the similarities between the two accounts does reveal some similarities in editing habits. What's more troubling is the similarity in the tendency to revert to insults and personal attacks when challenged. Combined with the recent resuming of activity of Tancarville, it would seem that pulled together, there's insufficient justification for me to unblock. --slakr^\ talk / 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

• Someone who even now cannot avoid posting incivilities or insults may have learned less than he claims; certainly one factor in removing an indefinite block is accepting responsibility for his actions and resolving not to do them again. Further, quite aside from the startling parallel MH draws equating Wikipedia policy and guidelines concerning reliable sources with a "hate campaign against Malta" (???), if he's now resolved to use published references instead of Said-Vassallo's webpage ... doesn't that imply acceptance that the webpage and Said-Vassallo's claims are, in fact, unverified and suspect, and the whole house of cards concerning "false allegations" and "hate campaigns" comes tumbling down?  Ravenswing  23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. All that my suggestion means is that I'm offering a peace offering to User: Ravenswing, but his comment shows that he misunderstood it to suit his personal issue against User: Tancarville which does not concern me. There's alot of good material on www.maltagenealogy.com, even copies of original published texts. All of those texts are very relevant to my edits and referring to that site would have been an easy way of verifying the content of old published sources. Further, quite aside from all that, that site actually says that it is a research site in progress and appears to be updated regularly. Mobile historian (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as "peace offerings" go, this wouldn't be my call to make. You're still thinking of this as some war, and me as some opposing side who needs to be placated, thwarted or defeated. Your block is the result of violations of Wikipedia rules of conduct, imposed by administrators. I am not one, and appeals do not go through me. In your shoes, I'd start with demonstrating how you are ceasing to make demands (for my part, I intend to continue to edit Maltese articles, where and as I see fit, in accordance with policy and guideline), understand the elements of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:OWN, and intend to follow them in the future.  Ravenswing  08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to remind everyone that all this started at the redux here [[25]]. My block originates from User: Ravenswing's false allegation that I am someone else and his apparent agenda against that same someone else. This false allegation was acted upon by User: Ravenswingwho deleted my edits (G5) on the false premise that they were made by an already banned user. This false allegation is still being made use of by User: Ravenswing. Mobile historian (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been throwing out this allegation of yours for two weeks now. As it happens, we have the original diff here [26] where I say nothing of the sort. The next diff from me is seven hours later [27] where I state in response to others, in fact, that we didn't at that point know whether you were a sock and that WP:AGF still applied to the situation. From there on out, we've all placed reliance on the administrators' presumption that you were and the indef block based, in part, on that. That information was, of course, not the only factor in your block. At this point, you've received advice and links on the things you need to do to have a hope of the block being removed. I've nothing further to add to that advice.  Ravenswing  17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Look at my time stamps (17:54 and 18:00) here [[28]] and here [[29]] which is round about when I first looked at your comments. By then User: Bali_ultimate was calling for a SPI case, my edits were gone and User: Bali_ultimate had used his provocative language which is nowhere close to WP:CIVIL. I checked the diffs. Your earlier comment this is the same guy etc etc. reads different when compared to the context of the later version. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean you were entitled to G5 my articles nor was User: Bali_ultimate entitled to trash my edits. Nor does it entitle you to continue insisting that I'm a sock. Mobile historian (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bali made one uncivil crack; you've made dozens in return and aimed at several editors besides Bali, and your ongoing references to WP:CIVIL will carry more weight when you better follow the section which says "do not respond in kind." As far as CSDing the second article, I was certainly entitled to do so; it had been created by an account under indef block for sockpuppetry of a banned user, that block happens to remain, and that's the facts on the ground. So far, the only evidence in the hands of the administrators that you're not a sockpuppet are your repeated denials, something characteristic of most such violators challenging their blocks. (And what "this is the same guy" comment? I made none such.)  Ravenswing  08:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that the Wikipedia adminsitrators would have checked the ISPs by now. Wouldn't you get very annoyed too had these administrators called you a puppet when they should have ISP evidence? Your earlier comment To quote myself from the earlier debate, "To wit: ........this is the same guy etc etc was misunderstood by User: Bali_ultimate to mean that he could suggest that a SPI case could be opened and you know what happened next. It seems that the person at fault for all this is User: Bali_ultimate and that this got caught up inUser:Ravenswing's holy war against User: Tancarville. Mobile historian (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not someone else! Check the ISPs. Do your job properly! Check properly!

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the evidence and have reached the same conclusion as the other admins who have declined your previous unblock requests. I also now consider that your constant requests are disruptive and I am extending your editing block to cover this page as well. Nancy ^talk 09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Mobile historian (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI to any admins ...

I received an e-mail head's up (overlooked for a couple weeks, alas) from an admin who processed an unblock request from User:Tancarville on November 28th ... interestingly enough, the day before the most recent unblock request by this blocked sockpuppet. He thought it odd that an unblock request after a year and a half would suddenly arise, came across this case and felt passing the word might be useful.  Ravenswing  16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)