User talk:CltFn/Archive 5

Blocked for using a sockpuppet[edit]

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CltFn, and you are therefore blocked for period of 48 hours (two days).
You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Iola k ana•T 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting user:BhaiSaab 's witch hunt[edit]

The notice must stay on your userpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment made by an admin regarding another user in the same situation. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such policy --CltFn 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be policy but it is a standard, otherwise the template would not exist. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such standard. I was blocked for 48 hours , its over. What you are doing has nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia . If you want to play KGB or Mutaween, wikipedia is not the place for it. --CltFn 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a sockpuppeteer should be telling others about what does or does not have to do with editing an encyclopedia. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself , you are the sockpuppeter. It is so obvious --CltFn 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Prove it. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have to, the evidence is all over the encyclopedia but unlike you I would rather focus on the encyclopedia than go around trying to bad mouth others whose point of view you disagree with.--CltFn 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Why not file a request for a checkuser on Amenra then? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a break , you sound bitter and full of rancor and and in my opinion you are going over the edge.--CltFn 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think using a sockpuppet, not saying anything while blocked, and then accusing the person who found out you were sockpuppeteering is going over the edge. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that you ought to ask yourself if playing the Mutaween has anyting to do with Wikipedia. As I said before , I was blocked for 48 hours by an admin and I am now back in good standing. I have work to do in Wikipedia , some of which you will obviously try to get involved with. Now if you want to spend your time on my talk page , go ahead. And thank you for being a fine test subject--CltFn 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that you ought to ask yourself if playing a sockpuppeteer has anything to do with Wikipedia...BhaiSaab ^talk 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey , wow, just read a great article.Ayatollah al-Sistani and the end of Islam--CltFn 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decreasing popularity of one Shi'a Ayatullah does not signal the end of Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be your original research, thus irrelevant.--CltFn 02:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's irrelevant is your citing of policy, since I made that statement on your user talkpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one :[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496109/posts? End of Islam in Iran Near?] --CltFn 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to iranian[edit]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something Iranian, please do not link to Iranian, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Iranian people, or Iran, by writing out [[Iranian people|Iran]] or [[Iran|Iranian]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked[edit]

Because you keep removing the sockpuppet template after being told not to, and because this is not your first block, you have been blocked for a week. Further removal of the template will lead to a longer block. Regards, RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:03, 13 September 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Reverting pages in your user space I am not subject to 3RR rule on my user space, furthermore I was not presented with any warning templates about removing the sockpuppet template which I did not know was not allowed per wikipedia policy. I was under the belief that the other party (user:BhaiSaab) that was reverting the template was doing so arbitrarily. user:BhaiSaab who is not an admin has been involved in revert wars on pages that I edit for weeks or more so I did not see any legitimacy in his reverts on my namespace page.I have just read the policy and now I know.

Decline reason:

Ignoring the Wikilawyering above, it is clear that you were blocked for distruption and that the block is warrented. Please use the time wisely to cool off, calm down and examine why your edits were thought to be disruptive and you can return having learnt to avoid repeating the pattern. -- ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:55, 13 September 2006 (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.

You were not blocked for any 3rr violation. You were blocked for vandalism [1]. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the admin reason given was "Revert war over template on userpage"--CltFn 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the reason was disruption. I have queried the admin who did the banning on his talk page why he did an indefinite ban. It definitely seems excessive to me. gren グレン 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it was a mistaken and the ban is for one week. gren グレン 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out on this Gren.--CltFn 11:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagarism[edit]

I didn't in fact "revert" your changes (which would actually mean returing to the previous state, which is not what happened). I'd been going through the article making style changes, then when I tried to save, I found I was in an edit conflict. There were too many specific changes to treinsert each one, so I saved my version, then looked over the differences. I could see an greatly significant differences. It was mostly a matter of cleaning up the badly written last section and removing its partial misrepresentation of what Crone said. Paul B 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I restore your version? You can go through my version - which is significantly different from the earlier one - and make whatever changes you think improve it. That will not be a reversion because my version is significantly different from the original summary of the Crone article. Paul B 12:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]