User talk:Mike085

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2012[edit]

A WP:SPI case has been filed that concerns you [1]. Please do not take offense, but User:LAz17 has already attempted to re-enter the discussion at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans through sockpuppets. A checkuser has been requested, so if you're not a sock there is no chance you will be linked to LAz17. Best regards -- Director (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2012 (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).

Mike085 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. While I am a Serb, I am not a sock puppet. The investigation has nothing on me - [2] - I am not a sock puppet. Mike085 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm inclined to believe you aren't a sockpuppet. Behaviorally, you don't seem to fit the profile of a sockpuppet, and checkuser ruled it out technically. But whether or not you're a sockpuppet, that doesn't matter. You were recruited to come here specifically to support a blocked editor and his agenda. You've admitted as much as that yourself. You know LAz17 outside of Wikipedia, and you arrived solely to defend him, to ask that he be unbanned, and to influence discussions in his favor. That is not allowed. "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." -- Atama頭 18:30, 27 January 2012 (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.

Would you please tell us what your account name on sr-wiki is? You said you are more active there, but this account isn't unified with any sr-wiki account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fut.Perf. I am not active on the Serbian wikipedia. I look at the admin discussion board there from time to time. I also know LAz17 off of some discussion forum. IJA knows him off of some other forum too, and as a result he has asked that you guys unban him. LAz17 is a good person. But, I am not his sock puppet. I came here on my own will. On the Serbian wikipedia they said that perhaps the best thing is if this problem was not addressed as a whole but in small parts. I decided why not try that - one of the issues that LAz17 identified was that a Ramet source was a fake source. It was false. And therefore I thought it would be best if that mis-cited thing got removed. What I added in its place is something similar, something that was sourced. What's more, the source has been confirmed as true. You may see so for yourself, [3] , Direktor was forced to add the source back. But he was very selective. User Producer then went about and fixed the Ramet source, and that is okay, for if a source is correctly cited then it may be in the text. But, Direktor was supporting a false source and that is one reason why there is this problem and frustration. Now, since Doc9871 confirmed that the source is correct, Direktor added it back. It is now somewhat redundant to have two sources that say almost the same thing. However, Direktor did not add the second part, saying that the 44% was the lowest ever during the course of the war. LAz17 had correct sources. Direktor however is very selective with which sources he recognizes and what he includes. He include's LAz17's source on Goldstein, he includes only part of the Attila source, and other sources he does not bother to look at, including his own Ramet source, which was miscited. I hope this helps better answer your question on what is going on. I did no harm, I am not a sockpuppet. The sock puppet investigation is ongoing and has not produced any evidence to suggest that I am a sock. Mrserb89 is a friend of mine, a completely separate person. He lives in Vancouver and is a good scholar, having completed his degree with honors. Who the person Ganderoleg is I do not know. It may be LAz17, however Mrserb89 and myself are real people and not somebody's tools.
I kindly ask you to unblock me so that I may continue to put that source back which Direktor has removed unjustly. Not only that, but he deleted the mention of it on the discussion board [4]. It is bad to remove evidence of discussion, and he is probably doing that because he is wrong and on purpose does not want to include under any circumstance that Attila source which is accepted by all scholars. I think you for your time to read this and wish you a good day. (Mike085 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Oh for the love of Mike... its him no question. He activated all his socks at the same time and brought them over to Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor asks me[edit]

1) Direktor has asked me I also request you provide evidence (more substantial than LAz17's claims) that Ramet is misquoted. It is unfortunate that he is added a source which does not even mention what it is citing. Page 61 of that source talks about local elections in the kingdom of Yugoslavia, nothing about the Yugoslav Partisans. And I am being blocked because this guy wants to put in wrong information?
2) Direktor has saidWhile I do not question the veracity of the Tito quote, I challenge the claim, supposedly present at p.27, that this was the "lowest percentage of Serbs" during the war. Please provide the entire quotation. mrserb89 has already provided you with the source. LAz17 has scanned it earlier, and mrserb89 simply brought it up again. As before, you are on purpose refusing to include material which you do not like. This sets a terrible example for wikipedia. (Mike085 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

1) The source you deleted does indeed support the text. The page number was wrong and has now been corrected. The error could have been fixed easily had you brought the issue up on the talkpage, why did you delete it outright?
2) Yes, you scanned some pages and and posted them. P.27 is gone now for some reason, however, and noone can verify this is what the author meant. People usually copy down relevant chunks of text in these sort of disputes.
-- Director (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The issue has been brought up by LAz17, by Mrserb89, and so I felt that it was not worthwhile to say it again. You do not seem to care what people say, as you think you own the article and simply selectively disregard sources that are not to your liking. The source did not exist, that was stated to you. How can you add a source which does not exist even when you are told that it does not exist???
2) Page 27 is not gone. It is only gone because you decided to remove it from the talk page's text. You know it very well. In case you really did forget it, here it is again, [5] . Such actions of removing sourced content, even when presented with it, are in violation of wikipedia policy. This is why people such as IJA and myself, including the entire Serbian wikipedia have sympathy for LAz17. The guy was not going about vandalizing, but was interested in resolving the problem there and was seeking mediation. Todst unbanned him and admitted that he was unfair. I chose to add this small bit back, because it is the right thing to do, because it is sourced. What more do you want? (Mike085 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
3) I am confused now. You have defended LAz17's Goldstein source. Why do you support Goldstein's source and not Attila's, if lAz17 was the guy who added them both? I would think that you would be removing both sources. What is the key to your selectivity? (Mike085 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
You are apparently just as confused in that issue as some other user I know, I can't quite place the name... LAzo old man, you are not fooling anyone anymore :). I have nothing against Hoare and I re-inserted him into the article. I am still pretty sure, however, that you misrepresented him in his second claim.
1) I did not add that source. I had absolutely nothing to do with it other than reverting your removal. Of the two fo us, you're the only one who made a mistake here in deleting a source without discussion or even an elaboration, which could have helped us quickly correct the small referencing error. Instead you're attacking me again with nonsense "accusations" that, by the way, look like they're copied down verbatim from posts by this user I know..
2) No. The closed thread has been archived, LAz - its not "gone". And I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that the link to the scanned p.27 appears not to be working. While I did previously request that you copy down the relevant sentences from the source, I currently don't want anything from you - I just want to make it clear to others here that you're being deliberately misleading here (again). This is my last post, btw. After the horrible things you wrote about me I have no desire to communicate with you more than is necessary to dispel any misinformation. You called me an "Ustaše thug", LAz. I don't take kindly to such abuse. -- Director (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Ramet source did not exist, you were told this and you ignored it. Therefore you were disruptive.
2) The Hoare source exists and many people can view it. You not being able to view it and you assuming bad intent is something to frown upon. You do not own the article and you may not remove sourced information such as that.
3) I could call you George Washington or Adolf Hitler, but I do not know that you are either of those so I do not. Similarly I kindly ask you to stop slandering me by calling me LAz17. You want me to be banned I conclude. I suspect that you want everyone who does not share your opinion to be banned. I also suspect that you seem to be in conflict with countless people, as you are very arrogant and think you own at least that one article. But you seem to have more wikipedia patience, so you often get your way. While people get banned because they try to help improve the article, you get away with what is nothing other than vandalism for you are removing academic sources. Please cease that problematic activity and return the source that you removed. (Mike085 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

unblock request[edit]

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).

Mike085 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am asking to be unblocked. I am not a sock puppet and have been banned because I added a source into the article. The source was correct as has been confirmed. Therefore I was not disruptive, even if this was the same action that a previously banned user has done. Please unblock me.)

Decline reason:

{{subst:After considering the request and the input from the blocking admin, I decline the unblock. I do not see that you have addressed what got you blocked. Why don't you work with Reaper Eternal?}} Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2012 (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.

Are you going to continue making edits on behalf of LAz? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I did not make them on his behalf in the first place. I saw the article and what has been going on. In all honesty, the article is not good. I simply added a source, which is true. You however are siding with the source cherry-picker who is removing it. An Admin actually confirmed that the source is indeed true, obviously, and the cherry picker was forced to return the source. Only part was returned, so if I get unblocked I will return the other part. Now, you can interpret that or any other edit as edits on the behalf of LAz17. If I edit an article about Penguins then that too can be interpreted as edits on behalf of LAz17. I can't help there, I told you that I am nobody's puppet and I don't know what else to say. I simply added a factual source and if that is reason to be banned then that is really too bad. Wikipedia has these appeals to donate money to promote learning via the encyclopedia. In my opinion what is going on is that how things work is that the administration sides with those in such a way to reduce conflict. So they allow biased and wrong information for the sake of not having users argue about it. Naturally, a side gets banned in the process, while the more civil and or persistent side wins even if it is not promoting false things. The Yugoslav Partisans page is a classic example of how tenacious editing by certain individuals results in a worthless article. Do look at the talk page and notice what Peacemaker67 said: The problem I see is that some editors will not accept properly sourced material being placed in the article because they personally disagree with it. This is the problem. One or two guys are not allowing references that he/they do not like into the article because he/they think that he/they owns the article. Again, my editing is not meat puppetry. It is an attempt to improve an article which is very problematic. (Mike085 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
RE? That doesn't sound like a "no" to me, but let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly oppose an unblock now. His very first edit was to attack User:DIREKTOR and nearly violate WP:NLT while admitting it was in response to LAz17's post on srwiki. Now he denies that connection. He doesn't seem to be here to contribute constructively; however, as the blocking admin, I cannot decline the unblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I do want to contribute to wikipedia constructively. My editing here was to help improve that article. As I said, the problem came up when a troubling user decided to remove sourced information. When I appealed to the adminstrator notice board you responded by blocking me. Only later did another admin tell User:Direktor that I was correct, and Direktor added part of that information back. So as you can see, I did contribute positively. It is not my problem that other users assume bad intent.
What bothers me is that you have this idea that I have bad intent. I have no desire to attack other editors of wikipedia. I don't see what the problem is to unblock me as I have not contributed negatively. I simply added a source, which was totally true. I got banned because I insisted that the source was true. See for yourself, [6]
May I be unblocked? I am not a bad person. I want to contribute constructively. I came here to help improve the article. How is this bad? (Mike085 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
I am inclined against it, but will take a couple of hours to think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sir ReaperEternal, I understand that you blocked me because you felt I am a sock puppet. Are there any other reasons why you blocked me, and could you tell me what those are? (Mike085 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

unblock request[edit]

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).

Mike085 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am asking for second chance. I like wikipedia, and I would carefully edit in the future, while taking care about wikipedia guidelines. I am not sock puppet, and I would agree on anyone's help and advice's needed how to edit neutrally and good. Please, let me edit, and I will follow rules. I will explain any edit of mine on talk pages, and will respond to any question asked. Actually, I will agree on any proposition admins can give to me. I just really want to start from scratch, as I really made a mistake before. Please, give me second chance. Mike085 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're interested in restarting, go to your main account and request an unblock there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mike085 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reasoning same as previous request, only fact that administrator overlooked factual determining that I am not sock per [7] is also submitted now. Mike085 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that says is that technically there may not be a link between accounts, but not behaviourally, which is what the block is based on. The behaviour is stronger than the technical evidence (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you may not be the same person. However, it does seem that you came to English Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting one or more other editors to impose a particular point of view. That might be viewed as meatpuppetry, and you really need to address that issue in your unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you that exactly! I love to edit wikipedia, and will listen to any proposal you can give me. I understood quite cleary that supporting and following other editors is not ok, and I will never do that again. Please, trust me, and unblock me, I told you that I will very carefully edit in the future. I can explain any edit of mine on talk page, or anything you find useful. I will never edit controversial or disputed subject without agreemnt on talk page. (Mike085 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
My question remains: Are you going to follow DIREKTOR around and harass him or will you leave him alone? Additionally, will you continue to make edits on behalf of LAz17? I am willing to unblock you if you are willing to agree to not disrupt Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitively, I will not follow anyone, I will edit as agreed, in behalf of my self and my wish, no one else's, and will talk on talk pages for any edit that may need agreement. Thank you very much for your trust, I will give my very best to follow that, and to show you that I love wikipedia, and that will edit in a best way I can! (Mike085 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike085&oldid=1141467030"