Defetistul

Welcome

Hello, Defetistul! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for the welcome message! --Defetistul (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked after being accused for being a sockpuppet and for harassment. This happened after I started a thread on Iosif Constantin Drăgan where I pointed out that one of the claims made in the article was not made in the source article. No proof has been presented for me being a sockpuppet; instead, the accuser (Dahn) said that I was "most likely" someone by the name Anita (which means that the accuser is not certain of his suspicion). I find it bizzare that after pointing out an error in an article instead of being granted thanks, I am being banned! Shortly before getting banned I posted about the error made in the article on ANI. I have never edited that article before.

Decline reason:

I have taken the time to read every one of the edits made by this account, and I believe that the block (not ban) is valid. The reasons relate to sockpuppetry and harassment, both of which are obvious from the user's own edits; the content dispute on Iosif Constantin Dragan is not relevant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:19, 5 April 2012 (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.

Thanks for taking your time to answer me, Anthony, even if you addressed me in third-person (which is considered rude). I respect your decission, but I also disagree with your reasoning; and that's because you acted on assumption and not on facts. In my posts, I never admitted of being a sockpuppet. The scenarios that I drew up were merely hypothetical; and if you will carefully read Dahn's posts, even the one below this thread, he will say that I probably am a certain person, but the doubt that he leaves in his message means that, at least in the eyes of the Roman Law, that I am not guilty beyond doubt. Of course, Wikipedia is not that noble so to attempt to be precise in its executions. Heck, even I believe that I'm a sockpuppet, but not even this kind of statement can count as proof (I could be mentally unstable). This is the reason why Dahn refused to be an admin on Wikipedia. Dahn can't live with the thought of him exercising influence on others and not be a philosopher king. And a philosopher king on Wikipedia, no one can ever be. What was that, Anthony? Oh, an assassin? Yes, it's highly possible that Wikipedia admins should hold that title. Anthony, your second message is not only rude, but unreasonble as well. You sound like a brute when you give me an ultimatum of either following the guidelines (which, I believe, I did) or have this talkpage blocked from editing. As you must know, this account was given an indefinitely block, which means that to try and have it unblocked would be the greatest affair that one can invest in, as far as concerning the status of this account; and if I were to fail in this endeavour, then having this talkpage blocked from editing would be no calamity. Anthony, you must be a modern man and I must've bored you with this 'nonsense' talk, so before you block this talkpage and allow the firebird to lay its egg in Arabia, so that I can be ressurected, I have one last inquiry to you that I believe is both relevant and important to the Wikipedia project. If one is indeed a sockpuppet, a thief, a pimp or whatever else that would lead to instant stigmatization in a society that follows conventional ways--and if this person notices an inaccuracy in an article, are there any steps that this individual could take, which would be in accordance with the laws of Wikipedia, to have it rectified? Thanks again for taking your time, Anthony; and perhaps our paths will cross again. :) --Defetistul (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• To cut out the Gordian knot that "Defetistul" is tying over here, I'll let admins note the following: this is most likely the new account of User:Anittas, who was indeffed a while back for very similar behavior. In addition to the constant spamming I get from him on my Romanian wikipedia talkpage (which is a giveaway, particularly since he started spamming me here once I ignored him there), there are other, even more concrete, clues, including ones that I have allowed myself to post here. Whether or not the stalking is a blockable offense (I won't comment on that, as I'm considered an involved party), I think that socking for a permablocked account is and will be. Dahn (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dahn, I apologize for the late reply. I'm on a short vacation and there are some distractions around here, but things should get back to normal in less than a week. Until then, please lend your ear to this. :) --Defetistul (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"for very similar behavior" -- and what kind of behavior is this? What's the diagnosis? --Defetistul (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Purely for the record, given that I see no reason to retract my earlier refusal, I will point out that comments relating to an unblock request, which are available to the community at large, are usually framed in the third person: and as I have posted only one comment to this account, where are you seeing a second one from me?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for the late reply. I've been kind of busy lately and the only Wikipedia activity I've afforded to invest in was made under my two other sockpuppet accounts (Redroom2 and another one whose name and password I have forgotten). You're right, you only posted one message. I suppose I got a bit confused, thinking that the message that belongs to the blocking box and which addresses the user in second person was posted by you, whereas you in fact addressed me in third person. It should be the other way around, me thinks. You're also right when you say that the content dispute on that article is not relevant to my sockpupptery accusations, yet that's what lead to this accotung getting blocked. I would still like for you to answer me this: "if one is indeed a sockpuppet, a thief, a pimp or whatever else that would lead to instant stigmatization in a society that follows conventional ways--and if this person notices an inaccuracy in an article, are there any steps that this individual could take, which would be in accordance with the laws of Wikipedia, to have it rectified?"? Moreover, is it not a moral obligation to check on an article that someone accuses it of being inaccurate? --Defetistul (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)