User talk:2007apm
No one has welcomed you , so...
Welcome!
Hello, 2007apm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Cradel 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Kosovo
Well first of all, this is nothing personal. I have absolutely nothing against the will of 90% of the people of Kosovo or anything like that, as I answered on Hxseek's talk page. A different question is whether an act such as that is illegal, which it is. There are ways for Kosovo Albanians to achieve independence, but their political representatives have obviously chose the very worst in the worst imaginable timing.
No, Kosovo is not a democracy. According to Human Rights Watch, it's far from it. If it were an internationally-recognized country, it would push Belarus to the second place on "most undemocratic countries of Europe". Kosovo will be able to democratize itself within 30 years according to European experts.
I don't see any correlation of Scotland to Kosovo. Are you perhaps proposing most of Kosovo to become and independent country, while North Kosovo to remain in Serbia (similar to Ireland)?
Ah, no. 36 of 192 (UN Member States). 18.75% is definitely not a majority.
The ICJ didn't endorse Western Saharan independence. Check out the article in detail.
Self-determination is a very non-legalized and carefully interpreted dangerous factor. For instance, if independence of the Republic of Srbska would be endorsed, Serbia would very lightly look upon Kosovo independence.
It doesn't need two thirds - it needs one half, and it seems to have it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not be frightened by Pax
ICJ will only give an advisory oppinion, this oppinion cannot nullify the Republic of Kosovo. It is a fact. Serbia can only go to court and sue every state which recognized Kosovo because the ICJ is a Court that has states as its clients. UN behaved very badly towards Taiwan, Danzig issue, Cyprus is a by product of it unsuccessful policy. I think that Kosovo is a hot potatto which will lead only to a more European presence in the South-Eastern Europe (even President Tadić said in one of his speeches that we need de-balcanization of the region). Pakistan has been a part of the UN and Bangladesh left, what happened - nothing?
But this is not the main reason for contacting you, Pax is also claiming that there has never been in all the history of Montenegro, not once, not ever, a flag of Montenegro (of any kind) that had a golden/yellow or any kind of yellow double-headed eagle. He also claims that symbols of Montenegro were illegal before the new Constitution sanctioned them. He thinks that anything (any law, decree, act) in the Parliament of Montenegro is not legal if 100% of the members of parliament has not voted for them. Your thoughts. -- Imbris (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.
2007apm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi I wish to appeal my block as I’m not a Sock of Emperordarius. Main Evidence I request a Check user to provide the main evidence. Additional Evidence I don’t have a bizarre interest in sexual topics – I have only ever edited these topics two or three times. I have only ever edited pages related to the modern day, while Emperordarius has edited historical pages eg Pyrrhus of Epirus and Molossians . I refute the claim that I have “ultra-nationalist” POV – I have never changed the name of Kosovo to “Kosova” like Emperordarius and all my edits are consistent with neutral POV . You can see this by looking at below section of Breakup of Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia#Kosovo_war_and_subsequent_sucession_.281990-2008.29 Which I wrote from scratch on 30 Dec 2008 I would like to highlight the fact that I've never been blocked before for any reason and this is evidence that I have neutral POV Many thanks in advance for taking the time to consider this appeal. APM PS I would say that i should have been warned that I was accused of being a sock before being blocked, so I could defend myself. Is it was the first entry on my talk was the block.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please note that further abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (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.
appeal
2007apm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to appeal on the grounds that *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. This is because I'm not a Sockpuppet. My account was created in February 2008 - See my contributions history, while Emperordarius was first blocked in Sept 2008. How could someone create a sock account before they are blocked for ths first time? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Emperordarius Many thanks for looking at this APM
Decline reason:
To summarize the traditional talk page format of blocked sockpuppets: (1) Unblock request: I'm not a sockpuppet! Decline: Yes, you are. (2) Unblock request: I'm really not a sockpuppet! Decline: You really are. (3) Unblock request: I promise I'm not a sockpuppet! Decline: It's obvious that you are. (4) Unblock request: No, really, I'm really, really not a sockpuppet. Decline: Page is locked from further edits. We can go through them all if you like, but it's kind of a waste of your time and ours, when it's obvious that you're the same person. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:50, 7 February 2010 (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.
test
2007apm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I assume from your responce the following sentence "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAB#Sockpuppetry_and_Checkuser-based_blocks applies and i should just give up and start a new account? How do you know without CheckUser evidence that many of the people blocked for socking are not inncoent? whjy wasn't a checkuser done on my case? APM
Decline reason:
This is a question, not a reason why we should lift your block. Unblock requests are not for asking questions. Sandstein 07:42, 7 February 2010 (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.
New unblock appeal
Starting a new section here for a new unblock appeal, as this user e-mailed me asking me to take a look at this. The initial e-mail was back in February 2010 (at the time of the SPI case) and nothing was done then, but the user e-mailed again recently (August 2010) and I'd like to try and sort this out. As far as I can tell, the declines of the unblock appeals above did not consider whether the initial identification as a sock was correct or not, so I've invited the SPI clerk at the time and blocking admin (MuZemike) and another admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise) here to comment. I believe 2007apm can still edit his talk page, so he should comment here as well to state his case, and I will reply to his e-mail telling him to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only have a dim memory of this case, and it seems back then I didn't find it too convincing at first sight (here) and had no further involvement in it. Looking at the contribs now, I don't find a compelling sock case. 2007apm spoke better English than Darius, was overall much more communicative, lacked Darius' vulgarity, had a different focus of interest within the spectrum of Albanian-related topics (Kosovo, rather than ancient Illyrians), had no other overlap with Darius' other field of interest (security software), and was created a long time before Darius got blocked. This may well have been an error. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is 2007apm's appeal
I wish to highlight the following:
I have over 500 edits and 2.5 years (2 years when i was blocked) experience. I have never been blocked at all until this time.
Emperordarius has a bad record of being blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AEmperordarius
However Emperordarius 1st block (Nov 08) was AFTER I created my account (Feb 08).
I have a genuine interest in Yugoslavia (not just Kosovo, but Kosovo is clearly where things are heppening these days). You can see this by looking at below section of Breakup of Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia#Kosovo_war_and_subsequent_sucession_.281990-2008.29 Which I wrote from scratch on 30 Dec 2008.
My email corres with the Arb Com is below. I've deleted my email address, but if anyone genuinely needs it, for example to check my facebook page, please shout. 2007apm (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
E-mail correspondence (reverse chronological order)
|
|---|
|
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Andrew M[redacted] <andrew.m[redacted]@[redacted].net> wrote: Cool - I'll hold off any edits. I would point out that my old account was blocked, not banned. "Banning should not be confused with blocking, which is a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. A ban does not, in itself, disable a user's ability to edit any page. However, users who violate a ban may have their account access blocked entirely, as a way of enforcing the ban." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ban In this case, 2007apm was (mistakenly) BLOCKED to enforce the (valid) BAN on Emperordarius. I submit that the current situation is no different to anyone who has suffered by an autoblock. I therefore feel that my earlier comment, that I have never been banned, is not misleading. Many thanks for looking at this Andrew
Sent: 06 August 2010 00:09 To: Andrew M Cc: functionaries-en<AT>lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: Hi there - wikipedia Andrew, You have misunderstood the cleanstart policy. It includes the following: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against your old account." This is not the case for you, as you are blocked as User:2007apm. You need to stick with that one account (User:2007apm) and resolve the problems there, not just start a new account. Statements such as you make here in an edit summary are misleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Breakup_of_Yugoslavia&diff=prev&oldid=377302532 "I'm not banned and have never been banned" You have had three unblocks declined at Use talk:2007apm.. To then simply start another account is not acceptable. I will discuss with others on this list what to do here, but please don't make any further edits with that account. Carcharoth
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Andrew M[redacted] <andrew.m[redacted]@[redacted].net> wrote: Hi Carcharoth I gave up appealing against my block as a result of mistaken identity and decided to make a clean start under the clean start policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART My new wiki name is Peter2010 2. Naturally I'm disappointed, my old account apm2007 is 2.5 years old(created long before the supposed "Sockmaster" account Emperordarius was first blocked) and had never before been blocked, because I am a careful editor. >> I had made over 500 edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Emperordarius I'm also sad that my Wikipedia account can't use my real initials. My real name is Andrew P M[redacted]. Please search for this email address Andrew.m[redactred]@[redacted].net on facebook. Hope this is OK. I imagine that this situation is fairly common - I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crappon was unblocked, but assume that only a minority of those people who are incorrectly blocked as socks clear their name. It certainly seems that way from the comments of the admin that declined my appeal that this is common: "To summarize the traditional talk page format of blocked sockpuppets: (1) Unblock request: I'm not a sockpuppet! Decline: Yes, you are. (2) Unblock request: I'm really not a sockpuppet! Decline: You really are. (3) Unblock request: I promise I'm not a sockpuppet! Decline: It's obvious that you are. (4) Unblock request: No, really, I'm really, really not a sockpuppet. Decline: Page is locked from further edits." To be honest, I doubt that that admin actually read my appeal and >> followed the links within. The reason why my declined was stated by the admin very clearly - it was NOT because my case was weak, rather it is because other people had been declined in the past. Andrew
Original Message----- From: Carcharoth Sent: 07 February 2010 06:58 To: 2007apm Cc: English Wikipedia Functionaries email list Subject: Fwd: Checkuser (2007apm)
It is unlikely that a checkuser will be carried out specifically to clear your name, but I have forwarded this to the functionaries mailing list (which includes checkusers), so that your case can be looked at and dealt with appropriately, including unblocks if needed. I hope this will help. Please direct any further correspondence to functionaries-en<AT>lists.wikimedia.org. Carcharoth cc functionaries-en
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: 2007apm <andrew.m[redacted]@[redacted].net> >> Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:59 AM >> Subject: Checkuser >> To: Carcharoth Please can you do a checkuser on my account as I am not a sockpuppet but have been incorrectly blocked.
Many thanks APM |
A few points to clarify:
- (1) When publishing e-mail correspondence in public, please get the permission of those sending the e-mails. In this case, I was the only other person involved in the e-mails, and I don't mind you publishing the correspondence, but please ask in future before publishing e-mails like this as others may not be so forgiving.
- (2) This is not a formal ArbCom appeal, you merely caught the attention of an arbitrator and I started a new unblock appeal for you.
- (3) You mention your "new" account above. My reply (also quoted above) stated that this appears to be a misunderstanding on your part of WP:CLEANSTART. If you could log into that account, tag it with a note saying it is a sock of this account created in error, tag it as retired, and then never use it again, that will save someone having to block it.
Most people dealing with this are going to bed now. If you don't mind waiting another day, it should be clearer by then what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
All points noted.
I've put the retired tag on the old account (Peter2010 2), together with a link to this account. 2007apm (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked
On the basis of the above discussion and private consultation with Carcharoth and MuZemike, I am unblocking you. We have come to the conclusion that your identification as an Emperordarius sockpuppet was probably an error. I would like to apologise to you on behalf of the project for this mistake, and for the difficulties you had in getting your appeal heard. Honestly, the sequence of those unblock declines above on this page is not quite what I would like to see from us admins here on Wikipedia. I can only commend you for your patience in pursuing this.
I see you were trying to resume editing on Breakup of Yugoslavia already. When you continue editing there, let me recommend to tread very carefully and do your utmost to strive for neutrality. As you probably know, the Kosovo issue is one of the most difficult topic areas to write about neutrally in this project.
In any case, welcome back on Wikipedia, and I wish you happy and constructive editing. Don't hesitate to contact me if you run into any difficulties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Could you provide edit summaries? One word or phrase is good; just enough to make it clear what you're doing. I found it difficult to follow what changes you were making with the many edits you made in quick succession to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham article since they lacked edit summaries. Thank you. — AlekJDS talk 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)