User talk:Nefirious: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:25, 26 February 2018

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Problem

I do not understand the big deal. The website is more than reliable and the author clearly claims that he is an expert in the field of SEO and is a journalist who has written articles based on secondary and primary sources. Do you not have anything better to do ? Why are you obstructing someone who is trying to spread legit knowledge ?

Hi, please join the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard instead of here and on my user talk page. Thanks! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 24 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not make any kind of legal threat. What I meant was that action will be taken against her on wikipedia if she continues her threatening gestures. I cannot be blocked unless and untill II make it clear what kind of legal action I am taking. Have a look at the talk page where I mentioned Wikipedia and no other source.

Decline reason:

Per below. As for being warned, you had already IMO forfeited that level of courtesy when you sockpuppeted. Your evasive and tendentious wikilawyering below further demonstrate that Wikipedia is better off when this is the only page you're allowed to edit (and maybe not even that, hint hint). — Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2013 (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.

"Legal action will be taken...". This, right after your block for sockpuppetry expired. —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not validate a block as I said account will be reported which naturally means within wikipedia. I also said legal action will be taken, but did not specifically mention what as I took it for granted that the user would assume I meant within Wikipedia. I do not have the time nor resources to take action against anyone outside wikipedia naturally. Nefirious (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so good as to explain what "I will take action in Wikipedia against your threatening gesture" means? What sort of action were you thinking of? Peridon (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording here [1] is quite clear and very specifically a clear threat of legal action. Subsequent comments indicating that you meant within Wikipedia do not cancel out this threat, nor indeed do they explain it. To achieve unblock you will need to make a clear and unambiguous statement that you have not taken and have no intention of taking, any legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editors in respect of any edits made within Wikipedia in editing threads with which you have been involved, or which relate to you or to your edits.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please define legal action. The term legal action varies in its definition. Did I specify what kind of legal action I was talking about ? Clearly no. If there is an incident inside a school, legal action can be taken within the school without having to go to the authorities. When I did not specify I what kind of legal action I was taking, you cannot get sentimental and ban without any notification. Also I made it very clear on the talk page of the edit that it would be within Wikipedia. Please use common sense and do not blatantly ban editors who work hard to create scholarly articles. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC) I would suggest that you being an administrator please read WP:LEGAL. It clearly indicates that "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved". Nefirious (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section from WP:LEGAL (with which I am familiar) which you quote deals with perceived legal threats, where there is potential for misunderstanding. Your threat is clear and not susceptible to misunderstanding, and your later attempts to modify it do not amount to a reason to unblock. As I have said we must see from you a clear and unqualified retraction. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure if you understood WP:LEGAL. It clearly says that a person needs to be notified about his actions before he is blocked. I was not notified, and also blocked within minutes.I am saying repeatedly, I made it clear on that User's talk page that I was talking about a legal action on Wikipedia itself. I am making myself clear again that I had no intention to take any sort of legal action against the Wikipedia user or against Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedia editor myself since last 10 years and have more than a thousand edits. It would be nice if you can unblock me so I can get back to editing articles that I created and add more value to Wikipedia. Nefirious (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the third paragraph of WP:LEGAL. It is very clear. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am saying. There was a misunderstanding. The administrator banned me as he assumed there was a legal action involved. Which I made clear on the talk page that it was on Wikipedia. Please refer the entire WP:LEGAL article so to have a clear understanding of what perceived threat means and amounts to. I have already made it clear that it was not my intention. Nefirious (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock appeal remains posted; I think as I am clearly not reaching agreement with you it is best that I withdraw, and see if another admin puts a different interpretation on your words, as quoted in the link I posted above. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you took that personally. I am just trying to get the facts out from WP:LEGAL. The administrator who banned me, banned me without any notification or warning, neither did he take the time to clear it out. Nefirious (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not cleared it out. "Legal action will be taken" is not one bit ambiguous. You were also asked another question right after your unblock, and you haven't responded to that either. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FTR, regarding warning about legal threats: the blocking admin did not warn the editor before blocking, but they had been warned and had removed the warning but chose to post a new message to my talk page instead of retracting their legal threat. So a warning had in fact been issued and acknowledged (although whether it was understood is a different matter, given the subsequent discussion on this page.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page. I clearly said legal action on Wikipedia. After the warning I made it clear on your talk page that I meant Wikipedia. My statement was misinterpreted by the user as the user's native tongue is not English. I removed the warning because it had a threatening tone. I got banned within 5 minutes of the warning. I was not notified by the administrator. User Bonadea is not authorised with banning anyone as this user is merely an editor like me and many more. Kindly revert the decision in compliance with legal threats Thanks Nefirious (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think I was misunderstood. I am not trying to justify that my actions were appropriate. The administrator says (hint hint), is he trying to say that he may block me from editing this page as well ? That wasn't nice. What I am trying to say. After the warning was made. I did not make any legal threat again, all I did was corrected myself, saying that I did not meant in that sense, so I wrote on that user's talk page that, or rather clarified that I meant Wikipedia. Did I make any other legal threat after the warning. I guess no. If you still think that I need to do more than just this let me know. I am willing to comply with all your requests.Thanks Nefirious (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are socking to evade your block, your unblock request is declined. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 25 October 2013 (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 is getting increasingly tiresome, you're complaining about being misunderstood as their native tongue is not English. "Legal action will be taken" is clearly not ambiguous at all and for someone complaining about another user's ability to comprehend the language, you should know. While you were provided with a warning, a warning or duscussion is only required to clear doubts of ambiguity. And as asked by Peridon earlier, what is this action that you are planning to take? —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Spiff - Saying something without understanding the actual meaning is called misunderstanding. I don't want to beat around the bush. Like I said. I am saying again. I never meant I was taking any legal action. If I wanted to I would not be here asking administrators here to unblock me. I am saying again, please unblock me as I mean no harm to Wikipedia or any of its editors. I myself an editor of Wikipedia understand the policies and I will comply with them. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given serious thought to either fulfilling my conditions or answering Peridon's question? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periodon's question ? You mean what sort of action am I willing to take on user Bonadea. She threatened to ban me, even though she is merely an editor like me. So naturally, I will raise the question on Wikipedia Dispute board about her false claims of being able to ban me. Nefirious (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Warnings" (not threats) are valid, no matter what user provides them, and if a user "threatens" to take you to ANI to discuss a ban, it's also valid. None of those claims are "false" - you're simply wikilawyering, and showing a lack of competence overall .... is that really the face you want to put forward here? ES &L 22:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EatsShootsAndLeaves it was a warning and not a threat. What do you have me do to uplift the ban ? Need a note or something to clarify about my actions ? I can provide that. I am sure there is a way to resolve this. Nefirious (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing declined unblock notices, next time you do that your talk page access will also be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now using sockpuppets for block evasion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you will abide by the guidelines if your block is lifted, but you have been violating Wikipedia rules by creating sock puppets to circumvent your block, and using those socks to edit in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies, and in violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. And frankly, this reaction doesn't indicate that you think Wikipedia's guidelines are particularly important. To get an administrator to lift your block you'll have to show that it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia if your block were lifted, and breaking the rules while blocked doesn't help with that. --bonadea contributions talk 18:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]