Iaaasi

Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. Please do not act upon any instructions issued by this banned user.

Archives

1

Archives

Archive 1

You are considered to be banned from wikipedia on ANI, following your years of extreme abuse and harassment of others as well as hate mongering. Hobartimus (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting that the "hate mongering" accusations come from someone who has posted on this Wikimedia profile page a picture representing the neo-Nazi Magyar Garda (Iaaasi (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Very interesting thanks for bringing that to my attention. I can confirm that the account on Commons in question is not mine and have not been opened by me. Very interesting revelation. I will note for administrators that Iaaasi's knowledge of this account (of which I was even unaware of) strongly suggests something. What I'm still not sure about. I really hope it was not Iaaasi who created the account for just a circumstance like this... Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noting that material was removed from this page immediately before posting the above [1] Hobartimus (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I asked on ANI for someone to bring this to the attention of Commons checkusers. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, everyone can delete their own notes on their talk pages. So what do you want to say with this? (Iaaasi (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

That in this case you wanted to deliberately hide part of the visible talk page. I don't know the reasons for that but I guess it has to do with their content. I will also note that in this account only you have in the archives 9 unblock requests declined (+3) visible above for a total of 12. And you have at least 5 declined unblock requests in various other sockpuppets. Some of the requests were used to attack and malign other expressly forbidden when making such requests. Hobartimus (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would not like to make many comments in the first place, at least until being explicitly asked by the admins to bring clarifications. It seems this report is a new stage in the never ending attempt of the users Hobartimus and Nmate to re-block me. As my unblocking admin (Ronhjones) put it, "any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant". Since that date I've tried to completely respect wiki policies, and the only deviation was when I violated 3RR as a result of misinterpreting #3RR exemptions (all is explained in the unblock requests on my talk page) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Do you want the above posted to ANI? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wanted so, but I changed my mind.This reply of my unblocking admin is more than comprehesnive, I don't want to add anything (Iaaasi (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

OK. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advice. The basis for the "conflict" with user Hobartimus is pretty straightforward: his constant refusal to accept anything besides his POV, coupled with sleazy attempts to discredit me while imposing his versions. For example, at Eastern Hungarian Kingdom he relied on his own authority to remove a label which only administrators are entitled to remove. His argument is that, despite the previous deletion, he argued that the previously deleted article criterion "obviously does not apply" (euphemism for "fuck off, I`ll show you how what I can do...") 79.112.15.221 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know very well Hobartimus' manner of editing. But if you are calm you can solve any conflict without edit wars.I will take a look and if you are right I will support you (Iaaasi (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Someone has poured you tea.

I notice that you've attracted a fair number of "friends" on your talk page today. If you'd like, I can semi-protect the page for a bit until they get bored. TNXMan 15:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not necessary. Thanks (Iaaasi (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Fair enough. If you change your mind and the activity persists, just drop me a note. TNXMan 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I semi-protected anyway; it's more work than it's worth to keep reverting the legion of sox. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. However, I was amused rather than annoyed by his messages on my talk page(Iaaasi (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

{{help me}} I've opened on 3 February 2011 (46 days ago) a RFM discussion. There was no consensus and it was relisted. I wanna close that one (because I realized that the proposed title was wrong, I don't agree with the initial proposal now) and make a new move proposal (to correct title). How can I do that? I got no answer here (Iaaasi (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

• Edit it, and add a comment saying "Withdrawn by nominator because" <and explain about the new proposal idea>
• Then add another {{helpme}} here, asking someone to close it for you. (That should be a simple enough request; just say "please close this move because I've withdrawn it, and there is no consensus - and I have a new proposal" - and I think a helper will close it for you)

After that, you'll be able to start the new proposal.  Chzz  ►  12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A user has raised an AN/I thread concerning you at WP:ANI#Suspicions of blocking a user based on unfounded allegations and, I see did not notify you, so I am doing so. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do not address CoolKoon on this ANI thread any more, or I will block you from editing. Rationale can be found at the ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi laaasi,

Article: Székely zászló (it means szekely flag)

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely_z%C3%A1szl%C3%B3

it is the first paragraph: The 16th század végéről fennmaradt zászlók és egyenruhák tanúsága szerint, a székelység által használt az arany-égszinkék-ezüst, valamint a vörös és fekete a kimondottan székely szimbólumszínek.

There are two reliable sources that shows that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbesogullible (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't know, I just copied from hungarian article and translated it into english and pasted that info into english article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbesogullible (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I do not know why you have left this sentence in such a bad state, you really cannot assume that anyone else will know what half of this means (as well as not following normal wikifying procedures)

• "John Hunyadi came from a modest family of Romanian ennobled knezes from Hateg - Hunedoara. His great-grandfather was probably called"

You need to clarify what a kneze is - ennobled knezes ("what it is").
the use of "modest" is not really acceptable, modest can mean too many things in English: poor, unassuming, well take a look here [8] or [9]
Normally if Hateg is a place in Hunedoara you know it should be "Hateg, Hunedoara", if it is an old name for Hunedoara it should be "Hateg (Hunedoara).

To be honest the sentence which includes "was probably called" is also a little suspect, it sounds like OR and you need to reword it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is the exact quote from a RS, there is no original research (Iaaasi (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Hmmm, you should know by now what I am going to say to that :¬)

"Put it in quote marks then" lol Chaosdruid (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In view of your previous WP:DIGWUREN warning ([10]) and the recent AN3 report, I am imposing the following restriction to take effect in the unlikely event that the block imposed below is ever lifted: In application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, You are indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe. A "revert" is any action that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part, as explained at WP:EW.  Sandstein  15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption through intense edit-warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See the related AN3 report. Considering that you have been previously blocked indefinitely for similar disruption and were only unblocked upon the condition of good behavior ([11]), I am reimposing the indefinite block as a normal administrator action (that is, not acting in enforcement of an arbitration decision).  Sandstein  15:41, 25 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I really thought that the respective edit can be considered vandalism, please assume good faith. I've opened this thread on WP:ECCN and made a RFC on the article talk page, I think that is a proof that I seek dispute resolution. As it can be seen: the third party confirmed my assertions. Moreover, one of my edit war opponnents was warned for vandalism by an admin: "one more vandalism edit will result in your being blocked from editing." The only disruption I have done in this period was edit warring. As it can be seen, I've always tried to settle conflicts by addressing to reliable sources noticeboard or asking for 3O. I think that this restriction "Iaaasi is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe." would be enough to prevent further edit wars of this type. Please unblock me under this restriction and if I continue to create problems impose a harsher sanction.

The goal of a block is protecting the project, not a punishment for a specific user, and I think 1RR would assure the avoidance of conflicts. I hope I can find understanding. Later edit: My edit war opponnent, User:Koalicio was blocked as meatpuppet of User:CoolKoon

Decline reason:

Last time you were blocked you were warned by myself and two other admins that continued edit warring was unacceptable: [12], [13] [14]. Despite this, you've continued to edit war since the block expired, including under a false claim that the material in question was vandalism and hence OK to remove. Your assertion that you didn't mean to edit war and won't do it again lacks any credibility given your record. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2011 (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.

I'll leave it up to the reviewing admin to decide whether they want to give you (yet) another chance based on this statement. They might also want to ask the admin who imposed the original indefinite block. In my experience, editors with a similar record are not often a net asset to Wikipedia, so you may want to link to some substantial improvements (new articles or substantial expansions, not minor changes) that you made since your last indefinite block.  Sandstein  18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The admin who imposed the original block, User:Bogdangiusca is not active any more on wikipedia. As the only rule I've broken since my unblock was 3RR (2 times), I think 1RR restriction is the most indicated. Regarding the former one, I'd like to add that the account User:Koalicio that engaged in the edit war with me was created yesterday and his first action was starting reverting. I thought the explanation on the article was very clear (the outside editor confirmed my statements). It was my mistake for not being more patient and calm, but I think I can't be accused of bad faith. I think it is important to note that User:CookKoon continues the edit war even after my block: [15], so I think I am not the only guilty person here

I can't say that I've brought substantial improvements to a specific article, but I've done more minor edits. I know it would not be correct to bring this argument, but if we compare my work with the one of the users I had conflicts with (Hobartimus, Nmate and CoolKoon), I think my contributions are more substantial than the contributions of all of them (Iaaasi (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Sure, it's all my fault that you've engaged in an edit war over an article you've hardly edited before, haven't added any content to and lies out of the area of your expertise, right? I don't know who this Koalicio is, but I can't deny the fact that he DID give me a helping hand in agreeing with me about the content you removed on sight. As for outside editors, an editor has confirmed at the ECCN section you've added that my chapter DOES have validity indeed. What I did up to this time was the effort of adding some content to the Hungary-Slovakia relations I consider to be absolutely valid and on-topic there and which you tried hard to remove. As far as your contributions go you've concentrated most of your efforts (and sockpuppets) on the John Hunyadi article, which's fine, but comparing it to other editors' work who contribute to a wider range of topics is a bit hypocritical, don't you think? CoolKoon (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not deny that I am the most guilty, I just remarked that in a edit war each side has its part of fault. If I promise to stop the edit wars, do you agree with my unblock? Iaaasi (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

• Hi, I'm not really part of this discussion, so feel free to kick me out, but I've been reading the situation on the page where the edits occurred. I know nothing about this users previous actions and restrictions, and it certainly does look like he violated 3RR, which is almost never helpful. That being said, however, it should be noted that he at least tried to engage the other users in talk page discussion, although it seems they did not participate. He (or she) should know better than to keep reverting, but he was taking a far more productive and proper stance to the actual discussion. that being said, I could be totally wrong about this, and I don't mean any of this as a slight against the other users involved. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support. I've always tried to settle conflicts and to explain my actions as clear as possible, and it is frustrating when some editors refuse to accept something which is obvious (Iaaasi (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

"your assertion that you didn't mean to edit war and won't do it again lacks any credibility given your record." - I did not deny that I was edit warring or tried to exonerate myself, I just explained the motivation behind the reverts. I understand your circumspection, but I think 1RR restriction / article / month proposed above is reasonable. This sanction could be eventually accompanied by a WP:IBAN in my relation with my recent edit war opponents. If I am such a dangerous user to the project, I will break it very soon and re-blocked. If the answer is still NO, can you please tell me the next steps? When can the ban be lifted? What can I do to fasten the process?

Decline reason:

The edit warring is very clear and the history is damning. Mistaking it for vandalism at this point in the game, when you're hardly new to Wikipedia, is really not an explanation that helps your case. As for where to go from here, given that this is your second indef block, you may be pretty limited on options; it's probably going to be hard to convince the community to give you another chance. You always have the option of appealing to the arbitration committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (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.

I'll leave this for another admin to decide on, but there was only mild support to un-block you last time you were blocked for an indefinite period, and you were warned that you faced having the block re-imposed if you reverted to your previous behaviour: [16]. Since then you've engaged in continued serious edit warring, despite a one week block and some further stern warnings, so I don't see any likelihood of you sticking to another commitment to not edit war. As for the future, please see WP:OFFER. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indefinite!?! I would of said about 5 months for that intensive edit-warring. I will come back about 5 months after to support unblock. (if you request unblock) ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it seems a case of undue weight, but I'm not sure how to help. It seems you already found a lot of sources and you discussed some of them on the talk page.

But also please note the difference between Hungarian/Romanian and of Romanian origin. I'm sure most sources agree on him being of Romanian origin, I'm not so sure if they all agree of him being a Romanian. Daizus (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to participate at the discussion, but unfortunately I am blocked now and it is not possible any more... (Iaaasi (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Replied on Daizus' talk page Chaosdruid (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have one last proposal, I hope at least this one can be accepted:

• topic ban Hungary - related articles (as it can be seen, this is the area where I had disputes)
• 1RR restriction / article / month
• WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment. I think this list of measures would prevent damage, because the contacts with Hungarian users I had conflicts in the past would be avoided.

Decline reason:

You're right: blocks are designed to prevent damage. You engaged in massively damaging behaviour, and were blocked. You were unblocked with the understanding that the damage would stop - it quickly returned and escalated, so you were blocked again. Your track record proves that you cannot work in conjunction with those that you disagree with, so the clear proof is available that this type of combative editing will recur. I would highly suggest WP:OFFER at this point, or if you disagree, any further unblock requests must be made to WP:ARBCOM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 27 March 2011 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

New proposal:

• topic ban Eastern Europe
• 1RR restriction / article / month
• WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with

Decline reason:

This is not unblock-roulette; you can't just keep making proposals, hoping some admin sees one he likes. The previous decline noted that you need to follow the instructions at WP:OFFER, and I'm going to repeat that advice. Note also that a lot of the reluctance to unblock you has to do with the previous time you were unblocked - we expected that the disruption would stop, and it did not. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:11, 28 March 2011 (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.

I note you have started using sockpuppets again (if you ever stopped.) This account at this point should never be unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Never say never (Iaaasi (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Damn, did you really? Now I feel stupid for trying to defend your actions. Ugh.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not create any sock account since my block. (Iaaasi (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

No, you used ones you previously created. Keep digging. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note from Snowolf The user has been coming in regularly in #wikipedia-en-unblock asking for his unblock since his original block, generally arguing, if memory serves me right, that he's the sock of only some of the accounts the checkuser linked to him. As per channel policy, logs are available if needed, but I concur with jpgordon above that this user should never be unblocked. He has never fully acknowledged being a sockpuppetter to the extent that Checkuser confirmed, and has been forum-shopping for a long time trying to get somebody to unblock him. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please give more details about this: "arguing, if memory serves me right, that he's the sock of only some of the accounts the checkuser linked to him." because I don't understand your allegation(Iaaasi (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

New proposal: •topic ban Europe •1RR restriction / article / century •WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with

Decline reason:

This is exactly the same as the previous declined request. If you continue to waste administrators' time in this way, you will be blocked from editting this page as well.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (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.

Read again, it is not the same (Iaaasi (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

The differences were a classic example of WP:POINT. I agree with the reviewing admin that this user's disruptive trolling is wasting everyone's time, and that the block should be extended to this page too. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So what are you waiting for? Go on and block this talk page too, to save administrators' precious time (Iaaasi (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

I take note of User:Iaaasi's statement about removal of his talk page access. Though his words might be ironic, I do agree that there has been sufficient discussion. He has a long record of inappropriate behavior and he was very recently using socks (per Jpgordon's statement). I think Iaaasi's next step if he wants further unblock review would be to write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If any other admin wants to re-enable Iaaasi's talk page access I won't object. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy notice for Iaaasi: Since you took your second chance and blew it, I've proposed to ban you from Wikipedia at WP:AN#Community ban proposal. I'll request EdJohnston to restore your talk page access so you can speak in your defense. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per Dylan620's request, I've restored Iaaasi's access to his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Before saying anything, I want to know which is the difference between indef block and community ban (Iaaasi (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My proposal would be

• 1RR restriction / article
• (eventually) WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with
• (eventually) topic ban Hungary - related articles (as it can be seen, this is the area where I had disputes)

I think it is a reasonable proposal, but I don't expect to get an accept

I'd like to add that the last 4 reverts from the edit war that brought me the indef block were made against a meatpuppet (User:Koalicio). I've also asked for 3O and the third party agreed that I was right, but this is probably less important for the admins (Iaaasi (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

It's still the same as the other unblock requests. and as the AN discussion would note, you're now banned - and definitely the Weakest Link, goodbye.--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

@ Iaaasi: Asking the same question over and over again won't get you the answer you want. Even if that wasn't the case, you were indef'd due to disruptive editing (partly edit-warring), socked around the block, and eventually got a second chance, which was blown sky-high when you relapsed into your old behavior. If you can't be trusted to not sock or edit war, how can you be trusted to adhere to any editing restrictions at all?

@ Eaglestorm: I think that's being a little harsh. Iaaasi isn't banned yet (we still have roughly 22 to 34 hours before we hit the preferred 48), and calling him the "weakest link" is unnecessarily hostile and comes off as a personal attack, IMO. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

@ Dylan620 If I am such a disruptive user as you insinuate, I would break the editing restrictions very soon (a few days or weeks). I know I was of good faith and I am not going to beg you for an unblock. I am not going to make something to change your opinion anymore. If you don't trust me, just ban be already. Editing wikipedia is volunteer work and I get no benefits from contributing here. I ask you to stop that vote where all the admins who don't know anything about the context of my blocks come and express their opinion. I request myself a site ban. And delete this account to wipe all traces that I was ever here. If this community tolerates and supports the behaviour of User:Nmate, User:Hobartimus and User:Squash Racket and considers that they are the "good guys" here and I am the "bad guy", I don't want to be a part of this community. I am even glad for my ban, because I don't want to have any other opportunity get annoyed in vain here. Goodbye!(Iaaasi (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Whether Nmate and Squash Racket are behaving inappropriately, I don't know, but it was wrong of Hobartimus to try and get you banned as punishment for past offenses. My ban proposal is not based on anything Hobartimus, Nmate, or Squash Racket have said, and it is absolutely not endorsement of Hobartimus's behavior. My proposal is based on curent offenses; like how after you were given a second chance, you were re-indef'd last week for edit-warring, and then caught socking only three days later. --Dylan620's public alt ^{(t • c (main) • c (alt))} 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've already explained the circumstances of the edit war (the last 4 reverts were made to a meatpuppet, User:Koalicio , which is blocked now for that). And I was not reverting for fun, I had strong arguments and the outside editor that answered to my RFC confirmed that I was right. The only rule I've broken since my unblock in December 2010 was 3RR, consequently I think 1RR restriction would prevent further edit wars with me being involved.
• The only sock account I used since last my block is User:Nauneim, which was already blocked (since 7 February 2010). I edited only its talk page. If editing that talk page was enabled, I considered it is nothing illegal
• On the other hand, I'd like to bring attention to this edit of User:Rokarudi. He is bringing false accusations, because the previous RFM was closed at my request, and the new title proposal is different from the previous one. And I don't think it is alright to refer to his opponents' ethnicity in a content dispute
• User: Squash Racket, who militates for my ban, doesn't seem to be a great fan of wiki guidelines, even if he was informed by me about the rule WP:BOLDTITLE. (Iaaasi (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

May I be unblocked please? I've uploaded 7 pictures and I'd like to insert them into articles. There is 1 week since my block. If you really consider that I am so dangerous, you can impose me some editing restrictions

Decline reason:

You are now banned from editing Wikipedia by the community, see the corresponding AN thread.  Sandstein  06:24, 2 April 2011 (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.

Congratulations! Now I am officially banned and wikipedia is out of danger. However, in practice it is not something new, because some users abusively treated by as a banned user even before and reverted the constructive edits made by my socks.

Not to say that the some of participants at the vote where users who did not know absolutely anything about my case and claimed that "I was banned and afterwards unbanned in the past". Total professionalism.

It is very interesting how I was banned, while Stubes99, who has created tens of socks and has insulted everyone including admins (ask Tiptoety) is still unbanned(Iaaasi (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

You have my sympathy re. Stubes99. After looking through his sock cats, he seems to be a plausible candidate for a community ban, and I'll propose one next time he's caught socking.

If you ever want to appeal the ban, you can e-mail the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to propose the conversion of the site ban into topic ban + interaction ban + 1RR restriction. Do you know if I can make this request now? And, if not, how much time has to pass? I've uploaded ~10 images to Commons and I'd like to insert them into articles (Iaaasi (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is not an unblock request. I just want to get an answer at this: I am currently site banned and I'd like to propose the conversion of the site ban into topic ban Hungary-related articles + interaction ban + 1RR restriction. Can I make this request now? And, if not, how much time has to pass? I've uploaded ~10 images to Commons and I'd like to insert them into articles.

Decline reason:

Please do not use this tempalte again simply to get attention. I would strongly advise waiting six months and then having someone start a community discussion on your ban for you. Kuru (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2011 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to propose the conversion of my site ban into: topic ban Hungary - related articles (as it can be seen, this is the area where I had disputes) 1RR restriction / article / month WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with I've uploaded ~10 images to Commons and I'd like to insert them into articles. I'd like also to make good contributions in any area that I would be restricted to

Decline reason:

Repeating the request less than a month after you have been told '6 months' is not indicative that you are taking what we are telling you to heart. Talkpage access revoked, please address any further appeals to the Arbcom as advised above. Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2011 (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.

I have re-set the block to remove e-mail access as the user has been soliciting by e-mail to try to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. Editors, if Iaaasi already has your e-mail address, please play it smart and do nothing that he asks. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HurricaneFan25 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [17] -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@User:Borsoka I've noticed that you focus these days on the improving of Matthias Corvinus, and I'd like to point out to you a typo mistake: In the section Matthias_Corvinus#Wars_against_the_Ottoman_Empire it should be "new military banats, Jajce and Srebrenik" instead of "new military banats, Jajce and Srebernik". I would have made the correction myself, but User:DeltaQuad, the defender of law and justice here on en.wp, applied the rules in an exemplary manner and blocked my infamous sock accounts User:Avpop and User:Ytmt1. Moreover, the also blocked my ip range in order to protect wikipedia of the massive destructions commited by myself to wiki artocles via these two accounts. Thanks in advance. Iaaasi (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know why I reverted, I just went into your contribs on that sock and hit "Mass Rollback" as I do with any long term socks per policy, but I don't go in and check each and every revision. And since your now using your talkpage to proxy edits while being banned:

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Proxying edits while banned is not allowed as you have been told before by emailing other editors. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on User talk:Iaaasi/t requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Following a request in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel I have re-established talk page access, with the understanding that any use of the talk page beyond contesting the ban will lead to access again being revoked. Huon (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am banned from English Wikipedia and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my mistakes that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems. I am ready to discuss here about the conditions of my unban, about the further steps that I need to follow. (Request updated on 30 dec. 2017) Hello. I am currently banned from English Wikipedia and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my errors that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems. I was site banned in 2011 after committing successive violations of the 3RR rule. However these wrongdoings did not represent a wilful defiance of the 3RR rule, but were the result of misinterpretations of the policy. Now I am more mature and less impulsive, so I would be able to be more rational during tense situations. I am aware that dispute resolution processes can be slow sometimes, but I am confident that I will be able to be more patient and refrain from edit warring. I will try to impose my opinion on the talk page and gain consensus there, not matter how long it will take, and I will have the strength to accept an unfavorable decision. I realize that edit warring is not acceptable in any circumstances. I've learned many things from being blocked/banned. I've become conscious of the fact that it is much simpler and convenient to wait several days for a content dispute to be settled than to edit war, get blocked, and than wait several months/years to get unblocked. It is true that I created some sock-puppet account after my ban, but I think that the harm inflicted to the project while evading my block was reduced. I did many constructive edits in this period of "illegality" and I also initiated new articles like Lia Olguța Vasilescu or Antonio Alexe. Now I accumulated some time (~1 year) since giving up using sock-puppet accounts. I hope that now I fulfill the conditions for being accepted back into the en.wp community. There would be a zero moment, a possibility to start everything over again, and I am sure that I will not repeat the mistakes of the past

Decline reason:

Unban request has been declined here after community discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2017 (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.

I suggest you write a meaningful request that can be put at WP:AN. I doubt the above will convince anybody. Huon (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Huon, honestly, I don't know what else I could include in my appeal in addition to the admission of my misconduct and the commitment to respect the policies.Iaaasi (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You might start by explaining why you are blocked. This is like an apology saying "I'm sorry for what I did", without actually spelling out what you did. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Huon I updated my unban request, could you please post it on WP:AN? Iaaasi (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010, @Kudpung "I oppose unban because you had nearly 140 socks" - if I were an admin, I would never make use of this approach, because it is an indirect encouragement for the banned user to continue using sock accounts (it determines me to ask myself: "I am damned for eternity. Why would I stop using sock accounts, when they aren't going to ever unban me anyway?"). Iaaasi (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm just letting you know that your unban request has been declined by the community. Having served its purpose, I am now revoking your talk page access again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Per discussion on IRC, I have re-enabled your talk page access for the purpose of appealing your ban. An administrator will copy your appeal to WP:AN. You must not use this talk page access for any other reason. Any uninvolved administrator may revoke your talk page access without needing to consult me first - TNT ^💖 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe once you stop socking, and wait for the standard offer, we can considering unblocking you. But we've only told you that a million times. And sure enough, another sock 123Steller (talk · contribs). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

DeltaQuad, it is not so easy for me to gather at least 6 months of non-socking when some admins wrongly tag different accounts as being mine (User:Karim Abdul Rashid, User:Eurocentral etc) just because they find a random technical/behavioral similarity.

My account 123Steller (talk · contribs) was in use for 2 years and a half, and has an empty block log. This prooves that I am more than ready to be a non-disruptive contributor. According to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi, I have "nationalistic and fringe edits" and I "repeatedly edit war to get things my way". I "seem to edit articles related to Hungary and Hungary-related topics.", so I invite the Hungarian editors KIENGIR and Borsoka that I interacted with to tell here how disruptive 123Steller was. Iaaasi (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Due to this being a bad faith request (active socking), I have revoked talk page access. I'd ask the next admin who reviews a request to restore talk page access not to do so for at least six months - TNT ^💖 09:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had no conflicts to be remember with 123Steller during the last 1,5 years. Sincerely, I am not sure that one of the new editors whose pushy editing style is remarkable is not identical with Iaaasi, but I cannot prove their identification. Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If I was asked, I answer: the account named 123Steller managed to have in the end a good collaboration, despite some misundertandings in the beginning. However I was warned once, but I would never believe this account could be a sock...I've had always a good faith towards it...I am honestly surprised...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC))Reply

Borsoka and KIENGIR thanks for confirming that my account 123Steller was not troublesome. I appreciate your activity on wikipedia. I assure Borsoka that I haven't used any other account in the last year. Iaaasi (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23766 was submitted on Jan 14, 2019 11:21:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Reply

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23877 was submitted on Feb 01, 2019 21:52:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Reply

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23888 was submitted on Feb 04, 2019 09:45:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply