User talk:Relichal1

Welcome!

Hello, Relichal1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Yugoslavia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. HighInBC 21:30, 1 October 2015 (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).

Relichal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sock. I can't make a better case on your claim that I'm a sock, so you will have to provide some details. The best I can do not is to do what you did, just make a statement. I was not informed about any report against me. You just blocked me without any reason. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm familiar with the rules, this is against them. Even if it isn't it is done in a very secretive way. Few editors who clearly know each other have discussed me on the talk page of another editor without notifying me of any investigation. I happened to notice that discussion, and left some posts there. One of the editors who pushed for ban clearly lied that I have edited the same articles as one of the other editors and I have spent a good deal of time to see that I actually haven't edited a single article that is common with the other editor. Nobody there seemed to care that obvious lies are being said about me. I really didn't have to defend myself all around some corners where I'm being discussed without notifying me and without a proper report. It's a shame that the admin who blocked me went along with that. Relichal1 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious sock is obvious. And unlike many other kinds of discussions on Wikipedia, there's no need to notify editors about sockpuppetry investigations, though you were in fact pinged. Huon (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (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).

Relichal1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What? How am I supposed to complain in this situation? If it is so obvious then it shouldn't be a problem to explain. I feel this is strongly against rools. No kind of report was made, and no kind of investigation was done. I think I deserve a proper investigation that will show I'm not a sock, instead of this.

Decline reason:

I'm sure you are already familiar with WP:UTRS.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 7 October 2015 (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.

Proper way to deal with people who don't discuss in good faith

You need to open a RfC since there is not way to discuss with that editor you tried to discuss with. As far as I have seen, almost every discussion with him turns to RfC and accusations of sock pupperty and ban requests. I just finished one discussion where he tried to block me and another user because we didn't agree with his POV pushing. Just today the RfC had put an end to his POV pushing. I feel the RfC wouldn't be successful if another experienced editor had not joined, because nobody want's to deal with this POV pushing editor. The editor who started the discussion on had left and I initiated the RfC. 193.105.7.67 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably get less accusations of sock puppetry if you did not use several accounts and dozens of IPs and constantly pretend to be a new person. You talk about good faith but regularly engage in deception. HighInBC 15:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need an account? I'm doing very well as it is. I'm not a sock and every discussion I started managed to reach a consensus as I suggested it. I think it's obvious I'm not a sock. I'm being very helpful and I'm editing Wikipedia in the most respectful way. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]