User talk:Deonis 2012

October 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Syrian civil war, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Syrian civil war and Battle of Aleppo(2012), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sopher99 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rif Dimashq offensive‎, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Siege of Bani Walid (2012). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RT is not a reliable source. Please don't use it in the article again, as it is against our policy on verifiability. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Walid

Ok, this is being going for long enough. Now you added source for your POV blog post? Blogs are not RS, fighting is over, read your sources, you have been damaging article enough. If you won´t stop with this behaviour I will be forced to report you on admin noticeboard. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Aleppo (2012), you may be blocked from editing.

Fights in a province Damascus (November 2012)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Fights in a province Damascus (November 2012), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Battle of Damascus (November 2012). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fights in a province Damascus (November 2012), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Syrian civil war, you may be blocked from editing. Sopher99 (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Aleppo (2012), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sopher99 (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue concerns your editing. Boud (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Shirt58 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Your addition to National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This was the edit where you linked to a source and copy/pasted from it to the Wikipedia article. Boud (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

vandalizing syrian civil war articles and Adding pro-government information

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on various syrian civil war articles Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alhanuty (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the WikiProject Syria

You're invited to be a part of the WikiProject Syria, a project with the goal to create and to improve articles related to Syria. To accept this invitation, click here!

I noticed your activity at the Syria related articles, so I suggest you to join the WikiProject Syria in order to improve articles related to Syria.

Regards,

--Wüstenfuchs 21:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Please do not ever copy material directly from news sources and paste it into Wikipedia articles. This is not allowed here for any reason, as it goes against our very important copyright policy. If you continue to do this, you will be reported and blocked from editing. Do you understand? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deonis, tried to explain the problem to you above - five days ago. There are plenty of links that you can follow to understand the problem. The following new copyright violations you have made are the following:

As Lothar and I have requested, please try to understand the problem. You are welcome to be part of the Wikipedia community if you make a sincere effort to understand the purpose of the Wikipedia and discuss problems with others. This also means reading existing summaries of previous discussions and debates. Boud (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Boud (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

double revert Template:Campaignbox_Syrian_civil_war

Could you please go to Template_talk:Campaignbox_Syrian_civil_war#removal_of_Nov_2012_Damascus_clashes to discuss the following two reverts you made:

Thanks, Boud (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf HCPUNXKID You can fix this bug.here Source not said that Jaburin and Tasnin contested thaose villages under control by Syrian army. Source here just said that clashes was near these villages and later NDF advance against rebels near these villages. Deonis 2012 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf HCPUNXKID XJ-0461 v2 Paolowalter DuckZz Mashik and Hakoura under control by Syrian army per pro FSA source here Deonis 2012 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy editing isn't allowed here Hannibal or Deonis 2012.Alhanuty (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty OK! Deonis 2012 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really better Deonis 2012,if you get your original account (Deonis 2012) unblocked than making sockpuppets like Hannibal 911.Alhanuty (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz You need again marked Mahajjah as under SAA because SOHR not said that this town under FSA and secondly SOHR here here reported about other town. And thirdly need provide more clear data before to update status for the some villages or cities. Also pro opposition source indicated that this town under SAA here Deonis 2012 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) We don't use maps to edit (or in your case revert) towns/villages, that's against the rules
2) A reliable source that we often use here (bosnosinj or something like that, reporter from twitter), commented on his map on twitter and said that Mahajah is under rebel control and under a truce with another SAA town which is also besieged but under gov.control, he didn't said which one
3) You obviously don't understand Arabic, or you didn't notice, but in the second source SOHR clearly said that a number of rebels died due to regime shelling on Mahajah town in Daraa province, with them also a number of civilians including an older man. The first source from SOHR says only shelling, which is ok but let's say not enough, that's why i posted the second source and it's obvious. It's like rebels have no idea which town this is, they all say it's under their, or i mean rebel control, but i wanted SOHR and a neutral source, and this is more than obvious, the same situation was with Kafr Shams, i said it's under rebel control (well didn't had any source) but you all said it's not, and now we know that it always was under rebel control for like 2 years. DuckZz (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area SyrianObserver2015 Reliable source confirmed that Jazal oil field is still under SAA control.Elijah J. Magnier and pro SAA source said Jazal oil field in the countryside of Homs is under the control of the SAA Syrian army information about the control ISIS Daesh on it is FALSE.Al Mayadeen Deonis 2012 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area SyrianObserver2015 New source showed that Jazal Oil Field under SAA.here [2] Deonis 2012 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty I realy want have again opportunity edited in Wikipedia. When I started make editings in Wikipedia as Deonis 2012 I made many mistakes because I very bad knowed rules of editings and I was blocked on indefinite term. Later I realized how need edit but it was too later. And I created several new accounts to try to start all over again from scratch. Because admins repeatedly refused to unblock my account the Deonis2012. Maybe you can help me unblock my account Deonis 2012. Or you know admin which is can will believe me that I can bring a lot of benefits for Wikipedia and that I will not more to break the rules of Wikipedia. I'm realy want again edit in Wikipedia. Maybe you are remember that when I edit as Hannibal911 I was good editor and almost all time I not break the rules of editing. Maybe you can help me, I will be sincerely grateful to you. Deonis 2012 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the account will be reported and blocked,and if you continue,i will ask admins to revoke your access to your talkpage,so you may as well stop all these attempts.Alhanuty (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think blocking him from his talk page is a little harsh. If he wants to complain there, let him. I think that if he is willing to abide by the rules and provide unbiased sources for every single one of his edits, then he should be allowed to rejoin rather than stooping down to the level of creating a sockpuppet account every 4 minutes. Ironically, he was a lot like Qaddafi or Assad; while he kept things together and running well, he was also quite harsh and refused to follow some rules himself. If you are worried he will go back to his old tricks, then continue his ban for a few more months to let him think on his abuse of the rules and use of socks, and then, provided he does not create any sockpuppets in that intermediate time, let him come back somehow. I know you do not have dictatorial powers, but if you offer him a way back, there is a good chance he is grateful enough that he does not break the rules again so he can keep editing. Just my opinion though. Not the rules. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 December 2012: two copyvios

hi Deonis. You were warned on 20 November and on 25 November about copyright violations. Now you have made two more copyright violations:

Please stop doing that. Boud (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block suggested at ANI (administrator noticeboard/incidents)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible block on your account because of repeated copyright violations. The thread is Repeated copyright violations by Deonis 2012. Thank you. —Boud (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning re copyright violations

You made two edits to Rif Dimashq campaign, both of which were copyright violations. I'm not sure why you don't respond to any attempts to talk to you, but you can't continue editing the way you have been. If you violate copyright again, you will be blocked without any further warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Rif Dimashq campaign. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing behaviour is being discussed at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your new copyright violation following a block for repeated copyright violation. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deonis_2012:_copyvio_immediately_following_end_of_72-hour_block. Thank you. —Boud (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2012 (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).

Deonis 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

more will not make changes without weighty reasons on that Deonis 2012 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 16 December 2012 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deonis 2012. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 05:32, 16 March 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).

Deonis 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admins I ask to take off my block, for the reason that when I was blocked I still did not know the rules of Wikipedia and I admit my guilt for the harm I have caused by their actions, but also for the fact that create other accounts which were also blocked due to the fact that they were created previously blocked user using different IP addresses, but I thought that the creation of an account I will try to learn the rules and start all over again but this time without breaking the rules that I had broken earlier. But although there may be some sort of a chance to unlock my account Deonis 2012 at least for a trial period or to give an opportunity to create a different account but also on probation and for any violation block me and then I promise not to try more to change anything in the English-language version of Wikipedia...Deonis 2012 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is difficult to understand your unblock request, due to your imperfect command of the English language. You are blocked for repeated copyright violation (although you are also guilty of sockpuppetry) and it is this that you need to address in any future unblock request. Such a request should include a statement of your understanding of copyright rules here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:58, 18 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 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).

Deonis 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I ask the administrators to unlock my account because I realized that my account was blocked because it is fairly gross violation of my copyright when using the material, and for the creation of puppet accounts after my primary account was not immediately blocked. But I pledge to continue to abide by the rules : 1) The impartiality . In Wikipedia, dominated by the principle of neutral point of view. And this means that the article should consider all possible points of view and express them without excesses in one direction or another . 2) Respect for the other participants. In Wikipedia coexist representatives of different countries and cultures, which can have very different points of view. Cooperate in a spirit of mutual respect , and respect for the basic rules of politeness - guarantee the stable operation of the project. 3 ) Respect copyrights. Wikipedia is created is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, that is, the free encyclopedia , which can be freely copied and distributed . And that means that the addition of information in violation of copyright , at odds with a view to Wikipedia . 4) - Wikipedia, the encyclopedia . Information that is not suitable to the size of it , should be moved to another project of the Wikimedia Foundation or even eliminated altogether. In addition , there are other features that define the essence of the project , including how it differs from other encyclopedias. 5 ) In the encyclopedia any unnecessary emotions . Describe the phenomenon from a neutral point of view. If the views expressed in the article statement is arguable whether or not it is generally accepted that it is necessary to indicate explicitly citing sources . When the subject of the article , there are several different views , it is necessary to state them all . Special care approach to editing articles on the topic of to his ambiguous attitude . 6 ) Articles in Wikipedia should be based on published authoritative sources . Intending to submit to Wikipedia any useful information should be aware that the information without reference to the authoritative source can be further removed from the article. Responsible for finding and adding links lies with the man who adds material in the article , and the source should be given always, if possible and appropriate . Finally, I agree to be unlocked , even for a time , in order for it 's time to prove what I've learned my mistakes and rules of Wikipedia. And that I can be trusted to deal with the right to further editing but strictly within the rules. Thank you in advance for taking the time to my request.Deonis 2012 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am sure this was not your intention, but what is becoming increasingly clear with each request is that you are simply spitting out words and phrases without really understanding what they mean and you lack the requisite level of competence in the English language that would be needed to contribute constructively here. I would suggest that you focus your efforts at the Wikipedia project in whatever your native language is unless until there is significant improvement in your ability to read and write in English. (see list of Wikipedias to find the appropriate project.) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 1 November 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 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).

Deonis 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I ask unblock my account because I realy very want edit articles on Wikipedia. I actually broke some rules of Wikipedia when I'm created new accounts although on that moment, my first account (Deonis2 012) was blocked for violating the rules of editing. But I dont want continue to violate the rules of editing. Because I only want edit and nothing more. I was wrong when create new accounts but when I create new account I just edit articles but not try do harm of Wikipedia. Most of my editings which I'm doing I do with observing the rules of editing. I ask you to forgive me and let me to continue to edit articles in Wikipedia using my main account Deonis 2012. I promise that I will not violate a rules of editings. When I started do editings I knew little about rules which must be observed and made many mistakes and I was blocked. When I created account Hanibal911 I more year edit articles in Wikipedia and almost all of them were made in compliance with the rules. For more than two years, I have learned almost all a rules of editing and ask you unblock my account Deonis 2012 and give me the opportunity to improve the articles on Wikipedia. Deonis 2012 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering that a checkuser just confirmed and blocked one of your socks, I don't think so.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:20, 30 September 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.

The reason for which I have blocked other then why not block?

And I think it's not fair, and as I understood, the rules of Wikipedia is not for everyone! One they can not break once and for them it is neither a punishment, and other less serious violations of perpetual lock and where is the justice and fairness???

Deonis, you have been blocked indefinitely. This means you may not edit Wikipedia under any circumstances, until and unless you are unblocked. If you continue to edit while blocked, that's block evasion and it is disallowed. This means that, until and unless you are unblocked, all the accounts you create to evade your block will be blocked.

If you want to get back to editing, you have to follow the rules: in this case, it's WP:OFFER. Stop editing for six months. No more socks, no more block evasion, just stay away from the English Wikipedia. Then demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and that you will not repeat the same mistakes again. If the community is satisfied with your assurances, you will be unblocked. Mind you, it's not guaranteed that invoking the standard offer get you unblocked in six months: considering your very long history of block evasion, the community my impose stricter requirements, but it's the only way you have to get back. If you continue to evade your block, you'll simply keep on being blocked again and again. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deonis,stop making accounts.Alhanuty (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock this helpful User

Hopefully, the administrators see what I write here.

I know that these many sockpuppets by Deonis 2012 are a big problem, since it's forbidden to evade a block. Apart from that I'd still request to unblock him.

I worked along with him at the civil war map Modules for the civil wars in the Middle East like the Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map, Module:Libyan Civil War detailed map and Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map for the last few months, where he worked as User:SvEcHpInXID. The thing is, that he is one of the most diligent, accurate and reasonable editors there and especially for the maps with only a few editors, his edits are essential. Since the way of sourcing edits in the civil war map modules is different to the normal Wikipedia (it's about mark (villages, etc.) locations, so violations of the copyright are impossible), he didn't commit any violations of the copyright there (and I looked at his editing history: He (or rather his sockpuppet) didn't edit at other articles than these modules). Furthermore, his edits were always amongst the best sourced edits and other than a real army of users at the Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, he never used unreliable sources like private Twitter-accounts.

In conclusion I'd request an unblock, for the sake of the quality of the mentioned maps. There are so many editors which try to vandalize these articles, and any User that counter these attacks is really needed. Of course it's hard to ignore all these sockpuppets, but I'd prefer to give him a second chance (which he didn't get since 2012).

With best wishes, Ermanarich (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermanarich: You can support me and and appeal to administrators on my behalf this & this Because I'm realy I never do not wantes violate rules and create new accounts. In 2012, I was not yet an experienced editor and made a lot of mistakes for which I'm would be locked but now I'm more experienced editor and I can benefit to Wikipedia. All of my edit's which I'm made from other accounts were impartial and on based the reliable sources. I'd really like get a second chance. Maybe you and some other editor's can ask admins give me this chance. I can bring many benefits. Deonis 2012 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot unblock you if you are constantly evading your block. You were evading the block as soon as today. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand that. But still I don't think that this block over six months is the right answer. I'm quite sure that he won't violate the copyright anymore. Apart from that, as I already said it's impossible to violate the copyright in map editing, which was what he did with his sockpuppet nearly exclusive, it's only possible to have no source or a bad source. I guess that the point is that you want to be some kind of punishment there for his disruptive use of sockpuppets. So maybe we can make a deal -as I also said before, for the sake of the quality of the civil war maps- which restricts this block to one or two weeks and which of course includes the confession of any other sockpuppet which may exist?

Again, I want to mention that I fully understand the problem here, since the amount of his evasions are enormous. But still I think that the solution isn't good as it is now.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Vanjagenije:: Since there is no reaction, I tag you here. The things came as I said: The maps Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map Module:Libyan Civil War detailed map and Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map are now lounge around unedited and are missing important changes. As I already said, the massive using of sockpuppets is problematic, but this user is not damaging or vandalizing Wikipedia, quite the contrary. His English is not very good, that's true, but that's not needed in map editing! So I call upon you once more: Please unblock him!--Ermanarich (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Vanjagenije:: Still no reaction? I can just repeat that it would be highly important to have editors who keep the Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map etc. up to date. I don't have the time for that and others doesn't seem to have time/be motivated, too. The reasons I used before are still the same. It would be great if you could show at least a reaction.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet of user:Ракал

@Bbb23: @Vanjagenije: I was blocked but I ask check this account because this maybe a new account of early blocked Ракал (talk · contribs)

User: Coneleir trying to make the same as blocked account User:Ракал and all of this user edits are POV pushing (on maps) and he use sources is very similar to User:Ракал

- Coneleir (talk · contribs) [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

- Ракал (talk · contribs) [10][11][12]

He all time uses mobile version of Twiitter from all his accounts.Sockpuppet investigations/Ракал/Archive Deonis 2012 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Deonis 2012. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Deonis 2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been 6 months since my last violation of the conditions of my block. And considering that I am not created any sockpuppet accounts during this time, and according to the Wikipedia six months waiting time for the unblock request, I ask to unblock me under the condition that I promise to not violate Wikipedia's rules and not create any others sockpuppet accounts ever again. This is a good sign that I won't violate againand I can contribute to the Wikipedia if I will be unblocked.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your original block, which was chronic copyright violations. It looks like your sockpuppetry was significantly and deliberately malicious and spread over several years, so you'll have a high bar to pass to get unblocked. However, it is indeed a good sign that you refrained from further attacks on Wikipedia for a period of six months. So, I'm declining this unblock for now so you can request another one which addresses the reason for your original block. Yamla (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (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.

Deonis 2012 (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]