User talk:Toby at Name Defend DE
October 2014
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
Not a sock puppet
[edit]Not a sock puppet.
You User:Black_Kite are a paid Admin who has often trashed the India Against Corruption article for payment. See the edit history. We are adding you to the hit list too. Have a nice day. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you appear to be confusing me with someone who is bothered by your threats. Have a nice day yourself. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would you like a free all-expenses paid holiday in ISIS ? Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- BTW Black Kite. Your actions in redacting those edits to prevent Wikipedia ARBCOM from viewing clinching evidence that Sitush is an Admin, close to Jimmy Wales, who distributes child pornography from Wikimedia Commons is telling. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Simply, Sitush isn't an admin. However, if you are claiming that Sitush has another admin account, and you have actual evidence for this, then there are places to raise this, notably WP:SPI or by emailing legal@wikimedia.org. You can't simply plaster allegations over unrelated Wikipedia pages (which that Arbcom one was). I have sympathy with you on the issue of Commons, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- ArbCom can see the redacted edits. Any Admin can. I can. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good...I kind of wonder what was said on my talk page...but not that much. As long as someone is aware of it and the proper actions taken that's good enough for me. I can see from above what it might well have been saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- ArbCom can see the redacted edits. Any Admin can. I can. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Simply, Sitush isn't an admin. However, if you are claiming that Sitush has another admin account, and you have actual evidence for this, then there are places to raise this, notably WP:SPI or by emailing legal@wikimedia.org. You can't simply plaster allegations over unrelated Wikipedia pages (which that Arbcom one was). I have sympathy with you on the issue of Commons, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- BTW Black Kite. Your actions in redacting those edits to prevent Wikipedia ARBCOM from viewing clinching evidence that Sitush is an Admin, close to Jimmy Wales, who distributes child pornography from Wikimedia Commons is telling. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would you like a free all-expenses paid holiday in ISIS ? Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access
[edit]I've removed your ability to edit this page. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)