User talk:Bazaan

Thanks JamesBWatson. I still request the vanishing of my account.--Bazaan (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean courtesy vanishing, then the answer is "no", as that is extended only to editors in good standing, not editors who have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and vandalism, as in your case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language. You look at my contributions over the last couple of years, I have created numerous articles of importance on Bangladesh (Secularism in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi nationalism) and added significant improvements to Bangladesh articles (Chittagong, Bangladesh, Dhaka). The least I'd expect is my account to be vanished. Apparently the administrators were reluctant since I made several edits after I made my official request. So I decided to get myself blocked. It had to be done. But I am requesting the account be vanished, it's the least I can expect.--Bazaan (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. You are not going to be rewarded for trolling. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

However, MLP is better, i miss you Bazaan, please, come back. 190.99.187.54 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

Decline reason:

I've copied your statement to WP:AN. Declining this because it would be quite inappropriate for me unilaterally to unblock you while a discussion's happening. Please don't use any more of these unblock templates: not because there's something fundamentally wrong with using them, but because they'll get declined as well, and a pile of unsuccessful unblock requests routinely causes people to think that you're being frivolous, making unblocking more unlikely. If you have any additional notes, the best route is probably to use {{helpme}} followed by "please copy this statement to the unblock section at WP:AN" and then your statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 9 January 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.

It seems, from the discussion at the administrator's noticeboard, that the community is - for the most part - comfortable with your account being unblocked provided certain conditions. I would propose, based on the comments at that thread, the following conditions: You are indefinitely topic banned from all articles related to Bangladesh, broadly construed, with the possibility of an appeal of this topic ban after 6 months, and you shall be limited to this one account until you demonstrate a clear need for a legitimate alternative account. Do you agree to these terms? Additionally, the community would take it as a good first step towards demonstrating that you plan to edit within the rules here if you were to list any accounts you have used which are not presently blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9:, I'm perfectly fine with the conditions. I'd add though that the few editors who acted like my enemies and caused hell to break lose went inactive quite soon after I was blocked.--Bazaan (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you per these conditions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bazaan. Is this IP (Special:Contributions/120.136.5.60) you? Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notice

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

my original sockpuppetry block was flawed because it wasn't sockpuppetry per se, as multiple accounts were not being used at the same time for disruptive purposes.

Decline reason:

Part of your original unblock condition above (that you agreed to was to not edit Bangladesh related articles and you used socks to circumvent that. Just today you refused to accept the standard offer via one of your socks. If you continue that here, then your talk page access here will be revoked too. —SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 3 October 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bazaan. 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]

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

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

UTRS appeal #17870 was submitted on Mar 24, 2017 20:51:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I took the standard offer in October 2016 when User:HistoryofBangladesh was blocked. If I'm unblocked, I pledge to stay away from South Asia-related articles until I gain the confidence of editors. Please note that my original ban came as a result of circumventing a temporary block. I never intended for sock puppetry (which I myself strongly oppose). Unfortunately, many accounts not related to me at all have been blocked under my name (the most recent being Tiger Hafiz, who isn't even my cup of tea). I have always contributed positive content to build the encyclopedia. I am a supporter of Wikipedia. Can I make a new start?

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for the standard offer. Please come back once six months have elapsed since your last editing using any sockpuppet. Note at that time, you'll need to be massively more convincing. You were previously unblocked under specific terms, terms which you violated, likely multiple times. Given your repeated violations of the Wikipedia community's trust, it's not clear to me how you will earn it back. I'm certainly not saying it's impossible, but what you wrote here is nowhere near sufficient. Yamla (talk) 17:57, 25 March 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.

@Yamla: I just have one question. How can I measure six months when every Bangladeshi sock is being put under my category? Like Tiger Hafiz, that's not me. I can challenge you to a real life investigation. Also, only once was there a topic ban for Bangladesh-related articles. I still want to request you to reconsider the unblock request. I will put my heart and soul out to convince ya'll.--Bazaan (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were topic-banned only once, but you violated that multiple times, including setting up at least one account to get around your ban. The six months is from the last contribution of any identified sock, including Tiger Hafiz. You may or may not be Tiger Hafiz, but you lost the ability to dispute that under WP:SO when you set up your first sockpuppet account. --Yamla (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock: @RegentsPark: You guys are now engaging in WP:LIBEL and not simply against me but multiple editors. If I brought a case of defamation in a U.S. court, you would be exposed for your bigotry, dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy. The whole sock puppetry tag is dishonest because as the administrator in my first SPI noted there is not "anything which unambiguously shouts out "sockpuppetry"." --Bazaan (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked for legal threat.—SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AwamiGS

Template:AwamiGS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]