User talk:Róbert Gida

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

If you want leave here a message for me!

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting some issues[edit]

Several editors have commented that this account appears to be a WP:SOCK, based on similarity with some other disruptive accounts editing at Talk:Barack Obama. If you have previouly edited under a different account name, please acknowledge, and stop if that account is currently blocked or banned from editing. If not, please be aware that you are taking the wrong approach as a new single purpose account that seems to exist solely for rapid-fire proposals to add to the Obama article negative events from the world at large with an attribution that they are Obama's fault. I am removing this pointless accusation from the talk page.[1] Do not use the Obama talk page to launch accusations against other editors. If you continue, at some point one of us will ask for administrative nintervention and this account will be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the mentioned several editors????? Please don't lie! Róbert Gida (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you continue, at some point one of us will ask for administrative nintervention " And this sentence is also a clear personal attack. Róbert Gida (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please name another user who claimed sockpuppet case! Róbert Gida (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear typo. Beyond that, I won't play that game. The subject is your editing, not me. Please stop adding stuff like this[2] to the talk page. The talk page is not for posting your random pot-shots at the president, it is for discussing viable proposals to improve the article. Have you edited under any of these accounts? // removed - Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is again a simple personal attack. Please keep the wikipedia rules. Róbert Gida (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for As a probable sockpuppet, contentious SPA, who certainly responds poorly to reasoned inquiries.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry but I see no proof that this is sockpuppet. I know that wikipedia!=democracy but it would be good to follow the democratic rules when you block a user. It is only a simple personal attack.

Decline reason:

Your goal at Wikipedia seems to be to promote a specific point of view. I think it's fairly likely that you are the same user, but if you are a new user with only one account, your edits are still inappropriate enough to make a block reasonable. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 27 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

"it's fairly likely that you are the same user" and this said by an admin. I'm really thought that wikipedia is more than a collection of assumptations, still see no proof that I'm a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

Behavioral proof is sufficient in this case -- it's quite obvious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 28 December 2009 (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.

Non-admin comment Because he, like you, have only edited the Talk:Barack Obama page, with a few other edits on other users talk page. As well, both of your edits to that page have questioned the quality of the article, about it not including some "important" details. Based on this evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that you are Multiplyperfect.--Iner22 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the second half of my response, in which I said that, even if you aren't the same user, you merit blocking just for the edits from this account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am so glad this guy has been permanently blocked. Good riddance to a sock-troll with a disgraceful agenda/attitude. No doubt he will be back.--Misortie (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK guys, I'm still seeking for a proof that I'm sockpuppet, do you know what is a proof say in mathematics? It should be clear. The new non-admin reason is also too weak. I think it is important to make a clear situation, if you are not able to prove that I'm sockpuppet, then you should unblock me, because the blocking statement begins with "As a probable sockpuppet...". You are always ask me to assume good faith, but you admins shouldn't do this ?

Decline reason:

It does not matter if your IPs match. WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets: A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. In short, by acting in a manner similar to Multiplyperfect, you are being sanctioned as him, irrespective of whether or not you actually are him, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:07, 28 December 2009 (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.

Is that word a variation of chump Jéské?--Misortie (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]