User talk:Udha

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, Udha. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Udha, I'm not going to respond at the SPI page, as it's not appropriate there. Zall-Herr was never confirmed, he was likely. I found the evidence weak, and I stand by my opinion. I may be wrong, but we don't block users if they are not confirmed. If he is found to be another sock, I'll be glad to block, as I have done with more than 10 others. No one has blocked more socks of Hatake than I have. The SPA IPs, as well as the other socks were blatantly editing only Misto Treska. You cannot make a comparison between the two cases as it would be improper. Zall-herr touched lots of articles, and edited well, whereas the socks of Cinephile-al were all SPAs (Single Purpose Accounts). Also, you keep talking about my "abuses". Feel free to report me in sqwiki, in Kuvend, and ask for a vote to ban me as an admin, maybe the community will follow your advice. Best! --1l2l3k (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1l2l3k:"we don't block users if they are not confirmed". LOL!. 1 2 3. All three blocked by user:1l2l3k with no confirmation. The other admins would NEVER do something like this as they're professional.

"I found the evidence weak". LOL. Looks like it was strong enough for you to ask him bluntly if he is Hatake 2

"Zall-Herr was never confirmed, he was likely". That's not what the checkusers said syn.

Who said I was talking about your abuses to "ban you as an admin", lol? My intention is neither that, nor to "drive you crazy" or other pathetic motives--Udha (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udha: Accusing me of being a "problematic" and "abusive" admin without substantiating what I have "abused" and why I have been "problematic", reflects poorly on your character. Currently you are blocked for vandalism in sqwiki. I left there a warning for you: If such behavior persists, you will be indefinately blocked from sqwiki. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @1l2l3k: Look at the discussion above. If that doesn't answer you then here's my answer to your unfriendly accusations above. Best!--Udha (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1l2l3k:Oh I see you blocked my Talk Page so I can't edit there. Looks like somebody didn't like what I wrote there :O Since you also posted the warning here, I feel the need to defend myself against your claims here, where you have no administrator privileges, and where nobody can make me feel threatened, intimidated or make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. Luckily for me I wrote my original reply in English so I can just copy paste it here :D. Imagine I had written it in Albanian so I'd have to go through the pain of translating all that.:/

Let's return to the topic. Are you surveilling my movements outside of SQwiki? It took only 39 minutes after I made a Checkuser Request here on Meta for you to warn me on my Talk Page here. [1][2]. You were also very quick to revert me on SQwiki, making a major blunder in the process (hint:WP:Outing). [3]. But when an anonymous IP vandalized my User page there [4] suddenly your eyes weren't as sharp as before. My vandalized user page remained that way for nearly a month despite the fact that you undid nearly every other vandalism by the very same IP (Check the edit history of these articles). Do you want me to feel threatened and intimidated and make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me?

If that's the case then I'm sorry to inform you that I've been already feeling that way for a while. You might be right that technically I was blocked by you for "'a vandal action of removing sourced content ". The tricky thing is that I never committed such an offense. All I did was apply WP:Banrevert ("Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule") while being confronted by a vandalist IP which was reverting and calling me things like "filth" "pig" "male filth" etc, causing me emotional distress See here. That IP harassed, taunted, insulted and belittled me, apart from lying and making ill-considered accusations. Instead of siding with me, you blocked me in those very moments, and suspiciously got along pretty well with that anonymous IP.(see link above) Now you refer to my good-faith edits back then as "'a vandal action of removing sourced content". This has led to me feeling unfairly attacked.

I have good reason to feel unfairly attacked. I'm still waiting for solid proof that this IP with one edit was me, like you claimed. [5] Do you think it's appropriate to try and tarnish somebody's reputation just like that? Really? One edit?

As if that wasn't enough, here you also made another very bold claim, namely that it's my fault that the checkusers on Meta have ignored your request here. I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. How do you know it's because of my "trolling", and not because of the fact that you had already posted that request once [6] only to retract it the very next day [7] before finally deciding to re-enter it a week later [8] after those users had all been banned? user 1 user 2 user 3

I merely pointed out the elephant in the room. Also why blame me and not the IPs you added to the request, which you were kind enough to remove two weeks later, after the checkuser's comment? Could this indicate self-awarenes about the root of the problem?

This reflects poor on your character. I care about your image, I respect you for all the good contributions on SQwiki and I'm looking forward to many more good contributions from you but please stop hurting your image. I demand an apology from you and an immediate end to my unfair block so I can also continue contributing to Wikipedia without feeling frightened, threatened or intimidated. I think together we can contribute many good things to Wikipedia in general, not just SQwiki--Udha (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udha: (disregarding the many unfounded accusations that you throw in my regards), I want to clarify that I protected (not blocked) your talk page in sqwiki, because there you complained that I had not been vigilant enough to see when some IP was doing vandalism there. As an admin I do not check on every single page at all time in sqwiki, I just respond to complaints. Do you want me to unprotect that page? --1l2l3k (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I wasn't going to reply as you're trolling again, but I was afraid you might've checked this page a couple of times anticipating a reply, so I felt I should write something. Regarding the "many unfounded accusations" that I supposedly threw in your regards, I made the very same "unfounded accusations" on SQwiki after your "warning" there, and guess what, I wasn't "banned for good" despite you telling me it was your last "warning". I suppose you don't think my "unfounded accusations" are that "unfounded" after all. Fine, now I expect a deep apology from you for all the unfounded accusations you've been throwing in my regard for the past couple of months, not to mention the outrageous block and the passive aggressiveness.

You say that you "do not check on every single page at all time in sqwiki". True, but you clearly do check on mine as shown above. I'll post the diff again if necessary.1. It took you 26 minutes to see my edit on SQwiki and 39 to see my edit on Meta. But apparently you didn't see the vandalism on my User page for a month, despite you seeing and reverting all the vandalism on other pages where that particular vandalist IP edited. Passive aggressive much? But then again, you do have a history of passive aggressiveness :-) [9] You saying you "protected" my talk page in the light of the arguments above is funny to say the least. My only fault is speaking out against your abuses.--Udha (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udha, some pages are in my watchlist and some aren't. I use the watchlist to watch pages that I have to keep an eye on. It's efficient that way. You still did not answer my question if you want your talk page unprotected or not, so I really don't know how to best help you. If I don't revert vandalisms, you accuse me of not keeping an eye on your page, as if I was its guardian, and if I protect it, you accuse me of blocking you, which is not the case (I just protected your page). You have been blocked for reasons that were explained to you, and you were offered multiple chances to be unblocked if you had promised to not do massive reverts. Further, I don't have anything to apologize about. Last, please stop with the name calling: I am not a "troll" or "passive aggressive", or that I have a "history of passive aggressiveness": If you have anything against me, please go to WP:KUVENDI in sqwiki and report my "abuses", otherwise I will consider these as personal attacks and will not tolerate them, whether they are in sqwiki or in any other project. Thanks! --1l2l3k (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply here on my talk page for 3 weeks, and I didn't even tag you, yet somehow you replied here within a couple of hours after my post. Your last post in Meta was 3 weeks ago. I had no idea my talk page on Meta was on your watchlist, nor that my posts outside of SQwiki are so important to you.:-) Now I won't say you're stalking me as you will call that a "personal attack", despite the fact that you're behaving like a stalker. In fact I can't even complain from now on as you will label every complaint a "personal attack" regardless of the diffs or arguments I include in my post. You ignore the evidence I provide and the arguments I make, as in the case above. Let's dissect your last post.

You said "some pages are in my watchlist and some aren't." How many times do I have to repeat myself. The vandal IP vandalized my User page and a couple of other pages. You reverted those other couple of pages but you didn't revert the vandalism on my user page. This happened after I complained about you on Meta. Coincidence? I also complained here on Meta about that vandalism on my user page but maybe you didn't see my post. [10] Strange how you didn't see that given that you saw within hours the first post I made on Meta after three weeks. But maybe the Checkuser page isn't on your watchlist, while my Talk Page here is :-)

"If I don't revert vandalisms, you accuse me of not keeping an eye on your page". Does this even need a comment? This is pure trolling my friend. Do you have any shame at all?

"You have been blocked for reasons that were explained to you". I didn't break any rule lol. You know very well what WP:Banrevert is, as you know most of the rules, but only you know the real reason why I was blocked. I'm Joseph K here stuck in this Kafkaesque situation. I bet your next reply is going to focus on this point in order to divert attention from the other points :-)

"I don't have anything to apologize about". Shouldn't you at least apologize to the checkusers for trolling them? Proof is above.

P.S. Reminder that at the top of this page you were caught lying. CTRL+F "Lol".--Udha (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]