User talk:Bazaan

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

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)

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)


 * , 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)
 * I've unblocked you per these conditions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Bazaan. Is this IP (Special:Contributions/120.136.5.60) you? Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. Thank you.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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:. Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
--UTRSBot (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request
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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * Talk page access revoked for legal threat.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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)