User talk:Gaba p/Archive 1

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. On the basis of your contributions it's obvious that this is another sock puppet account of. I note in particular that this account was reactivated shortly after the Alex sleeper account was blocked, and has continued the same aggressive editing style in talk pages related to the Falkland Islands (for instance,,  and . Please find something better to do with your time, as you're wasting it by socking here..   If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text , but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly will not be unblocked if you won't lower the tone and address the reason for your block. B music  ian  12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please instruct me how should I go about addressing the reason when the reason is "I think you are the sock puppet account of another user"; I already said I am not. I have absolutely no idea what made Nick-D block me other than the user Wee asking him to. It's pretty hard to maintain a calmed tone when you are asked to "prove" your "innocence" but won't be told what "evidence" was used against you. I can't believe this is how Wikipedia administrators handle such a serious matter as blocking a contributor: block first, ask questions later (and reprehend if the tone is not calmed enough) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs)
 * Your account is currently blocked because you may be a sockpuppet of, based on behavioral evidence. If you would like to be unblocked, you need to explain why you are not Alex (but not aggressively!) or an unblock can not be considered. B  music  ian  13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is beyond bizarre. I am accused of being a sock puppet account of some random user who I have no way of knowing by one administrator (following the unfunded accusation of another user); no detail of this blocking is given to me at any point. A second administrator tells me I should "explain why you are not Alex" (??? O.O) when I have no idea who this user is! (And even if I did, how can I "explain" I am not that person??) Finally a third one confirmed this block after I did the only thing I could do: tell you I am not that user. Please tell me how in the world can I explain I am not someone I do not even know?? Should I send you a picture of myself? Just tell me the steps I should follow to prove I am not that user and I'll do it. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. I would have never guessed this issues where treated with this level of carelessness in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs)
 * I am no administrator. I was just reminding you that your unblock request would definitely not be considered because of the way it was worded (and it was declined, because you didn't take my advice seriously). If you wish to make any more unblock requests, take a read at WP:GAB and calmly do so. If you continue to make multiple unconvincing or abusive unblock requests or behave uncivilly on this page, your ability to edit this page may be removed. (By the way, a CheckUser declined your unblock request. CheckUsers can check the IP addresses of accounts.) B  music  ian  00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The evidence supporting the block is explained above. These aggressive unblock requests are also characteristic of Alex's previous sockpuppet accounts. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume this is the evidence you mention: "this account was reactivated shortly after the Alex sleeper account was blocked, and has continued the same aggressive editing style". When the Malvinas issue started appearing on the news again, I came to Wikipedia. I found something I thought needed an amendment so I did. That's why my account "reactivated" at the time it did. As for the editing style, I can say nothing. Your view on how I write and how similar it might be to another user's style is so subjective that there's no way I could ever just "prove" I am not that user by simply writing some more. Just tell me how I could challenge your accusations so you would be 100% sure that I am not that user and I'll do it. As for the aggressiveness: did you ever stop to think that maybe those "previous sockpuppet accounts" you mention were issuing "aggressive unblock requests" because they were also outraged at being blocked with such feeble "evidence"?Gaba p (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A few notes: I hope this helps you to move forward. WP:DUCK blocks are pretty common, and blocked users who are innocent do not typically react they way you are, which therefore isn't helping your case. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * your angry reaction is identical to that which WP:SOCKS who have been caught perform. Those who have been mistakenly blocked are usually pretty tame, gentle, and read the Wikipedia processes about defending yourself against sock accusations
 * the wise editor looks at the contribs of their "supposed" sockmaster and looks at them from an objective opinion. They say things like "I focus on X articles, not Y", and even "oh, because of A, I can understand what might have happened, but I can assure you that based on B..."
 * I 100% refute your arguments directly above - it is easier than you can imagine to compare writing styles; it doesn't take even the formal training that some of us have.


 * Ok BWilkins, I'll take your word on the accurateness of comparing writing styles to recognize different people. So I'll try to write a bit more to see if that helps settle this issue.
 * When the Malvinas issue appeared on the news, I came to Wikipedia to inform myself. I landed on the [] page and I saw that two things in particular needed an amendment. First, Uruguay was not listed as a supporter of the Argentinian claim; so I looked up some references and I added that country. Second, France's position had no reference so I added a {citation needed} tag. The user Pfainuk then reverted my changes with the reason "POV and addition of Uruguay (we don't need to list every supporter of each side individually)". When I realized, I added back the changes (I probably shouldn't have done this without first trying to resolve the issue in the Talk section; I take responsibility for this mistake) The user Wee Curry Monster then reverted this last changes and advised me to resolve it in the Talk page. I followed his advice and opened a new section in the Talk page. From this point on the rest of the discussion can be seen here: []. At some point in the discussion, the user Wee Curry Monster accused me of resorting to an ad hominem attack against the user Pfainuk. I urge you to read the discussion in the Talk page and see for yourself if there's anything in there that can be regarded as an attack of any kind by me to any user. After this accusation I asked Wee Curry Monster to please point me to the specific part of my comment he took as an attack in three occasions. The third one, after having no response for days, could be interpreted as somewhat aggressive: So nothing to say Wee? You just make accusations and then never bother to back them up with any kind of evidence? (by the way, I'm still waiting for Wee Curry Monster to tell me where I can find such attack)
 * A couple of days later, I was blocked. Following the traces I see Wee Curry Monster took the issue with two administrators arguing I was a sock puppet account of some other user; Nick-D then proceeded to block me immediately. Then this discussion ensued.


 * Frankly I'm surprised how everybody seems to be surprised by my outrage. Maybe this happens all the time to simple users like myself (ie: with no administrator friends) and eventually they end up taking it with a zen attitude. Well, this is my first time so I hope you'll excuse my agitation.


 * BWilkins I appreciate you trying to help me and I'll take note of this "blocked users who are innocent do not typically react they way you are", so next time I'll try to act more innocent.


 * As for Shirt58 comment, I'm not sure what he is trying to tell me. That Wee Curry Monster has had this kind of issues with other users too? Could you explain a bit more if this is not what you meant?


 * Regards.


 * I can't help but notice some rather obvious - but unusual - stylistic similarities between the formatting of this block message and that recently posted at User talk:Abenyosef (another Alex sock account). The long-windiness and aggressive tone of both posts are also entirely in keeping with Alex's usual conduct. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, its starting to look as if nothing I can write here is going to convince you. Is there any objective way you could determine User talk:Abenyosef and I are not the same person? If so please tell me and I'll do it. Maybe ask the opinion of some other administrators? Maybe ask us questions at the same time? I don't know. At this point we're both pretty much depending solely on your writing forensics skills and I don't think it's fair. I can't vouch for that user not being Alex7898 but I can vouch for me not being that user (or Alex7898 or any other for that matter) Could you at least comment further on your analysis of User talk:Abenyosef's and my style of writing and what in particular you see as similar? If that's your only evidence to maintain this block and to assert we are both the same person then maybe explain it in full so we can defend ourselves against something more specific.
 * No, I'm not going to tell you how your very obvious pattern of block evasion is being spotted. If a reviewing admin would like an explanation, I'd encourage them to email me. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok Nick-D last resort since apparently nothing else is going to cut it: I'll wave my right to privacy completely to you. I'll show you I'm a real person with a verifiable unique internet presence. I'll give you my G+ and my Facebook, anything you might think is needed to make you lift this block. Would that be enough?


 * You can post another unblock request, requesting that a checkuser IP check be made on you to confirm whether or not you have been editing from IP addresses independent of the others whose edits appear similar to yours. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A checkuser already declined my first unblock request and I don't want to abuse that resource. Also I'd like to resolve the issue first with Nick-D who blocked me and is so incredibly sure I'm the same person as Abenyosef. Gaba p (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, TNXMan has checkuser privileges, but that doesn't mean he used them in declining your unblock request. The rules on using that privilege are very strict, and he wouldn't use it outside of an ongoing investigation. Because your username doesn't appear anywhere in the sockpuppet investigation Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex79818/Archive, I think it's fair to ask if you believe it might help your case. Checkuser may not help, though, if the other accounts are judged to be stale. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amatulić, I'll wait to see what Nick-D says about my proposal before trying that. Gaba p (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The block was made on very clear behavioural grounds as explained above, so the results of a checkuser technical check aren't really going to change much. But you can request this if you'd like to waste more of your time as well as the time of a checkuser. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? This is all you have to say? Another unfunded attack stating how sure you are of something you can't prove (and which is not true)? After this block is lifted, after it is proven that I am a regular, single user, I wonder what will you say then and how will you explain your countless attacks on a user based on such circumstantial evidence. I told you above I would reveal my identity completely to you to prove I am an actual person and to help lift this block. You have nothing to say to that? Gaba p (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again you are continually blowing your chances - the tone of your comments shows more clearly that you are the same person as User:Alex79818. Can you see that there is practically no difference between the unblock requests you made from this account and the ones made from User talk:Alex79818? Sounds like quacking to me. Remember that you, the person, are blocked from this site indefinitely. That means you are prohibited from using any accounts or IP addresses while you're blocked. B  music  ian  13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point I can only laugh at my situation; the one user that was trying to help me now is also convinced I'm a sock puppet account. I'm sorry, I'm trying to be polite but apparently I can't make it show through the tone of my comments. And I know what a block means, I can not speak for the user User:Alex79818 though. I can't control my editing style, personally I think User:Alex79818 shows a much better understanding of the english language than me. Too bad no one else sees it that way...

Oh dear, and my goodness gracious me. The kettle is on the stove and the tea pot is ready with English Breakfast tea. A spot of milk, and no sugars, thank you.
WP:AN/Idiscussion here--Shirt58 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am moving this comment out of the declined unblock request, as it does not belong in there. Please read JamesBWatson:

You have no idea how exhausting it is to have to read accusations like this over and over again: You are clearly the same person. I'm starting to think some administrators do not act in good faith; so far instead of trying to help me resolve the issue they've been more interested in mocking me on how obvious it apparently is that this is a sock puppet account. I have already offered Nick-D to reveal my real life identity on two occasions, now I'm offering the same to you JamesBWatson. Gaba p (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how that would help. How would knowing your real life identity help, without also knowing the real life identities of the other accounts involved? However, you can email the information to me if you like, and I am ready to be proved wrong, if there is some way in which it is relevant. I am sorry if my comment came over as mocking: it wasn't intended to. However, you do seem to be unaware of just how very similar your whole style, use of English, etc etc, are to those of several other accounts that by a remarkable coincidence have all done very similar editing all on the same subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the other users involved would be willing to do the same? I can't ask them myself, would you be willing to present them with this option? Like I said to Bmusician: I personally think User:Alex79818 shows a much better understanding of the english language than me. If I don't show you I'm an actual person and maybe that way convince you I'm not the same person as the rest of those accounts (the last resort I can think of), is there any other way this block will ever be lifted? Should I call for a checkuser IP like someone recommended? How can I email you? I don't know where I can find your email address. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 March 2012‎
 * If you go to my talk page, among the "Toolbox" links at the left hand side you should see a link to email me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JamesBWatson, I just sent you an email. Gaba p (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to reconsider block
Gaba p has emailed me, revealed his true life identity, and given me access to his Facebook page and other pages relating to him. While none of this proves with mathematical certainty that he is not the same person who has edited disruptively in the past and been blocked, he has convinced me that he is generally a reasonable person, who is likely to edit in good faith. Although there are striking behavioural similarities between the two accounts, there is no single convincing piece of evidence to act as a "smoking gun", and there are differences between the two accounts' editing, as well as similarities. I am wondering about giving him another chance, both because he may after all not be guilty of sockpuppetry, and because even if he is, he seems to me to be sincerely willing to try to edit constructively. At the worst, we would give him another chance, he would blow it, and we would quickly block again, so little would be lost, while at the best, we would regain a potentially constructive editor. However, and rather than making a decision unilaterally, I am writing this message here and consulting the two other administrators who have been involved with blocking or declining an unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am OK with unblocking, for the reasons that James outlines above; however, I think it would be a good idea to consult with Nick-D, as he appears to have more experience with the issue. He offered to provide behavioral evidence of the connection between Gaba and Alex79818 to the reviewing admin. James, have you seen it (I have not)? TN X Man  16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me: I'd forgotten that Nick-D said that. I have emailed Nick-D now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've emailed James in reply. I strongly oppose an unblock as I think that this is Alex based on their editing style, and some quirks in the way they write, not to mention the fact that this account suddenly sprung back into life shortly after another Alex sock (also a sleeper account) was blocked. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you very much JamesBWatson for taking the time to review my case; specially since I had made the same offer to Nick-D (the administrator who blocked me and who is so amazingly sure I'm a sock puppet account) twice with no answer. Second, I refuse to believe I'm the only one who sees how utterly insane this situation is. I, be it as a person or as an account, have done nothing wrong. Nick-D is basically saying: this account/person has gone out of his way to show an administrator who he is in real life and furthermore he has not broken a single Wikipedia rule, but I think he writes pretty similar to this other guy so I'll just block his account indefinitely. How can you decide to eliminate an editor so swiftly just because you think he might be another person? How can the burden of proof be on me when I have done nothing wrong here? Does the fact that I revealed my real life identity to an administrator mean nothing to you? I'm telling you who I am! If I ever do anything that breaks any of Wikipedia's rules (which so far I haven't) you can block me, the person, indefinitely. Why would I do that just to restore one of my supposedly many sock puppet accounts?? What makes this one so important that I would give away my right to anonymity asking nothing in return?? And I've already explained why I edited when I did: the issue was back on the news at that time (it's really not that hard to check this fact) and I came to Wikipedia to inform myself; found something that needed editing so I did. Anyway, there's really not much I can do anymore. If this, my account, is not unblocked I'll simply stop contributing to Wikipedia, be it in the form of money or knowledge. I will not abandon my account to open a new one just because an administrator thinks his blocking privileges are something to be taken so lightly. Thanks again JamesBWatson for your time and concern.
 * A few months ago I read an article about how Wikipedia was hemorrhaging editors. I think now I know why. Gaba p (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now received further information which draws my attention to further similarities between the editing of the respective accounts, in addition to those I had noticed myself. This had led me to the conclusion that an unblock was out of the question. Since then, I have also seen yet further evidence myself, in your editing, confirming still more clearly the same conclusion. When I declined an unblock request for you I thought the evidence was very persuasive. Nevertheless, I was willing to reconsider your claim, and would have been happy to have been proved wrong. however, far from proving me wrong, my reconsideration of the matter has produced yet more evidence that I was right in the first place. The evidence that this is a sockpuppet account is persuasive. I am glad to read your statement that you will not use any further sockpuppets: thank you for your cooperation in that respect. (As for your statment that you have not broken any "rules", I could easily give you a list of several ways that your editing has violated Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but I don't think doing so would help.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this. Please tell me how I violated Wikipedia's guidelines, at least I'd like to know that much.

I think I've found something that could help resolve this block once and for all: "I first had experience of Alex about 3 years ago, since then he drops by periodically making threats such as these. I know Alex's real life identity, which would form part of my evidence so I'm holding off on making a complete SPI..." Wee Curry Monster (bolded by me). He actually knows Alex in real life, and JamesBWatson now knows me! Please tell me this is worth something. Gaba p (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have emailed Wee Curry monster to ask for help on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you have emailed me again about this, and Wee Curry monster hasn't, I have asked for help on Wee Curry monster's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

 * I have reconsidered the evidence, and received emails from several editors, including the blocking administrator and Wee Curry monster. I have also received evidence from you about your real life identity (as you know) and evidence about Alex79818's real life identity. It now seems to me unlikely that you are the same person as User:Alex79818‎. It is possible that there may be meatpuppetry involved, but there is no clear proof, and I think you have to be given the benefit of the doubt. I have therefore unblocked your account. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any of the evidence James used to make this decision, and don't need or want to, but I'm happy to back his judgement and agree with this unblock. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through my case JamesBWatson. I somewhat resent the part of your message that mentions meatpuppetry and the benefit of the doubt (mainly because it implies what apparently is the default here: a new editor is guilty of everything until proven otherwise); but at this point and after what I've experienced with Wikipedia editors and admins I'll just take it as a normal random accusation. Of course I'll trust you to not give away my real life identity to anybody else. Now that this has been cleared up, you're my reference on any possible new accusation.

I'll make a summary of my block/unblock process in the next days to help in similar cases where sockpuppetry accusations have been made with no real evidence to back them up. What I'd really like to know is what do all those editors/admins that accused me of being so obviously the same person based on clear behavioral evidence think of all this now. Do you think a reassessment of your forensic editing skills might be a good idea? Maybe even stop blocking new editors based on your own untrained analysis of similarities in editing? How about all that evidence of me being the same person as Alex, do I have access to those files now? Do I have the right to see that now that WP:BEANS is not an issue anymore? Also, can I ask (once again) WCM to point me to that ad hominem attack I supposedly produced a month ago or will I be breaking some WP guideline doing that? I'd really like to know what part of anything I said back then he took as an attack of any kind on the user Pfainuk. Maybe it's the idiomatic differences between the two of us, in which case it would be very important for me to know this because I don't want to go around being disrespectful to other editors without realizing it. Anyway, cheers to all.


 * I'm not posting the exact evidence which I used for the reason explained earlier. In essence, the type of edits you were making and some highly unusual grammatical quirks of your writing style were the same as those of Alex and his socks. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. You don't seem top have learnt anything. Please note the following points.


 * 1) I spent a good deal of my own time and effort in assessing this case. I didn't need to, and could easily have just walked away and left you blocked. I chose to put time and effort in, because I thought there was just a chance you had been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry. Your response does not encourage me to put any effort into helping you again.
 * 2) I did not make a "random accusation". I said that I thought there was enough doubt about the sockpuppetry to give you the benefit of the doubt. I still think that certain features of your editing look so strikingly similar to those of some other accounts that there has to be a strong suspicion. It would have been totally dishonest of me to have given the impression that I thought otherwise.
 * 3) I seriously considered not unblocking you, because, even if the sockpuppetry suspicion was ungrounded, your whole approach to other editors has been aggressive and confrontational. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by editors taking a battleground approach to other editors. If you continue in the same way it is likely that you will be blocked again, and stay blocked.
 * 4) There is no question of giving you the full evidence. If you have indulged in sockpuppetry then doing so would help you to avoid giving the same evidence in future, while if you haven't then all you have to do is edit collaboratively, cooperatively, and without sockpuppetry, and there will be no further problem, so you don't need to know what gave the impression of sockpuppetry.
 * 5) If you continue to be seen either as editing to promote a point of view, or to be editing against consensus, you are likely to be blocked again.
 * 6) A user called Nobody Ent once wrote 'It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It has a "most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system.' I wouldn't have used quite those words, but the essential point is valid.
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick-D could you point me to that reason? All I can find is WP:BEANS, is that what you mean?
 * JamesBWatson don't worry James I learnt a lot of things, just not the things you apparently would have want me to learn.


 * 1) And as I've said I really appreciate that you did, especially when the blocking admin (Nick-D) wouldn't. It's ok if you don't want to help again, that's one of the things I've learnt: if you want to survive in WP, get and admin friend to vouch for you. So I'll get on it.
 * 2) that there has to be a strong suspicion (of sockpuppetry) There's no way to answer this, it seems that nothing short of me and Alex appearing holding hands at your doorstep would 100% convince you that we are different persons. Or maybe you just don't like the idea of accepting that the strikingly similar editing means absolutely nothing...
 * 3) your whole approach to other editors has been aggressive and confrontational I could say the same about a number of the editors/admin that commented here. Your first comment here (denying my unblock) was pretty aggressive to me (as I said at the moment) I guess it's a matter of which side of the comment you stand.
 * 4) There is no question of giving you the full evidence I was pretty sure you wouldn't given how things are handled around here, but it couldn't hurt to ask. If you have indulged in sockpuppetry again, at this point I think you are just saying this because you refuse to accept that all your evidence amounted to nothing.
 * 5) If you continue to be seen either as editing to promote a point of view, or to be editing against consensus I'm sorry, I thought I was blocked after being wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, where do these accusations come from? Are you saying I edited inserting POV or against consensus? If so, I would ask you to point me to where I did such edits please.
 * 6) This point I agree 100% with you and it's one of the things I've definitely learnt. The sad part is that this is not how WP is advertised to the world. No one tells you that you are very likely to be blocked if you don't bow your head to the admins (or their friends) and keep quiet. This is certainly not what I expected when I came here and although I will continue to try to edit because I believe that knowledge should be free and accessible, I will not be making any more donations to WP until the issue of admins and their potential powertrips is fixed. I know this is a drop of water in the ocean, but it's all I can do about it.
 * I see neither mentioned the issue of how I was so obviously a sock puppet based on striking behavioral evidence so I assume you'll just keep blocking (or denying unblocks) to editors based solely on your clearly untrained perception of how they edit. That's a shame.
 * Once again in case it wasn't clear: James: I can't thank you enough for taking your time to help me, even if you are now regretting it, remember it was the just thing to do. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit: and they continue to wonder why my writing is so confrontational: you are still acting like I had done something wrong.
 * "I did have doubts about unblocking, but decided to give him a chance" (JamesBWatson) you had doubts about unblocking me? I had to wave my right to anonymity to lift this block and yet you still say you had doubts about unblocking? I gave you my real life identity, what else could you need to be sure?? And you gave me a chance? In case you have forgotten about what caused my blocking, let me refresh your memory: WCM accused me of producing an ad hominem attack on Pfainuk. I called him on this because I'm sure I didn't and I think he knows that too. Shortly after that, I got blocked accused (by WCM) of being a sock puppet: that turned out to be false. That's it. So then you wonder why I get agitated when I read things like "...the first thing he did was repeat the same bad faith attacks that got him blocked in the first place..." (WCM) or "...decided to give him a chance..." (JBW)? WCM attacked me, he accused me of insulting another editor and never bothered to right that wrong nor to apologize to me. It wasn't me who had bad faith in the first place and the reason I got blocked lies simply in the fact that there is an alarming number of WP admin/editors who mistakenly believe they can tell two persons apart just by their editing style. You can not and my case is proof of that.
 * I'll make you a deal JamesBWatson and Wee Curry Monster: you stop acting like I had done anything wrong and you'll see how my confrontational/aggressive editing goes away immediately. If you insist in treating me like an ex-con who did his time and now is given a chance rather than an innocent editor 100% wrongly accused, then don't be surprised afterwards when I write things like this.