User talk:Gpant94

August 2019
Hello, Gpant94, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty interesting that you are accusing me after finding out that Local hero  and you, are backing up each other on some articles. Maybe some administrator can investigate this

(Gpant94 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC))

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you were at User talk:Local hero. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been [ disallowed by an edit filter.] If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 21 Lilac Street (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  01:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As for the personal attack, how is it even possible to apply for an investigation for a user and not be personal. I mean if you look at the reverts they make, they don't even bother to respond to my cases of edition (e.g. unreliable source). But how come it is not personal by them to revert everyone of my editions, following my contributions in every article. How come they don't get a warning and i get? Opening a sock puppetry case for a person is a case of personal information. Is it because i have just less contributions than them? Gpant94 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)}}

Non-admin comment: Hi, blocks are not prejudice against you or any user, as where you mention how come they don't get a warning, you are blocked for what you did not what anyone else has or may have done, in your unblock request mentioning other users actions won't help your case for being unblocked, you need to solely focus on what you did and assure the admin(s) that you understand the reason(s) behind your block and that it won't happen again. 21 Lilac Street (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition I recommend reading Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks specifically not mentioning other users actions before making any subsequent requests. 21 Lilac Street (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear 21 Lilac Street, if you see to my contributions, i was blocked for repetitive and inconstructive editing because as a sole user o was forced to revert and revert and revert undo's to my contributions to the article, but the undo's where done by different accounts ( lets hope sock puppetry will be investigated.) So after i was making a contribution ( clarification for the name Macedonia) or input of the nowadays name North Macedonia, according to the consensus that states the use of full name for cases that are not formally refered in the referendum, i was getting multiple reverses, not only in this one , but in my grecoturkish war contribution for removing a sentence based on a single citation by author toynebee, who, if you look at talk, is not a credible author, but is heavily turk-sided. My only contribution that i didn't get hunted yet, is for Asperger's syndrome, in greek language. So how am i supposed to defend my self for repetitive editing and "personal attack" to a user ( opening of investigation for sock puppetry) without mentioning anyone else and what happened? Did you get my point?

(Gpant94 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC))


 * Absolutely I understand your point, however as I've said under Wikipedia's Guide to Appealing blocks mentioning other users actions won't help you get unblocked regardless of anything they have done, remember you were blocked as a result of your actions and any other editors actions are irrelevant, you need to convince whoever reviews your block request(s) that you understand why you were blocked, why the block is no longer necessary and that it won't happen again, repeatedly talking about other editors actions won't help and if you keep doing it an administrator may remove your talk page access limiting your chances of being unblocked. Hope this helps. 21 Lilac Street (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You created a new account and went straight to a Wikiproject page and mention in your second edit summary “WP:3RR” & “administration”. You then go to edit in a potentially controversial article and mention, among other atypical things for a new user, “WP:1PP”. New users are not usually ever versed in the specifics of site administration and edit restrictions in their first edits. Few are likely to know what a Wiki project is. Leaving aside obvious signs from your posted edits you also hit [ this] edit filter. Despite the block you then went on editing using an IP address. Your behaviour fully qualifies as WP:NOTHERE and I would decline unblocking and suggest you make your case under your original name which is very likely blocked for sockpuppetry. N.J.A.  &#124;  talk  14:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

At N.J.A. so you imply that for so many years i was just scrolling around knowing all the rules, but all of a sudden i startes editing so that i can trap other. The WP:1PP was mentioned in a talk for a consensus about North Macedonia and its naming, as was the WP:3RR which could be found if you click in WP:1RR rule mentioned in the talk above. I also acted in good faith for other users, warning them for the 3 repetitive editing rule, as both users and administrators should do in all times ( mentioned in rules of appealing for an unblock- which i read in order to appeal now and i didnt know before) and then saw another one continuing the reverting pattern of the first. So if you see i first ask for anyone that knows how to make this case known to the administration. Then in the next revert, after i google how to report any case and ask for administrator help, i found how to do it. So i am accused now for edit war,after using a sign in account and an ip account, for avoiding wp:3RR, rightfully, but i am accused also because i searched and learned how to make an official investigation note by wiki-rules, so i am suspected more than a new user, because as a new user i quickly learned how to operate in the correct manner in the subject especially? Where is the good faith towards other users in that? I know i used my account and my ip address but it has nothing to do with good faith for accusing me of knowing exactly what i was doing because i tried to make an opening to an investigation case the correct way. Can you see the incoherence to that?

Lastly, for my last editions after the warning message ( the first one) i was offline for avoiding editing for 3 times, so i didn't saw it until next day, after all the damage had been done.

And implying that i also have another official account, without even presenting a proof or even anything that shows so and implementing an indefinite block on that, other than thit is definitely not a good faith message as you can search for my contributions and ip logins and also not believing that someone can learn faster than someone else how to operate in Wiki. So although you are an administrator, i believe the rules are for everyone and Wikipedia is a place where democratic talk works, so by just a mistake by me and an assumption without even clues by you, it is really authoritative what you implied. Don't feel attacked, it is simple talk on the basis of how things work now that i read more and more about wiki-behavioral-rules, not a personal attack, but i have to use WP:ADMINABUSE and WP:AOBF because i think that i didn't saw good faith in your actions, even after i corrected and followed tha guide to appeal for an unblock. I have stated the reasons above, and the main is that you didn't act inngood faith for another user who made one mistake and understood fast enough how to work properly on Wikipedia and you implied, because of that that i am an experienced user and i created this account ( which is by 2012 and not now, but inactive for 7 years) just to start a personal attack. So i would ask my next unblock appeal also to be reviewed by another user

Here is my first contribution : [| asperger syndrome in greek]. Ι am one of the two creators of the article.

(Gpant94 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but your explanations do not fully address your actions leading to the initial block. I have reconsidered my actions taking into account what you say, and I still believe you are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Your request for unblock has been reviewed further by two other admins. Saying that, you are free to run through the remainder of the unblock and appeal process where you can also raise your concerns about admin abuse and bad faith. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)