User talk:SeanKesser

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Rschen7754 you made a mistake, I'm not sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 but person who reported him and removed his edits (earlier I used IP). I can confirm it by using IP again. SeanKesser (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Okay. However, a CU noted concerns about your using open proxies; please note that such use is against WP:NOP. Rs chen 7754 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my IP (SeanKesser) which I used earlier to revert socks of Mangoeater1000, you can compare it and see they're similar. I'll notice about this on Rschen7754's talkpage also. --109.165.183.50 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a proxy to edit? --Rs chen 7754 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One minute ago I used my IP to show my IP and to sent you message. --SeanKesser (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Hashem Shabani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Iranian gender restrictions in education, you may be blocked from editing. You're edits at Iranian gender restrictions in education have been grossly inappropriate and are a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH, particular this section you entitled "Media Manipulations" [1]. Please review these policies and cease your disruptive behavior or I will report you to the appropriate administrator board. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laugable accusations since all topic is based on speculations without any relevant proof. You're obivously not interested in spreading encyclopedical knowledge but Iranophobic propaganda. --SeanKesser (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of HistorNE (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 5 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a second time I got banned under same suspicion (being sock), without any consulting, warning, etc. As I explained to Rschen7754, I haven't use multiply accounts, and I didn't also harash anyone or do any vandalism. On few occasions I had some low disputes but I always managed to solve them by speaking, and I strongly believe this chase is manipulated by some editors who aren't able to challege my edits by facts, but charges. SeanKesser (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Similar behavior combined with a "likely" result from checkuser strongly suggests you are indeed evading a block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 5 March 2014 (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.