Template:User talk disclaimer

Welcome

Hello, Tanbircdq, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. RayTalk 23:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Nomination of Mahmud al-Rashid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mahmud al-Rashid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmud al-Rashid until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — kashmiri TALK 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17440 was submitted on Feb 01, 2017 22:13:03. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #17748 was submitted on Mar 12, 2017 19:25:16.

Notes:

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

For the five years I was editing the encyclopedia, and I have made large contributions in creating and improving many articles from a wide variety of subjects. I intend to generally make gnome edits to any article I come across for maintenance but have a particular interest in those of involving British Bangladeshis and Muslims. I've been blocked due to the result of SPI and AE against me. I acknowledge that the poor conduct leading up to my ban was unacceptable and I do not dispute to receiving the ban. Before this I had a good record of engaging and collaborating with other editors in good-fath. I understand that there are ways of resolving conflict resolution without resorting to behaviour which contravenes policy guidelines. During my block, I have made contributions on the Commons page. I feel I can make further constructive and productive contributions, therefore, should be give the opportunity to be allowed to return to the website.

Accept reason:

Accepted with unblock conditions, as described below. ~ Rob13Talk 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A full history is available on the SPIs here and it did not continue after by block as I haven't edited Wikipedia since other than the contributions on the Commons page. The first instance was just stupidity. The second instance was due the frustration and injustice I felt after an editor accused me of having an agenda and I retaliated.
I've gone over nine months without editing, I'm not sure if I would now have time to be as active as I was before but there are potential Wikipedia pages which I was working on that I'd like to publish and there are many pages which I previously regularly edited that I would like to continue to update. I have absolutely intention of socking, should I be allowed to return, my contributions are likely to be fairly minimal in the future, I'll probably steer clear of conflicting topics on the whole and concentrate more time on topic areas which take less effort and patience to come into fruition. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comments as the blocking admin, Coffee? I'm inclined to grant this request with a set of reasonable restrictions. I would specifically like clarification from you that this block was not an AE action, even though it originated from an AE thread. I assume this is the case because the duration exceeds that which can be applied via discretionary sanctions and I see no evidence it was logged. ~ Rob13Talk 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I can confirm that this was not an AE action. It seems quite reasonable to allow the WP:OFFER to apply here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbircdq: Could you talk a bit more about what conflict led you to feel the need to sock? I'll offer you an unblock under a set of conditions, but I'd like to ensure the conditions help you return to regular and uncontroversial editing. ~ Rob13Talk 03:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rob, sorry for the late reply. The conflict was that I added sourced material on a page, to which I was accused of having an agenda, however, despite this continued constructively contributing on the talk page only for the matter to be preemptively taken to ANI where it was shown I had done nothing wrong. After this I felt it untenable, and too disheartened and despondent to contribute on the page but I then regrettably decided to lash out. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coffee and BU Rob13, I can't use talkback, I would appreciate if you'd please response here, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per our policy on conditional unblocks, I'm willing to unblock you provided you agree to two restrictions. First, you are restricted to a single account indefinitely. This restriction may be lifted or modified by the community or by myself to allow another account to be used for some specific purpose. Note that this restriction bars you from even those use cases of alternate accounts that are typically considered legitimate (e.g. public-use accounts or bot accounts) unless the restriction is lifted or modified. Down the road, I'd be more than willing to entertain reasonable requests to lessen this restriction, if you have a compelling reason to use an alternate account. Second, for the next six months, any uninvolved administrator may re-block you at their discretion for any disruptive activities, up to and including an indefinite block. This more-or-less formalizes the reality for all standard offers; this is a last chance, and there are no warnings left to be had. If you find these restrictions acceptable, ping me and I'll unblock you. ~ Rob13Talk 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BU Rob13, I find these restrictions acceptable, thank you. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category