CarloNordo

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CarloNordo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SGGH ^ping! 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roman888 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have gave my reasons in the investigation page. Please look it up so that I can reused this user account

Decline reason:

I don't mean to be WP:BITEy here, but it is best for you to remain blocked until the SPI case is complete, based on the potential issues at hand. Once that investigation is complete, you will be unblocked, and be able to continue to use this account. Until that point, do not create additional accounts, as that would be WP:SOCK and especially WP:EVADE - two things you're already stating that you are not doing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Actually right now I am continue to make edits here and there, eventhough there is a block template on my userpage. Is this the correct procedure in conducting an investigation? Am I guilty until proven innocent until the investigation is concluded? CarloNordo (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be very familiar with the unblocking procedure for a new contributor. This is interesting, given that as you had not blocked, there had been no instructions on your page for contesting that block. Also interesting is that you put a "hangon" tag on an article created by User:Golongong. But your apparent inability to understand why Wikipedia cannot utilize text such as the following is all too familiar:

Raja Petra Kamaruddin, alleged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel. He stated that Rodwan and Saiful spoke on the telephone at least eight times before Saiful went to Hospital Puswari to report the supposed rape

Raja Petra Kamarudduin, charged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel and that Rodwan and Saiful spoke on the telephone at least eight times before Saiful went to Hospital Puswari to report the supposed rape.

At this point, this account is blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am quite amazed that you would come up with this decision just by making the following assumptions. I had to research the rules of how to unblock my userpage after it there was a block template on both my user page and discussion page. The hangon tag which you have brought up was listed in the template with instructions and examples on how to save that article. There was news in the media recently regarding that article Chua Soi Lek which I believe your referring to, after that I decided to look up that article. For the written information I have reinstated with my reason that it shouldn't be deleted without looking at it closely. I have already given the reasons on the investigation page. This decision should be reviewed properly and reversed.

Decline reason:

Confirmed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Furthermore the admin Moonriddengirl assumes that I have put in the following information on bad faith. This information was removed with the example provided in the investigation page: This is entirely fringe. It absolutely does not belong here. The reason given for its removal was fringe issues not copyright rules. Does Moonriddengirl expect everything to have an ulterior motive. CarloNordo (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Another administrator will review this second request (the first since your actual blocking), but I should note that there was no block template on this page at the time you requested unblocking, nor had there been. The instructions on the article on which you placed "hangon" indicated clearly that if it "does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{hangon}} directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted". If you had read these instructions, as you indicate, the choice of the "hangon" tag is unusual, if you were not the article's creator. This edit is also quite interesting, as I was not referring to either Perkasa or Chua Soi Lek, but Malaysian New Economic Model. Perkasa was created by the blocked sockmaster, and the deleted history makes plain to any administrator that it was not edited by this account, but rather by two of his other socks: User:LochLoic and User:Laskar34. That version was deleted two weeks before this account even registered. I believe you are simply providing further evidence here in your unblock request of your sockpuppetry. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Must I be the creator of the article if I am to put on a hangon tag in the article Malaysian New Economic Model? If I see an article is worth saving then do I need to be investigated as such by you and the other admins? In practical terms, I don't see how you can use this example for instituting a block on me. Like I said in the other post, do you have an ulterior motive? CarloNordo (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The NEM has been in the news in Malaysia for the last couple of days. I just happened across that article, I didn't know that a corresponding article New Economic Model had been made as well. CarloNordo (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)