Sven the Big Viking III (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) →Unblock: answer the question |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
:::::::Yes, I am willing to play the game. The Wikipedia needs a balance of view points in order to maintain accuracy. No, it was proven that I am not anything to do with the garbage can of other accounts but, yes, I broadly support their point of view. |
:::::::Yes, I am willing to play the game. The Wikipedia needs a balance of view points in order to maintain accuracy. No, it was proven that I am not anything to do with the garbage can of other accounts but, yes, I broadly support their point of view. |
||
:::::::The example I gave was a clear case of POV grinding which I corrected on the basis of a reliable source, i.e. the Irish Ale business. It typifies the level the conversation is at. It is as simple as this, the railroading that is going on is nothing to do with my editing but a false kneejerk assumption that I am someone I am not. It was proven that I am not. The initial accusation was false and the snowballing of other accusations is equally false. I just want to get on and be a productive contributor. [[User:Sven the Big Viking III|Sven the Big Viking III]] ([[User talk:Sven the Big Viking III|talk]]) 11:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::The example I gave was a clear case of POV grinding which I corrected on the basis of a reliable source, i.e. the Irish Ale business. It typifies the level the conversation is at. It is as simple as this, the railroading that is going on is nothing to do with my editing but a false kneejerk assumption that I am someone I am not. It was proven that I am not. The initial accusation was false and the snowballing of other accusations is equally false. I just want to get on and be a productive contributor. [[User:Sven the Big Viking III|Sven the Big Viking III]] ([[User talk:Sven the Big Viking III|talk]]) 11:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
Sven: The admin who locked out your talk page un-did that within hours on July 7. Or at least tried, if you look at your block log. Unfortunately the setting didn't seem to stick. I just restored your talk page access again. |
|||
I ask again: If I were to unblock you, would you agree to a voluntary self-probation to refrain from reverting any removal of "British Isles" on the part of HighKing and instead attempt to engage that editor in discussion to come to a mutual understanding? |
|||
Also, I am going to block your new account. I understand why you created it, thinking you were blocked from posting here, but you aren't. Don't use it anymore. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:26, 29 July 2011
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry but there is no personal attack? I have just stated the facts of the events. If there is anyone that ought to be offended, or has been "attacked", it is me. There is no attack in that statement. Please just look at the facts of the case instead of looking for some reason to avoid doing so?
I was block on false grounds for being a sockpuppet. All I am asking is for one account to be allowed to edit. If you don't like Tojer, then fine ... let's stick with this one. But, please, let's skip this stupid runaround.
Thank you. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted at your other account, this will not be reviewed as long as it contains personal attacks. Kuru (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2011 (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.
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like my account unblocked. I want one account that I can fairly edit from. There is nothing improper about the name Tojer. It is a perfectly common Swedish name just as, say, Anil is for Indians. I edited 3 topic and then had this name banned without being asked. That is all.
To continue editing, I made this new "acceptable" account called 'Sven the Big Viking'. Some child then banned it because it was meant to be a "sockpuppet" of the first one. Bullshit. Look at the creation dates and the reason for blocking. Only the name was forbidden.
Look, you guys seem to think that there is something so mystically difficult about your website that folks cannot work out how to edit it. Bullshit to that too. Any coder or sysadmin with half a brain could.
So there are these Irish guys like HighKing, Rashers and Cailil on a campaign to remove the term British Isles from the Wikipedia. It is all over the internet. One of them, tries to stick me with the names of a whole load of others he has rubbed up and fails ... why? Because I am not any of them.
Therefore I want the same right as "anyone" to edit the Wikipedia. Remember that? The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" not "anyone that agrees with the Irish"
For your information, you might cast an eye over this record [1].
Decline reason:
Unblock requests featuring personal attacks will not be considered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:44, 8 June 2011 (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.
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like my account unblocked. I want one account that I can fairly edit from. There is nothing improper about the name Tojer. It is a perfectly common Swedish name just as, say, Anil is for Indians. I edited 3 topic and then had this name banned without being asked. That is all.
To continue editing, I made this new "acceptable" account called 'Sven the Big Viking'. Some one then banned it because it was meant to be a "sockpuppet" of the first one. Look at the creation dates and the reason for blocking. Only the name was forbidden.
Decline reason:
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.
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like my account unblocked. I want one account that I can fairly edit from. There is nothing improper about the name Tojer. It is a perfectly common Swedish name just as, say, Anil is for Indians. I edited 3 topic and then had that name banned without being asked. That is all.
To continue editing, I made this new "acceptable" account called 'Sven the Big Viking'. Some one then banned it because it was meant to be a "sockpuppet" of the first one. Look at the creation dates and the reason for blocking. Only the name was forbidden.Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If your account is blocked, you are not allowed to avoid the block by creating a new account, and any new account made for the purpose is liable to be blocked. It is as simple as that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (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.
I am sorry but
a) "Only requests from the master account will be considered" is not a rule I can find b) There is no "master account" because I never "socked". After three edits, I had a name disallowed. c) YOU PEOPLE made me have to start a new account therefore I cannot accept YOUR accusations that I am a "sockpuppet". d) HelloAnnyong original accusation of "Abusing multiple accounts" is wrong. Look at the registration dates.
So, let's move on. These are all just fake reasons. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We actually don't have an issue with users who have been blocked solely because of their username registering and using new accounts provided they comply with Wikipedia's rules. However, alternate accounts editing in a way contrary to policy are referred to as sockpuppets and are blocked accordingly. As a general rule (Wikipedia administrators follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter) admins will not consider unblock requests from sockpuppet accounts, especially if the user is still belligerent.
- My suggestion is to go to your original account, use {{unblock-un}} to request an unblock to change your original account's username. In any case, you will need to be more civil before anyone will consider an unblock. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
User page
In addition, I would like the block on me editing my User page taken off but it is setting in concrete a lie. A falsehood. I did not "sock" as Toug ma tojer. I was forced to make a new account, not by choice.
All I am asking is for one account to be allowed to edit. If you don't like Tojer, then fine ... let's stick with this one. But, please, let's skip this runaround.
Thank you. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Blanking
Please note that you may not remove declined unblock requests. TNXMan 13:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry. How hell is anyone supposed to know what are the rules are? Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look guys, if I am suppose to play by all these rules, can you please and let's have a little honesty around here?
• 15:52, 29 May 2011
I created a user account Toug ma Tojer [10]
• 03:23, 30 May 2011. After 3 or 4 edits, admin John blocked Toug ma Tojer for the reason of "Block evasion"
What block? I was not blocked. That is a false log.
Actually, that has been changed. The reason he gave was "inappropriate name", see [11]
• 12:59, 1 June 2011,
I created a new name Sven. [12]
• 23:45, 2 June 2011
HighKing attempt to stitch me up saying I was all sort of other people he has fought with.
It was a false action and it failed [13]. I am not those other editors. The admins were not able to make any connection either.
• 17:15, 3 June 2011
Sven was then blocked by admin HelloAnnyong blocked Sven the Big Viking for "Abusing multiple accounts"
Another false action. Toug had been blocked BEFORE Sven was created.
Sven was created after Toug was refused because John thought "Tojer" meant penis in Swedish that is all (it does not). I could NOT be editing with "multiple accounts".
• Therefore, the reason for my blocks are all false.
I edited 3 or 4 articles and was shafted for something, I don't know exactly what, that was none of my business.
OK, let's just be honest. It was just a tactical stitch up aimed at someone else that I got caught up in. The admins, for whatever reason, over reacted and made a mistake. No hard feelings.
I just want to get on and edit and stop wasting all this time. What have I really done so wrong?
Cheers! Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The user name issue seems to be something of a red herring. You appear to have already been an experienced user when you started editing as Toug ma Tojer. The evidence strongly suggests that both these accounts are attempts to evade a block on an earlier account. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2011 (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.
- Note to reviewing admin: So, Sven wishes to return so he can make more edits like this, which seems like an unhelpful and highly suspicious edit, not that of a new editor. Why would that be a net benefit to Wikipedia? --John (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Serious Conflict of Interest
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look guys, the accusation of "sockpuppeting" was made by the user HighKing who was editing warring against these other people.
It failed because I am not any of those accounts. [4]
Of course, all the accounts were other individuals the accuser has edit warred with.
It is obvious why he wanted to tar me with the same brush. You've been played.
It is also obvious that you have no case against me.
Here I am, trying to be honest and edit with just one account. Surely if I was so 3ViL I would just make another account? I have not. I have played the game properly.
I asked to have the false accusation removed. Thank you.
I never socked as Toger. It was technically impossible to do so. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've been blocked for sockpuppetry - this is what we consider a case. Given that you've provided no indication you intend to stop, I'm going to decline this unblock request. m.o.p 15:16, 22 June 2011 (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.
Unblock
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, guys.
Look, how do we get ovr this thing?
Can I spell it out to you really s-l-o-w-l-y?
I did not sock.
I could not have socked.
I could not "abuse multiple accounts" because this one was created AFTER my original one was block - BECAUSE SOMEONE FOUND THE NAME SWEDISH NAME 'TOGER' UNACCEPTABLE ONLY. That is all. No edit warring. No, nothing else. No evil sins. Nothing.
Now can you please stop mucking me around and let me edit?
(I refuse to make another account but I know someone will then be going to accuse me yet again).
Thank you. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. Revoking talk page access as this has gone on for far too long. Restoring at request of Amatulić — Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2011 (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.
- To avoid any accusation of involvement, I will comment factually without prejudice. Firstly, this account was created by you after your earlier account was blocked. That is, by definition here, block evasion and sockpuppetry. The merits of the edits created are irrelevant. Secondly, the block on your primary account did not relate to your username there; I commented there, and do so again, that whatever is the case in Sweden the word "todger" is a slang term for "penis", and "toug" is essentially the came word as "tug"; you gave me on your talk page a brief and unnecessary tutorial on psychiatry, but failed there and have failed now to address the reason for your block there, which I say again was not your username. In wikipedia it is normally a requirement that in the case of a blocked editor with more than one account the unblock request is made at the primary account. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I am considering this request. I have reviewed all of the past discussion on User talk:Toug ma Tojer as well as here. Here's the history as I see it:
- A new editor creates a disruptive username. Whether that was intentional or simply an unfortunate coincidence between Swedish and English slang is impossible to determine. We have only the editor's word and the perception of native English speakers.
- Editor is blocked block evasion, suggesting that Toug ma Tojer is a sockpuppet of some other blocked account. As an admin I may have blocked it for violation of Wikipedia:Username policy.
- Then, feeling that the block is unfair and apparently angry about it, the editor uses a series of unblock requests to vent his anger and cast aspersions on others, leading to requests being declined due to violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:NOTTHEM, both of which are instant disqualifications of any unblock request.
- Without being aware of the policies here, Toug ma Tojer then abandons that account and creates this Sven the Big Viking account, apparently with the intent to put it all behind him and resume editing in good faith.
- To his consternation, an administrator then comes along and correctly blocks Sven for Wikipedia:Block evasion (sockpuppetry doesn't require multiple active accounts, only multiple accounts, whether blocked or not).
- I note that Toug ma Tojer cannot request unblocking anymore due to revoked talk page access.
- While all this is going on, the editor's scant but somewhat unconstructive editing history is pointed out as a reason to keep the user blocked.
Is that a fair representation of what has transpired? I ask Sven, would you please address the reasons for both your blocks without referencing anyone else? (Your username doesn't appear to be the reason for the first block). And would you explain what do you plan to do on Wikipedia if you are unblocked? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does look exactly as you describe. Someone who draws a username block should not be punished for creating a new, non-abusive account. Formally, Toug should have requested a username change unblock; that seems to be the main procedural difficulty. (His angry response is another matter entirely.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hold on guys JP and Amatulic please check your mail. This account is an admitted sock of TMT - which was identified as a duck sock saccount on site by User:John. This was confirmed offsite--Cailil talk 21:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out, the block on the Toug ma Tojer account was not a username block, and my comments on the name were peripheral. The initial block on that account was for block evasion.
- Hold on guys JP and Amatulic please check your mail. This account is an admitted sock of TMT - which was identified as a duck sock saccount on site by User:John. This was confirmed offsite--Cailil talk 21:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does look exactly as you describe. Someone who draws a username block should not be punished for creating a new, non-abusive account. Formally, Toug should have requested a username change unblock; that seems to be the main procedural difficulty. (His angry response is another matter entirely.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jpgordon: In my notes above I didn't say that Toug ma Tojer was blocked based on the username, only that I may have blocked based on that. He was blocked originally for block evasion. I want Sven to address that bit.
- Cailil: The offsite accusation is that Toug ma Tojer is a sockpuppet of Irvine22, and Toug ma Tojer's substantially similar edits resulted in a WP:DUCK decision to block. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Toug's edits and edit summaries do not look like the first few edits of a new user, so I think block evasion looks likely. Whether the relevant previously blocked account was Irvine22 I know not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Daniel Case's summary says "Restoring access at other admin's request to allow responses to queries" but, in fact, I cannot edit using the Sven the Big Viking account. I am blocked. I cannot respond. False summary. ::::: Sorry, I am not wedded to by PC and the Wikipedia and could not reply earlier. ::::: Look, the checkuser thing prove that I was not this Irving22 guy. ::::: I made three edits over something I agreed with and was then blocked after the Irish guy who is on a campaign to remove the term British Isles from the Wikipedia put in a complaint against me accusing me of being everyone he edit warred. I could not appeal using Toger ma Toger because I ws blocked from editing my talk page. ::::: Look, it really boils down to whether you want a Wikipedia that is accurate or one that is dominate by individuals grinding their own axe campaign. ::::: Take one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microbrewery&diff=prev&oldid=434439320 15 June 2011 and the excuse HighKing uses "The term is the same everywhere. And "Real Ale" isn't found in Ireland". A quick google says the opposite, http://patto1ro.home.xs4all.nl/irlbrew.htm, http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/real-ales-irish-style-a-pub-crawl-around-the-microbreweries-420234.html. ::::: What can I say, no I am not a banned users. No, my edits were not false. ::::: Please stop this charade and false accusations and summaries. Just let me contribute fairly, Sven the Big Viking II (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline pending response by Sven to Amatulić's question of 17 July. Once you reply, feel free to restore this request.—An optimist on the run! 18:59, 25 July 2011 (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.
- That was a slightly confusing comment by the admin who restored access - I think he meant he was restoring the talk page access that he'd not long taken away. Not that he was unblocking you. Peridon (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I meant. Nothing more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- That was a slightly confusing comment by the admin who restored access - I think he meant he was restoring the talk page access that he'd not long taken away. Not that he was unblocking you. Peridon (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven: If I were to unblock you, would you agree to a voluntary self-probation to refrain from reverting any removal of "British Isles" on the part of HighKing and instead attempt to engage that editor in discussion to come to a mutual understanding? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Watcha Sven! Next time you set up an account don't forget to email enable it. I'll be watching out. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I see you can communicate now, so why not email enable this account then you don't need to sock. I'll be watching out. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: The original block of Toug ma Tojer was because of concerns that that the account was a sockpuppet of MidnightBlueMan|MidnightBlueMan. Irvine22 may or may not also be involved. The username issue is a distraction, and of no relevance to whether the user should be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have never yet declined two unblock requests for the same block: if I have declined one then I leave it for another administrator to make an independent assessment. However, it is now more than two weeks since this user made their latest unblock request. Since clearly no administrator is willing to unblock, I think the request should now be declined. Perhaps another, previously uninvolved, admin would like to do it, but if it is not closed one way or the other soon then I shall make an exception to usual practice and decline it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sven's frequency of logging in appears to have diminished. I asked a question above 5 days ago. I plan to wait a few more days for a response. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK. So long as someone is dealing with it, and the case hasn't just been abandoned. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sven's frequency of logging in appears to have diminished. I asked a question above 5 days ago. I plan to wait a few more days for a response. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have never yet declined two unblock requests for the same block: if I have declined one then I leave it for another administrator to make an independent assessment. However, it is now more than two weeks since this user made their latest unblock request. Since clearly no administrator is willing to unblock, I think the request should now be declined. Perhaps another, previously uninvolved, admin would like to do it, but if it is not closed one way or the other soon then I shall make an exception to usual practice and decline it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- can I please reiterate that while I did initiate the dicussion relating to the original username (Toug ma Tojer) the block was never a username block. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Look, it is pretty impossible for me to reply when I am still blocked from my own talk page and any account I make is then immediately blocked for fairly spurious reasons.
- Yes, I am willing to play the game. The Wikipedia needs a balance of view points in order to maintain accuracy. No, it was proven that I am not anything to do with the garbage can of other accounts but, yes, I broadly support their point of view.
- The example I gave was a clear case of POV grinding which I corrected on the basis of a reliable source, i.e. the Irish Ale business. It typifies the level the conversation is at. It is as simple as this, the railroading that is going on is nothing to do with my editing but a false kneejerk assumption that I am someone I am not. It was proven that I am not. The initial accusation was false and the snowballing of other accusations is equally false. I just want to get on and be a productive contributor. Sven the Big Viking III (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven: The admin who locked out your talk page un-did that within hours on July 7. Or at least tried, if you look at your block log. Unfortunately the setting didn't seem to stick. I just restored your talk page access again.
I ask again: If I were to unblock you, would you agree to a voluntary self-probation to refrain from reverting any removal of "British Isles" on the part of HighKing and instead attempt to engage that editor in discussion to come to a mutual understanding?
Also, I am going to block your new account. I understand why you created it, thinking you were blocked from posting here, but you aren't. Don't use it anymore. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)