Jump to content

User talk:Sju hav

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sju hav (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 17 January 2017 (→Unblock request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A notable controversy or a scandal?

Among topics that interest me are notable controversies, including those that (might be) relate(d) to my culture—Norwegian. At least one other user of this website, prefers to use the word scandals, to label the topics that I have written about.

The difference between the two terms, is arguable POV. When the word "scandals" is used to label "my" topics, then please be aware that it might be used as "a tool of some sort of activism"—possibly to oppose views thought to be mine. --Sju hav (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there. Controversies is normally a better description of the topic of your edits than scandals, so I shall willingly stop referring to it as scandals. To your credit, you also normally source these controversy sections; the problem is undue weight (and often excessive details for an encyclopedia). Anyway, ...

Blocks that have not been contested

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/Sju hav, 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.

SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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/Sju hav, 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.

Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the IRC channel where i can contact admins about having my block reverted somehow

I have a suggestion for a well-researched and -referenced text, that will improve an article. What is the name of the appropriate IRC channel, for posting a request for a temporary (or permanent) stay in regards to my ban. --Sju hav (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for making an unblock request are contained in the block notices above. The only way to request an unblock is to follow those instructions. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Last year and before that I breached wikipedia guidelines. I was wrong for that. I am now requesting to be reinstated. I have already been reinstated at Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål for a few days already.

Decline reason:

You have engaged in block evasion as recently as today, three hours ago. As such, I'm not willing to consider unblocking you at this time. You need to stop sockpuppetry and ban evasion and given your exceptionally long history of this stretching back more than five years, you need to stop this for at least six months for us to take your request seriously. Yamla (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2016 (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.

Sju hav (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put it was that massive constructive edits, albeit by sock puppets, were performed. Of course it is a problematic - especially after a sockpuppet improves numerous articles, and when the socking is unveiled, the edits (with references) are often reverted (in accordance with guidelines). 178.232.194.23 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)/ Sju hav (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think the argument that your socking was fine because you were making good edits is likely to prove successful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
178.232.194.23 (talk · contribs) made a comment here. This appears to be Sju hav, the blocked user. If true, and I'm not absolutely convinced it is, that user made these two edits. If so, the block evasion has occurred as recently as today. If so, that would radically alter the discussion. The breaching of wikipedia guidelines didn't occur "last year and before" but "today, last year, and stretching back more than five years". Sju hav, can you comment please? --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. No need for the comment. I see Sju hav confirms that was indeed them. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request before the five year anniversary of 23 July 2016 (The regretable end of the life and artistry of Amy Winehouse)

Hi administrators and Jimbo Wales,
I have recently been wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation .

Will I be granted a parole hearing, before my sentence ends?
Can my sentence be commuted?

I respectfully request to be unblocked, if for no other reason than that my back-to-back wiki-sentences have lasted since way before Amy Winehouse regretably passed away. That's a long time ago, even though it seems like yesterday.
Perhaps my sentence can be commuted to unblocking, on condition that I can only make one edit of my choosing - for every good edit I perform relating to articles from a list (for the next five months 25 days and a wake-up).
(That might compare to a work-release, or transferring someone to a halfway house?

If it makes a positive difference to this case, I might add that I have developed spiritually during my back to back wiki-sentences,
and my feet have grown, and now the socks do not fit well:
"If the sock does not fit, you must acquit", some say.

Will I have to spend the five year anniversary on 23 July, with my "body and soul in wiki-lockup"? Sju hav (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see explanation in the thread above

Decline reason:

First off you are not "wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation", you are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. A ban that you violated just 12 days ago. Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive it is clear you have no respect for the community's wishes. Normally I would recommend the standard offer to a user who wants to return, but that is not for people who continue to evade their block. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:25, 3 July 2016 (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.

List of articles that need fixing

Unblock request January 2017

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).

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

Request reason:

Reason for unblocking: Please see below!

Decline reason:

You were evading the block a few days ago. That shows you are unwilling to work within Wikipedia's rules. Thus you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (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.

  • (It seems like the software is not able to show my reason for unblocking, within the template.)
  • I do contribute on Danish-wiki [1].
  • I was unblocked and blocked on Norwegian-wiki in 2016; I did not receive any temporary block during that period. I can not see that topics have been aired on my talk page there [2], that might indicate a justification even for a temporary block. Be that as it may.
  • It seems that I also did survive the opposite-of-a-beauty contest in 2016, on Norwegian-wiki; one person suggested that I should be be banned more severely than an indefinite ban; the vote ended at something like 14-12 - no consensus as far as I know. Be that as it may.
  • I am interested in contributing to wikipedia in English, without drama. (I believe that Jimbo Wales uses the phrase "wikipedia editing without the drama".)
  • I have been convicted of avoiding a block on several occasions, even as late as early July 2016.
  • Here is a link to the stuff that I removed from my talk page today [3].

Mit bestem Gruß! [a German topic that English-wiki does not yet have] - Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive indicates block avoidance has occurred earlier this month. Assuming that's accurate and given the history of sockpuppetry stretching back more than six years, I'd say this user simply isn't eligible for unblock consideration at this time. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now looked at the page that you have linked to. That page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
I now see that there have been allegations of block avoidance after that, and there have been assumptions, and the discussions have thereafter been closed.
Again, the page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Reason for unblocking: Please see below!

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Reason for unblocking: Please see below! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Reason for unblocking: Please see below! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Reason for unblocking: Please see below! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
  • I have not been block evading for the last half year.
  • I am actually not the only one in Norway that owns a Sim card from this source (formerly this source).
  • In Norway we have had at least one administrator who has been revealed as a sockpuppet, and subsequently defrocked.
What stands in the way of someone not liking my edits, and editing arguably similar to my edits, so that I get blamed for those edits, and thereafter not be allowed to be unblocked?
  • How are we to know that there only was "one dirty cop on the block", on wikipedia in my country? (We can not know, one way or the other!)
  • (It seems like the software is not able to show my reason for unblocking, within the template.)
  • I do contribute on Danish-wiki [4].
  • I was unblocked and blocked on Norwegian-wiki in 2016; I did not receive any temporary block during that period. I can not see that topics have been aired on my talk page there [5], that might indicate a justification even for a temporary block. Be that as it may.
  • It seems that I also did survive the opposite-of-a-beauty contest in 2016, on Norwegian-wiki; one person suggested that I should be be banned more severely than an indefinite ban; the vote ended at something like 14-12 - no consensus as far as I know. Be that as it may.
  • I am interested in contributing to wikipedia in English, without drama. (I believe that @Jimbo Wales: uses the phrase "wikipedia editing without the drama".)
  • I have been convicted of avoiding a block on several occasions, even as late as early July 2016.
  • The sockpuppet investigations page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
I now see that there have been allegations of block avoidance after that, and there have been assumptions, and the discussions have thereafter been closed.
Again, the page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
  • I would like to remind of the case of where one user was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of mine;
He was probably not even trying to copy my alleged style of editing etc.:
"Post-archival note: I have accepted GeneralPericles appeal and unblocked. — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)"
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, you are asking us to trust you. When you've previously lied, and when we have strong circumstantial evidence that you are still lying. And when you, even by your own admission, spent more than seven and a half years violating WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. Perhaps these recent edits, these edits that look exactly like you, aren't actually you. But given your long history of abuse stretching back the better part of a decade, you can hardly blame us for not believing you. Your actions have caused this. I simply can't imagine anyone unblocking you at this time. --Yamla (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are saying that I have lied in the past. Whether I have lied or not, is an assumption on your part. To be clear, I have been convicted by several processes of wikipedia, more than half a year ago. (It seems that in your court of public opinion, I have also been convicted more recently.)
  • I am interpreting that you will never have good faith that I can make good contributions to wikipedia.
  • I have faith that there is at least one administrator that does not see eye to eye with you (or however your view will be interpreted). Whether such an administrator will bother to step forward, and voice disagreement with you, that is a different matter.
  • Perhaps we should just gather a list of users that don't like my alleged edits or edits from more than half a year ago;
if evidence is lacking, perhaps an ugly contest/beauty contest will float your boat?
  • I find it likely that there will be other persons than you who will voice concerns to try to sway a decision against me; I think you have made your point. Perhaps you will consider to show some dignity, and step to the side for a while, and resist any urge to hog this thread.
  • I have never seen Jimbo Wales having to call persons a liar. If that is the case, then perhaps you can learn something from him. (Possibly your choice of words opens for drama: If you have a habit of calling people liars, when you are convinced that they are misrepresenting info, then you can later be accused of being a liar - either rightfully or wrongfully.)
  • Please do your bit, to keep the drama in this thread, at a low.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link [6] showing more about the hurdles that US-American graduate student Max had to go thru, when his edits on en-wiki were not enough to prove that he was not a sockpuppet of mine. Part of his case was to prove that he was not Norwegian, and by showing that he had steam accounts and other accounts outside wikipedia.
Accusations against him started on 14 May, he acknowledged those on the 19th, later he was blocked, later he appealed, and he was unblocked 10 days after the first false accusation.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best wishes! Sju hav (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Max"/@MaxSem: is the name of the Wikimedia employee, who from his private account asked [7] that the graduate student's block be reviewed.
Mit bestem Gruß / Best wishes! Sju hav (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Last year and before that I breached wikipedia guidelines" when in fact, you were knowingly continuing to breach wikipedia policies and guidelines. You argued that this was indeed problematic and tried to write it off with the justification that some of your edits were constructive. You also falsely claimed you "have recently been wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation". As as pointed out to you, this wasn't true either. Really, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You've already wasted far too much of my time. I'm sure another admin will be along shortly to decline your unblock request, given your continued block avoidance. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have your opinion, and that is fine.
  • I was convicted slightly more than half a year ago. And it seems that you are trying to paint the picture, that arguments that I used prior to that conviction, are arguments that I still hold.
  • Wikipedia has at least two policies that might come into play in my case: The one is an essay that says something like, Stay away from sockpuppetry (and block evasion) for six months, and there will likely be a standard offer. There is another policy called "2nd chance". (I take for granted that you and some - or many - other individuals are against those policies being applied to me, for the time being. However, there is a chance that someone with clout sees beyond your moaning and your attempts at swaying a decision against me.
  • You said "Really, I have nothing more to say on the matter". I certainly hope that what you are saying on that point is true, however I have my doubts.
  • You said "given your continued block avoidance". I think that you are trying to say that you are convinced that I have avoided my current block within the last six months. Well, I haven't. (No matter how many times you repeat your beliefs, that will not make them the truth.)
  • You seem to be the sort of person who would have convicted the graduate student, GeneralPericles. A good faith conviction without any real evidence.
  • The graduate student was convicted after wikipedia's technical experts had their say.
  • Sometimes on wikipedia one gets wrongly convicted even after wikipedia's technical experts have their say.
  • I have within the last weeks been implicated without a shred of technical evidence, but with the same(?) behavioral "evidence" that convicted GeneralPericles (before he was later let off the hook). And no, I do not have a Steam account or the other bells and whistles that GeneralPericles had, to get your colleagues off his case.
  • I imagine that the system for catching sockpuppets and block evaders worked something like this: One uses behavioral indications to make a case that gets evaluated, and then possibly handed over to the tech experts.
  • It is my assertion that the instances of block evasion that have been loosely attributed to me over the last half year - that those instances have been completely accessible for technical investigation without delay.
  • There have been investigations within the last half year, and to my knowledge there has been no smoking gun. Not one tech expert has said that he/she is sure of anything, and they did not say if their guessing was based on tech matters and/or being swayed by opinions such as yours, in regard to my alleged M.O.
  • You have played the drama card more than once:
Have I lied within the last six months? No.
Is it so, that you lied at least once - more than six months ago? Maybe you are the only one in the world who never told a porker when you were young.
Perhaps the drama card now can be put to the side.
Mit bestem Gruß / Best wishes! 176.11.231.175 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)/Sju hav (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The range that my Sim card is associated with, has around 56 000 different IP addresses. That number could be compared to about one percent of the inhabitants in my country. However, around 25 to 40 percent of the sim cards online in my country, are of the same brand as mine, to my knowledge. Sju hav (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move for having Yamla taken off the further proceedings of this case

  • The following edit makes me think that Yamla is getting to close to the case:

"14:08, 17 January 2017 Yamla (talk | contribs) blocked 176.11.231.175 (talk) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Sju hav)".

  • Taking Yamla off the case probably would not change too much: All Yamla would have to do, would be to hand his/her arguments on to a colleague, and have the colleague further the arguments. Sju hav (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sju_hav&oldid=760520480"