User talk:Vetrisimino0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Archives
1

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vetrisimino0 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have no connection with the user named Hioyb346. However I have recently been blocked one time for reverting edits, which has been connected to two other user preventing me from adding information to the Eritrea project. I stopped reverting on that page, and tried to sort out the issue with the involved parts, by calling for third opinions and create discussion to reach consenus [1]. The issues where I have been involved has invloved two users which I have tried to reach consensus with but however I feel these users (Middayexpress, AcidScnow) have failed to live up to Wikipedia rules [2] by not interpreting sources correctly and making up statements. These users has also lacked to cooperate to reach consensus. On [3], see user Elvey's comments about user Middayexpress behaviour regarding the third opinion and Kunama images. I feel that this is yet another way from these two users (Middayexpress, AcidScnow) to try punish me since they disagree with my opinions and the contributions I have made, besides reporting me for reverting. User Middayexpress is also the same user user who is trying to get me blocked. I think that this block for socketpuppetry is not neccesarry or justified since I have no intention of deleting, or reverting information and I am only using one account. The block for socketpuppetry, mentions that I have been blocked for spelling coffe the same way as another user. We might have spelled it the same way by coinsident? I do not check to see all my spelling but I do know that Coffee is spelled "coffee" and not "coffe". I have interest for many things that invloves Eritrea and for that reason som editing might have been on pages that was similar to that of Hioyb346? By looking at my edit history you can see that I have made good contributions to the Eritrea project [4]and helped improve it. I have also added pictures to the wikipedia commons [5] and tried to contact photographers to make them contribute their photos under the creative commons licence in order to use them on wikipedia. Its a learning progress and I have learned a few things when it comes to commons licencing. But also when it comes to conflicts and editing. For that reason the block is not needed and you can put my user account on watch, you can follow my behaviour to see that Im following every rule and that Im making good contributions. Thanks in advance. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are a  Confirmed sock, any further requests for unblock will need address your abuse of multiple accounts, preferably via your main account. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Note for admins considering future unblock requests: This user has been open to the constructive criticism I provided at Talk:Eritrea, while Middayexpress has not been. And it's Middayexpress, who accused User:Vetrisimino0 of socking. Policy states, "Tag-team editing - to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioral norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing - is prohibited." Possibly, Middayexpress and AcidSnow are Tag-team editing - to thwart NPOV. Also, fact check: User_talk:Ponyo has blocked User:Vetrisimino0 as an extremely likely, bordering Confirmed sock of Hiyob346, not a  Confirmed sock. OTOH, there was the behavior I criticized and the edit warring (with a tag team?) and Hiyob has quite the sockpuppet army. --Elvey(tc) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Elvey, with respect, repeating edits of a blocked user is not providing constructive criticism. What JohnCD indicated on your talk page about remembering to assume good faith and comment on content rather than the contributor is actual constructive criticism. What Huon is providing right now on the article's talk page is also actual constructive criticism. Middayexpress (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
--Elvey(tc)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Elvey, while your initial suggestions in the menu above were somewhat constructive (and were made after Vetrisimino0 contacted you for input), they unfortunately were just a small fraction of what you actually wrote on the talk page. They are also quoted out of their full context, and omit my reply. Most of the rest of what you wrote has a markedly different tone; it is needlessly aggressive, with a lot of shouting and whatnot. Worse, you actually attempted to readd Vetrisimino0's disputed Faytinga file (!). This is not constructive in any sense. Huon's suggestions are more helpful (and polite) in this regard. Middayexpress (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vetrisimino0 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I only use this account (Veritsmino0). Im sometimes connceted to different wifi's (different IP addresses), but I do only use one account on Wikipedia to edit so this should not be an issue. At some occasion I might have done an edit without login in to Wikipedia, therefore it might be in the same IP-range as someone that has been banned before, or simple a different IP. I will from here on always login with my (Veritsmino0) account before making any edits and try to limit the IP addresses am using. I also think some of the mentioned reason given to block me by the banning admin can be questionable since one of the reasons is that I have at some occasion spelled coffee the same way as another user. If you look at the draft from the "Third party opinion" by user:Elvey you can see that I have spelled coffee "coffee" and not "coffe". The motives by user:middayexpress to try to block me can be questionable as well since this user has been trying to remove/replace many of my contributions for no explainable reasons. Ex. [7]. I will from now on however follow these rules, besides Wikipedia policies: :• I haven’t had any intention to make disruptive edit. I will not do this in the future. :• I have acted in good faith by contributing to Wikipedia pages, handled conflicts by asking for third opinions in order to reach consensus. I will also do this in the future. :• I have not engaged to vandalism in any way. I will not do this in the future. :• I will limit my use of IP’s and always login with my user account (Veritsminio0). :• I will not be a problem to any project. And I have not been a problem to any project so far. According to Wikipedia policy a block is no intended to be punitive. It should be preventative. Blocks should be used to: :1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; :2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; :3. And encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Overall I have made contributions to several Wikipedia projects [8]. I have also added pictures to the wikipedia commons [9]. I have been open contructive critisim, called for third opinions to reach consensus. For ex. [10] as user:Elvey has mentioned at the top of this page. By looking at my stated reasons and the rules I will follow I will not be a problem to Wikipedia. For that reasons I think that this block is no longer needed, I do not pose a threat. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've run a checkuser, and you are  Technically indistinguishable from CdR1256 (talk · contribs) and SEMeri10 (talk · contribs). In this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

User:PhilKnight, I don't mean to be rude but I cannot be acountable for this. One of the account you are conneting me with have been registred but not eaven been used. The second one you are referring to has made two edits on wikipeadia and certainly not by me. And these two accounts has not been edting or been involved in editing the pages I have been editing. Maybe someone on the same network/range as me? I do live in place where there is a shared Wifi. So im asking you, based on these accounts you are refusing to unblocking me? This is certainly punitive and not preventative in any way. Preventative from what?
On the page [11] its says. "This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account. Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor."
I have used this account to edit. And can you explain to me which accounts I have created to misleasd, deceive, vandalized or tried to disrupt. Or how I have created the illusion of greater support for a position, to stir up controversy; or circumvent a block, ban or sanction? I have not asked anyone to create an account to support me. Then these accounts you are accusing me for using would have supported me in conflicts wouldn't they, they haven't. I have not revived old unused accounts and used them as different users, or used another persons account. And I have not logged in to vandalize as an IP adress editor. So how is this block justified? Vetrisimino0 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow and Middayexpress, you have now used your rights to write on my page. Your are basically spamming it. So stop it. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on your abusive unblock requests and comments, I have revoked access to this page. You can use WP:UTRS if you wish to lodge an appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)