User talk:Sevcohaha

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).

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

Request reason:

Having now reviewed the relevant policies I do accept a block is deserved, but I'm asking for it to be commuted from indefinite. 1) Creating/editing with SevcoFraudsters while Målfarlig was under a short block, apparently – I now realise – quite a serious infraction 2) Some light edit warring (under 3rr) 3) A couple of retaliatory WP:UNCIVIL outbursts

I apologise to the community for the foregoing, understand why it's not acceptable and undertake not to repeat any of the behaviour. I would ask that the 99.9% of my constructive edits made across all the accounts is balanced against the unfortunate lapses. A week-long block seems to be the "going rate" from a quick glance at other SPI victims. I accept I perhaps deserve a premium in the light of 1), but I don't think an indefinite block serves any useful purpose. I would have preferred to have been notified of the SPI and given a chance to state my case before being given the ol' heave ho, but understand this is not always possible. I am keen to demonstrate my good intentions through something like a '2nd chance' or conditional unblock. Thank you for your consideration and I will of course abide by the decision of the reviewing admin. Sevcohaha (talk) 7:25 pm, 21 February 2016, Sunday (17 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I agree with Bbb23 here. I recommend you to take the WP:Standard offer. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 9 March 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.

May I ask why you registered so many accounts in the first place? Max Semenik (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, well it's a good question I'm embarrassed to say I haven't really got a sensible answer to. I suppose it was partly forgotten passwords and different devices but mainly a sort of silly experiment. I'm obviously regretting it now after copping my indefinite block! And like I said I've now got a better idea of the rules and that will be an end to it if I'm allowed back. It must look bad but I'm hoping it will go in my favour that there was no !vote-rigging or using multiple accounts to edit war, the only "abuse" was truncating the block rightly meted out to Målfarlig! (which was not discovered by the checkuser but I'm owning up to in the interests of transparency). That wasn't to continue problematic editing though, just my women's soccer work which I'm often complemented for and keen to get back to. Please understand that it's my first and last clumsy dabble with sockpuppeteering and if there was any serious attempt at deception I would not have given the accounts such similar handles (Sevcoteehee, Sevcohaha and so on). Sevcohaha (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I come back now please? I've sat out the original two-week block and as a relatively new user I'd ask that my explanation about the socking be fairly considered. I genuinely hadn't realised it was such a cardinal sin! Sorry to be a pest but my request seems to have been ignored (although I'm sure no discourtesy was intended). Sevcohaha (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: What do you say about this one? Seams like the socking was quite extensive ([1]), but not particularly disruptive. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I oppose an unblock and suggest the user make another request in six months. I disagree that the editing was not particularly disruptive. The user was blocked not just for edit warring but for "flagrant" personal attacks. I also think that although the other account names the user chose may not violate policy, they were indicative of an aggressive, in-your-face person. Although the conduct of all of the accounts must be considered, even under the Målfarlig! account, which I believe was the most heavily used, the user did not have that many edits (a couple thousand). The sock accounts' edits totaled probably a bit over 1,000. They claim their edits were over 99% constructive. I'm not going to add them up and examine them one by one to offer no doubt a lower percentage. Finally, their contention that the CheckUser (me) did not discover Målfarlig! is twisted. The account was stale, which means only that I couldn't confirm the account, but it was discovered and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]