User talk:Geir Smith
Blocked[edit]
 |
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. For the previous version of page, please see here. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks) |
ok, at this point I am indefinitely banning you from editing English Wikipedia, on grounds of disruptive behaviour, inserting patent nonsense to article space, and consistent off-site canvassing and calls for vandalism, combined with positive slander.[1] Feel free to apply for review of this block. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like apply for unblocking of this account. Thanks. Geir Smith (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I have on idea who has started saying I use several accounts. In all events this is not true and may be some malicious slur on someone's part. But I can't say who that would/could be. Geir Smith (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
{unblock | reason=The account User talk:Geir Smith has been blocked for three years. }}
- context: I blocked this account for vandalism (and off-site calls for vandalism). The "sockmaster" tag was added by User:Shirik [2]. This is possibly a misunderstanding, afaik this user has not been accused of sockpuppetry. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
right, now I see what has been going on: there is Geirsmith666 (talk · contribs), an account apparently created to stalk the real Geirsmith, and some admin misunderstood this as Geirsmith himself returning as a sock. If you speak French, you will realize that Geirsmith666 is a troll from France. The real Geirsmith by his own account also lives in France, so we probably have a case of a real-life enemy here. Needless to say, Geirsmith666 was blocked on sight, but this is how the "sockpuppetry" confusion arose. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily "real life". I now noted that Geir Smith is active on youtube under his real name, posting videos about how Obama is the antichrist or something. So this account probably attracted trolls from youtube. Not that this matters for our purposes, I suppose, as nothing here is in the remotest sense conductive to writing an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{unblock | reason=I understand that Wikipedia do checks on people before allowing them to contribute. But I have no intention of resuming contributing as a vandal. Whatever I contributed three years ago has totally changed now and the same environment does not prevail today. I wish to voice opinions about the Birthers etc... I hope Wikipedia isn't censoring this important movement. (I must remind you that Michelle Bachmann and Donald Trump are Birthers and they both have/had double digit polls in persidential bids to their credit). I'm sure that informing about these major events can contribute to the History of Humanity and Wikipedia can't just censor that as not-existent. I understand that you may have opinions, such as liking Obama, but I doubt that that should obscure your judgment in enabling people to speak freely. Thank you.}}Geir Smith (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{unblock | reason=I doubt that blocking someone indefinitely (3 YEARS! and as you explained just now, it was wrongly so.) is Wiki policy, and I remind you that in your block, you encouraged me to contact you for reviewing it. I'm now doing just that. I quote you: Feel free to apply for review of this block. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC). It's on this page.}}Geir Smith (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Well, I'll just request this here and then contact someone else at Wikipedia, if this can't find any success from here.Geir Smith (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Geir Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Mr Bachmann, you wrote that I posted videos on You Tube saying Obama is the Antichrist. This is a choice and a freedom which does not affect or concern you. I hope you see the relation between freedom of speech and allowing someone to contribute to Wikipedia. It is not your business to judge people's opinions. If you don't want to address the issue of freedom, please tell me who to ask for an unblocking of this three-year banned account.I'm sorry if you have such a strong opinion of Obama that it impairs your principles of non-partisan lack of prejudice. I'm a scholarly university researcher so I know only too well, the perils of the mind and of holding to one's opinions in an "opinionated" manner.
Decline reason:
You say, "I wish to voice opinions..."; that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't care what your personal opinions are; Wikipedia is not a place for you to express them. You have no right to "speak freely" here; there are plenty of other places on the Web for you to indulge in such expression. Wikipedia:Free speech explains this. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:30, 21 October 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.
Mr. Smith, the block was for vandalism and not for your "opinions". I could not care less what your opinions are. All I said was that the troll "Geirsmith666" had probably been attracted by your youtube activity, which led to confusion about sockpuppetry. Your block, your unblock request, and the above rejection of your request by another admin has nothing to do with any of this. --dab 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Geir Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
jpgordon, Yes, Thank you for your post. I expressed that mistakenly; my intention is not to "voice opinion", but just to report facts as I find them referenced, in reliable sources. I had experience of Wikipedia's rules and regulations and will follow them carefully and without error. I'm thus requesting an unblocking. Thank you. Geir Smith (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've just spent some time examining your history here. After reviewing your contributions and previous talk page discussions I'm afraid I find it very difficult to believe that you understand and will comply with our editing policies. Part of the problem is that you are being a bit vague. If you could use your next request to specifically detail what led to you being blocked, along with specifically detailing what you would do instead if you were unblocked that would be helpful. If you aren't able to do that then the block will need to remain in place. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 22 October 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 | reason=My account-user page is still indicated as being blocked for sockpuppetry which has been explained above by [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] to be wrongly attributed to me. That's all good but I'm still wondering why this mistake was not righted a long time ago. Given that evidently Wikipedia didn't understand the reasons behind my blocking, I'm happy that's been clearly explained now. As I've just explained in my previous post, I have no intention of disrespecting WIkipedia guidlines or rules in contributing, and of course not in sockpuppetry because I have not done this to begin with. I'm happy this mistaken identity has been cleared up, thanks to your posts above.}}[[User:Geir Smith|Geir Smith]] ([[User talk:Geir Smith#top|talk]]) 22:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock | reason=I'd like to make contributions concerning Obama's historical role in this changing moment in the present runup to the POTUS' election. I'm perfectly aware of the guidelines of Wikipedia as to abiding by a lack of personal opinion in contributing and referring to valid and known sources. Kindly unblock this IP. I have no intention of vandalizing.}}
- Since I just declined one I will leave this for another admin, but I will say that you have not offered the specificity I asked for when declining that request. The logged reason for your block is Attacks on editors, creation of attack/extreme POV articles, disruption of AFD process, warned many times. It's the "warned many times" part that makes it hard to take you at your word when you say you completely understand the guidelines, which is why I asked for specifics, only to get more vagaries . Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Although Geirsmith666 was a one-edit troll, User:Geiremann appears to have been a genuine attempt at block evasion when User:Geir Smith returned to Wikipedia in 2010 and, finding his original account blocked, created a new one rather than requesting an unblock. (The Obama edits mentioned in the unblock requests here were made by Geiremann; User:Geir Smith has never edited any Obama-related articles.)
- We may be deep in the bowels of parody troll accounts here, but a quick Google search for "geir smith wikipedia" finds a user with the same name asking the Fox News Facebook group to visit Wikipedia and make an article about how he's the Messiah and Obama is the antichrist. They laugh it off, and one day later he formally requests an unblock here. The odd timing suggests that the Facebook user is genuinely him, and he is still undertaking the "consistent off-site canvassing and calls for vandalism" that this account was blocked for. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is very concerning, and sufficient reason to decline this unblock request pending clarification of these matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Geir Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Beeblebrox, Thank you for your post. Let me speak a little about myself, if I may. When I posted in 2007-2008, I had no computer experience and as you know, the Internet (websites) was still in it's earlier stages and users were not as professional at things as today (At least this was my case). Since 2008, I've been involved in communicating with users in various forums, discussions etc...This has deeply changed my attitude towards speaking and I've learnt from life and relating to others. I'm not trying to brag or bolster my image, but just saying that starting from practically no experience or exposure to speaking on this medium, I have profoundly learnt and improved. Indeed, I had entered into Wikipedia prematurely, and was contributing, I admit it, in a rather let's say "unprepared way". I readily admit to that. Now that being said, I'd like to also speak a moment about the issues with Obama which are obviously politically linked etc... (not that my opinions about Obama should influence contributions.) The attitude which I have presently has been weathered and has gained in experience (and bettering thereby) by the fact that Obama has been through changes, difficulties as a president. Also the Birth Issue which is one of the topics which interest me, has been through the most incredible episodes, up and downs and cliffhanging developments. Why does this affect my calm and reflected attitude and change for the better? Well, the initial shock at Obama's election has changed to more acceptancy and to seeing things far differently. Of course, my political opinions or like or dislike for Obama play no role, but in 2008, unfortunately, I did think that a rapid - hasty - output of energy in contributing on this topic was important. I don't think there's any haste in doing anything now. Just to peacefully contribute to Wikipedia... You asked me about the reasons I was blocked earlier. To make this short, I use an article by Lisa Miller in Newsweek, which quotes the sources about a lottery draw in Illinois the day of Obama's victory-celebration. I wanted to speak about this in various articles of Wikipedia but made incorrectly formulated contributions. We then got mad about that, on all sides and it went to a clash. My problem was that, when being refused at one spot, I thought my way out, was to go try on some other place, which was stupid and an ugly "tactic", admittedly. But as I said, Internet was a new and unknown world to me. That's the real basis of what was the problem. At the time, I think I had had a computer for two years, but had not trained in it's use, at all. Furthermore, the issue of the Lottery draw is no longer a pressing issue.... as I then thought. And Obama himself is no longer a pressing issue, from my point of view. To prove this, I'll say that Obama's present political destiny is of no personal concern or interest to me at all, so things have totally changed. I can assure you of this point. So presently indeed, the contributions I wish to make to Wikipedia, have nothing to do with any haste, nervousness or anger about any of those issues or any issues. In short, the Wikipedia administrators do not have to fear, that they'll need to warn me about any Wikipedia guidelines, in the future. That's not my intention at all in wishing to have my account unblocked and to resume contributing. I do understand the rules and guidelines, I have learnt about good behaviour during these three years of using Internet since 2008 and I promise I will abide by the Wikipedia guidelines, so as for there to be no need, for any administrator to have to warn me, in the future. Thanks to all.
Decline reason:
See the remarks directly above this request, it seems pretty clear have very recently engaged in off-site canvassing to try and disrupt this project with crackpot theories abut the president being the antichrist. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 24 October 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.
Geir Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First of all, in answer to your post Beeblebrox, I want to say that my intention is not to contribute anything polemical or controversial, to Wikipedia. I make a difference between it and writing on Internet's forums etc... I do not mix those two things........I understand it can be contentious and people be very passionnate about their opinions about this topic but I have no opinions. There are about one in five GOP which have been polled to think Obama is the Antichrist. This is a fact and I have several polls with the same results. No matter what one's opinions, Wikipedia's goal is to report. Whether these people are crackpots or not, well one can report it that way or else report it from those peoples' pov. Pov becomes fact when enough people believe it. This belief that Obama's the Antichrist, covers at least 50 million of Americans. It's their view and their opinion. Wikipedia must merely report, without being biased or prejudiced. I see Wikipedia as being impartial and unbaised. Truthful. Saying someone is crazy, works for some time but can't be a rule. The Soviet Union used this as ameans of emprisonning but it backfired at them. The real crazies were in the Kremlin. The Nobel Prizes they sent to Siberia for being so-called crackpots, proved them wrong later. Rep. Eric Cantor was quoted on TV as saying "It's not kind to call anyone crazy." But then again that's just what's called "being polite." That was forgetten in modern ways. Pity, it's useful to be polite, it enables kindness to work. Being prejudiced and fanatical never works. Geir Smith (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see that you've submitted several appeals of your original block; trouble is, none of the admins who've commented here seem to be the least bit interested in unblocking you. Because of that, it seems extremely unlikely that you will actually be unblocked, no matter how many appeals of this sort you submit. Perhaps you might try again at a later date, after thinking things over some more. I suppose we could draw out the process, and post a discussion to the administrators' noticeboard or some other suitable forum, but at this time I see no reason to anticipate any change in the outcome. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:23, 26 October 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 didn't say you were crazy. I said your theory that Obama was the antichrist is a crackpot theory. Your assertion that 50 million Americans believe this is equally ridiculous. But that's not really the point, is it? The point is that despite your claim of keeping commenting on forums separate from your activities here, you have encouraged people on an outside forum to come and post this nonsense on Wikipedia on your behalf. This is not the Soviet Union and you are certainly not Andrei Sakharov. However I will leave this request for another admin to review. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
might wanna lock this down for everyone's sanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.12.239 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Geir Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Beeblebrox, Calls for people to contribute on my part are things you're talking about which go back to three and almost four years ago. I hope there's been evolution since then. There has been, on my part, I assure you of that. I don't really understand all this debate here about simple things like that of up to 50 million people thinking Obama's the Antichrist. I stand by that figure. Some figures of local polls such as in New Jersey have shown much higher precentage of people thinking Obama's the Antichrist. But for you to want to discuss this as a personal opinion, in my opinion, does overstretch the mission you have as an administrator. It's not your place to be discussing whether or not that percentage of people are thinking Obama's the Antichrist. Now presently, Rick Perry is saying that Obama's birth certificate is not valid and this is making hundreds of thousands of hits on Google and number two slot on You Tube. If your intention is to hold up information, then you're succeeding beyond your wildest hopes and Staline would be proud of you. But what heritage do you leave to Humanity? You've stifled information and free flow of speech. The Greeks and their Free Democracy would hail you as their own. Stifling free speech is really what Greek Democracy is about! Lol! You've made your own, the idea of taking destiny into your own hands. Honestly, is what I say really all that much of your business? Why not let things go their own course? Is that rigid hand really the right course for your karma to follow? Think about that for a second. Are you really doing the right thing?
Decline reason:
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:EBUR, WP:SOAPBOX. There's no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia - and no room for unsourced, original research. As your intent of these unblocks is clearly to disrupt, I am removing your access to this talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 27 October 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.
- Please stop with the overblown hyperbole. And the lying, since we've already established that you were engaging in offsite canvassing to try and get people to disrupt Wikipedia as recently as last week. We already cover the birther movement and the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. As I said last time, this isn't about that, it is about 'your actions. I fixed your broken unblock request so another admin can review it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geir Smith for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)