User talk:Spis Ikke Gul Snø

RE: Obstructive user

I currently have little time to get involved in disputes as I have exams, I recommend you contact an active administrator. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dobredojde

Welcome!

Hello, Spis Ikke Gul Snø, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Balkan Fever 14:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Du Welz

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Fabrice Du Welz. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You are obviously not a new user. You have contributed nothing of substance to the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, and appear to be there only to harass User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.

As a result of this, I am indefinitely banning you from all pages, including talk pages, related to the Macedonia naming dispute. If you wish to appeal this ban, you may do so by asking the other referees, User:Fritzpoll and User:Shell Kinney, to review the ban. I suppose that you could also appeal to ArbCom, but I cannot guarantee that they would agree to take action on it. I personally will not even consider unbanning you unless you state clearly and simply what your other accounts are, and explain why you are attempting to harass Future Perfect at Sunrise. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck yourself. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I am sick of playing this game with you. No one who is new here makes these for their first edits. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence of previous accounts, chico? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (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).

Spis Ikke Gul Snø (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request delanoy to bring forth evidence that prove his accusations. Enough with the misuse of power by clueless administrators. THE EVIDENCE, delanoy. Bring it on.

Decline reason:

No valid unblock reason produced. And Delanoy is clearly correct in his observations, looking at your edit history.

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.

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).

Spis Ikke Gul Snø (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Same as before. @Anthony.bradbury: What's wrong with my edit history? There's only a "go fuck yourself" amid a cesspool of swearing administrators (you're blind to those). I come to believe WP is replete with administrators expressing a series of lifelong repressed feelings. I repeat: I'm not a sockpuppet of another user. Get off your ivory towers and enlighten me with evidence about your alleged accusations. And another thing: an ex-administrator comes and plasters on my user page a box accusing me of being a sockpuppet and nobody removes it.

Decline reason:

The compelling evidence in your edit history is the instant familiarity with esoteric areas of Wikipedia not usually encourted by new users, the insertion of yourself into contentious debates in those areas, and the obvious familiarity with Wikipedia editing conventions which someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia would have no reason to know or understand. Based on all of that, it is clear that this is NOT your first account. The creation of an account to edit in controversial areas in such a way as to avoid scrutiny is not an allowed practice. Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 01:06, 17 July 2009 (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.

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).

Spis Ikke Gul Snø (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Jayron32: I had an account that's been mothballed since around the end of 2006. This account hasn't been blocked or banned whatsoever. Since then I've been editing (small things) from time to time using IP addresses. I can e-mail you the account ID to check for yourself. I don't wish to publish these details here, neither I want them to be shared with others.

Decline reason:

Then use *that* account, please, instead of persisting on this one. If that account is not blocked and you do not behave in such a way as to draw comparisons between it and this account, it will stay unblocked and you will be able to keep editing. Declined. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:29, 17 July 2009 (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.

If I use my old account while this one is blocked then I will be accused of evading the block that is set here. Right? What I ask for is the block here to be lifted and then this account (Spis Ikke Gul Snø) be deleted. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot delete accounts due to copyright issues, and as I said before if you do not act in such a manner as to cause others to connect the two accounts you will not be blocked on that one. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to another admin to respond to the above unblock request. There's not much I could do with such evidence, since i would have no way of confirming these were your only 2 accounts, or indeed confirming anything about your story. However, members of the Arbitration Committee do have extra tools to analyze the situation, like CheckUser. If you would like someone to review your claims, your best course of action is to contact ArbCom directly. The best way to do that is to go to WP:ARBCOM, email a member of the ArbCom using one of the email addresses listed. They will review your case if it has merit. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 01:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I don't use the IP I used 3 years ago. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you can not be accused of block evasion if you revert to an account which you used before this blocked username was created. And you can, if necessary, quote the opinion of several admins on this page to support this usage. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, I'll do so. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]