Sven the Big Viking
Blocked
editOn July 29th of this year User:Amatulic offered to provisionally unblocked this account[1] with its apparent agreement[2] to refrain from wikihounding and reverting User:HighKing's edits, and to avoid editwars[3]. Since being unblocked it has returned to the behaviour that got it blocked in the first place (hounding and reverting User:HighKing in a manner that conforms to serial sock- and meat- puppets that are being encouraged and/or co-ordinated from off-wiki). This behaviour breaches an ArbCom finding of 2007 - Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles - specifically principles 4 and 5 (Harassment & Tit for Tat)
I draw the attention of reviewing admins to this diff that revert edits by User:HighKing, and these diff that show other actions on articles on which User:HighKing is active but that this account has never edited before [4][5][6][7]. The 1st diff listed here shows this account returning to the original site of the edit war that got it blocked originally (original diff from June 2011). At no point has this account attempted to discuss these reverts rather using the talk-space to discuss editors and subjects instead of article content.
There is also the matter of this account's use of another editor's RFA to harass "the other side"[8][9][10] - again breaching the 'Troubles' RfAR ruling and WP:BATTLE. It's worth noting in this instance that this account has had no interaction whatsoever with the user going through RFA prior to this account making comments at that forum.
For the above reasons it is clear that this account is either, as it was original blocked for, a sock- or meat- puppet of a recurring 'Troubles' sock-puppeteer who is engaged in harassment of User:HighKing; or is otherwise here to engage in battleground activity on articles, and in the talk-space, where editors of the "other side" are active. It is also clear that this account has breached its unblock agreement by returning to the above outlined reverting (without discussion) and wikihounding of User:HighKing.
For these reasons I am re-instating the indefinite block on this account for disruption of wikipedia to make a point and failure to abide by unblock agreements--Cailil talk 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request an uninvolved admin admin to look at this again. I have to take offence at all the prejudicial allegations and unsustainable suppositions being made here ... and the strangely unequal treatment. I was cleared of all sockpuppet accusations before.
I have had no involvement and no interest in any topics relating to "The Troubles". What matters most on the Wikipedia is accuracy and balance of interests, sustained by reference. My edits added those. Most have stuck as valid or accurate, at worst being repositioned in the page. Just like other editors, I have limited time, areas of interest and knowledge. It is hardly possible to claim the variety of the edits I made are "disruption".
If we take one of the given examples above, it seems strange that Rannpháirtí anaithnid himself [11] can state:
"As a phrase, Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland can refer to; The British Isles"
But when I remove an unnecessary question of doubt about an absolutely equal statement [12] "UK and Ireland" referred to as "British Isles", I am accused about it and it is a crime. Surely the two are the same ? Why am I singled out?
If Rannpháirtí anaithnid can state, "Britain and Ireland can refer to the British Isles", why can I not support that position on a different topic?
Surely facts are, and should be, consistent across the Wikipedia?
Having tasted the wrath and machinations of the Irish lobby before, and let's be honest there is one, what drew my attention to the Rannpháirt anaithnid RfA [13] was their universal support, and that we see an almost total fixation on topics related to British Irish relationships. That is good enough to make him an admin.
And yet if I makes a couple of edits, amongst other perfectly good ones adding references as I promised, to keep the Wikipedia neutral and balanced I am infinitely blocked by one of that same lobby.
Surely this has to raise doubts about Cailil's judgement and intentions, and underline the need for such a balance of interests?
To answer this block fully, it is impossible to do so without examining HighKing, if I am to be accused of "Wikihounding" on the basis of a couple of edits! An exaggeration surely?
If we take another identical example from a topic I have not edited, we see HighKing yet again carrying on his anti-British Isles campaign [14].
The BBC and The Independent newspaper both reliable sources and both write "British Isle", surely that is good enough by Wikipedia standards?
So am I and others really "wiki-hounding" HighKing? Or is HighKing an editor which the Wikipedia needs other concerned individuals to watch in order to keep in check his excessive obsession?
Decline reason:
Having looked at this unblock request, and indeed revisited all of your past unblock requests for previosu blocks, the simple conclusion is that you do not get Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a collegial, constructive atmosphere. One of the key aspects of WP:GAB is to show that you understand your behaviour, and show that it will not happen again. You spend so much time focusing on other people's actions you seem to believe that excuses your own behaviours. Well, guess what ... it doesn't. Based on the available evidence I find this block to be not only well-founded, but overdue. No admin will be able to overturn this block - based in part on the WP:AE aspect, and you will need to e-mail WP:ARBCOM for any future unblock requests. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 15 September 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.
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To be honest Bwilkins, I "get" Wikipedia very well. It is a pretence which is blind to simple logic and factual inconsistencies which indulgences those with the big stick of admin powers, or favoured political views, and punishes the most severely those that question the integrity and authority of such admin as Paddy O'Cailil (whose Irish nationalist prejudices, and favor of the Irish cabal, is consistently blatant. Obsessive I would say). Of course I am not going to suck your cocks to play 'your' game. No one should have to. You ignore simple logic, the importance of factual content and any onesidedness which you cannot argue against and talk shit about "collegial" atmosphere as admins such as Paddy O'Cailil make up tortuous false and prejudicial allegations. And you all know it. It is all about petty little power games, not consistent content or facts. I request an unblock for the virtue and value of straight talking and being able to see things how they are. The Wikipedia not only needs volunteers to balance off the excesses of the Irish cabal ... it needs straight talkers with balls to raise issues and keep a balance against all the cock suckers. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think you understand Wikipedia, and I don't think (having reviewed your contributions again) that your intentions are to improve our project. You have had all the last chances that you deserve and more, and failed to take them. Sorry. John (talk) 15:35, 15 September 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.
Admin integrity and inconsistencies relating to HighKing
editAs far as the comments relating to "attempting to engage HighKing in discussions to come to a mutual understanding" ... could I just state that Wikipedia admins in general would come off looking far better if there was evenhandedness in this area.
Let's be honest, HighKing has working on an Irish nationalistic agenda to remove the word British Isles from the Wikipedia for years. He knows what he is doing and why. Increasingly, so does everyone else. Whereas HighKing could just use Google to check reference for its 'fair and balanced' use, he instead places the burden on others to have to do so, time and time again placing the burden on them to go and find what are perfectly simple and easy references to do so.
It is a prolonged campaign that is supported by other Irish or anti-British editors and admins.
How does the Wikipedia deal with such situations? It does not. It operates at a level of tribal warfare where the side with most warriors wins, or the most obsessive warriors with the most amount of time on their hands wins.
HighKing proposes, someone opposes with references, Cailil etc bans. Time and time again.
You cannot create a consistent encyclopedia with that model. You are not measuring the loss and waste, nor corruption of knowledge, it creates. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sven the Big Viking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
John reads wonderfully but it is just another copy and paste denial. The Wikipedia most certainly will be benefit by a balance of interests. a) My edits were all non-contentious and supported by references. b) The blocking admin is known to be WP:INVOLVED in the British - Irish topic area. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sven, as the admin who unblocked you earlier, I am sympathetic to your situation. However, at this moment, please understand that it is pointless to post further unblock requests because it's out of our hands. ArbCom doesn't see these requests on your talk page. You really do need to email them as BWilkins suggested. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 15 September 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.
- Which part of "you must e-mail arbcom to overturn this block" are you having issues with? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, and I wish to underline this, I am not involved in British and Irish topics. I have been enforcing the community probation for the British Isles naming Dispute and Troubles RFAR as appropriate. It should also be noted that HighKing was (topic-)banned by me from this area.
British and Irish admins who are uninvolved in editting these topics *are* mandatted (just as much as sysops not from these places are) to uphold wikipedia's policies and decisions on these topics.
Conflating an editor's (or sysop's) nationality with a content position and casting aspersions contrary to evidentiary fact is a breach of this site's talk page guidelines, civility requirements and done while blocked are grounds for removal of talk page access. If this behaviour continues this account will be prevented from making further posts to this page.
Please see here for a gude to requesting unblockng from the Arb Com--Cailil talk 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The block imposed here is, in my opinion, unjustified. If it was reviewed by a truly impartial person who knew nothing of the British Isles debacle, but who looked at the underlying causes of the disruption, it would probably be reversed. Please allow me to make some observations, given that I've been watching the disruption surrounding British Isles for a while now.
Firstly to Bwilkins; your tone in dealing with this matter is not helpful and only serves to further inflame the situation. You talk to the user in an offhand, sarcastic and childish manner. For example "You spend so much time focusing on other people's actions you seem to believe that excuses your own behaviours. Well, guess what ... it doesn't. ". Also, "Which part of "you must e-mail arbcom to overturn this block" are you having issues with?". You are talking to other adults here, so I suggest you adjust your style accordingly.
Now to Cailil; I note you topic banned HighKing after his most recent set of British Isles removals, but he doesn't seem to have learned from this. He is now deleting by proxy, as it were, tagging the term for citations and relying on others to do the deletions. Here are just two recent examples - [15] and [16]. Are you actually aware of the disruption that this user has caused over an extended period of time? If so, you don't seem to be dealing with the situation particularly well. As a result of this dereliction of duty on the part of you and several other admins the disruption continues apace and nothing is done about it. Here in the form of Sven we have yet another editor trying to limit the disruption - and there is just no other word for it - and like others before him, he pays the price. Instead of concentrating on editors around the periphery of the dispute you really should get to grips with the root cause. The problem is never going to go away until you or some other admin is brave enough to deal with it properly. Enough is enough, now please sort it out. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)