User talk:Algarvean

Welcome to En.Wiki

Welcome to the English Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stay. I'll assume you're pretty experienced already, with the Portuguese Wikipedia, so I won't template you, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do have experience with the Portuguese Wikipedia, looking forward to give my contribution here as well. Thank you. --Algarvean (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for as a sock of Xaman79. 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea why I have been blocked nor why I'm being addressed as a piece of cloth. Could someone explain this in a proper English? Thank you.

Decline reason:

You are blocked because the blocking administrator believes you to be an alternate account (a WP:SOCKPUPPET) of Xaman79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 11:16, 14 September 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.

{{Unblock on hold|1=Lar|2=I'm not an alternate account, I created a new account for a fresh start and haven't logged in to my old account since then (don't even have the login details anymore). And starting a new account is not against any rules as far as I'm aware, as long as I only use one. I'd appreciate my account to be unblocked and this removed from my record.|3=[[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)}}

I suggest you edit with Xalan79 instead of this account, it has the more detailed contribution history, and isn't blocked. Socking purely to hide a block history or evade a block isn't a good idea. This account has been blocked on Commons by me as well, for the same reason. Recommend unblock decline. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I already lost my login details to that account. And creating a new account isn't against the rules, in fact I discussed this with another administrator who suggested a fresh start wouldn't be a bad idea and as long as I didn't access the old account it wouldn't be a problem. I even changed the password to make sure I wouldn't relogin to it by accident, as he recommended. I'd appreciate this account to be unblocked as no rule has been violated and there is no justification for it. It shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, next time please check the facts before taking action, I haven't used the other account since I created this one so no rule was violated. --Algarvean (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other account edited as recently as 9 September. Who was the other administrator? Have him or her contact me. I'm willing to unblock this one with the following provisos; the other one is blocked, there are crosslinks placed (and not removed) between that account and this one on the account's user page, in both directions (I suggest the "acknowledged sock" template be used, {{User Alternate Acc}}, see User:Larbot for an example, although there are others you could use, and you set things up so you don't lose your password again. If that's agreeable, I'll flip things around here and on Commons. If it is not, have the system send you the Xaman79 password and use that one. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion with the other administrator can be found here. I have no issues with the other account being blocked, but I don't agree with the crosslinks as it completely invalidates the whole purpose of the fresh start without prejudice. And since there is absolutely no rule forbidding anyone to drop an account and start a new one instead, I request that I'm unblocked without further due and without such crosslinks, and this all discussion is removed from record. Otherwise I'd appreciate this to be taken care by a neutral administrator. --Algarvean (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neutral admin, I've had zero experience with you prior to being asked to check if you were a sock. Which you are. Here is what Dirk said:

I find that a difficult question. Sometimes it is an idea indeed to let the past go by, though people generally notice anyway who you are. A 'change of ways' is better, I think, then people see honestly that you change, otherwise if they find a reason (even an unrelated one), then they see you started under another account to 'bury your past', and may use it against you. On the other hand, a fresh start can also be good, it indeed avoids the prejudice. Just make sure that you don't use this account at all anymore if you make a new one (put in a scrambled password that you can't remember, e.g.). Happy editing!

Please note what he said... it's better to make a change in your ways. This ID appears to be editing in the same areas as the other ID, ~~which is also true on Commons~~. Are you prepared to completely drop your previous areas of interest? If not, I see no reason not to ask you to stick with the original ID, or keep them linked. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not true for Commons. minimal contribs there. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also said «On the other hand, a fresh start can also be good, it indeed avoids the prejudice. Just make sure that you don't use this account at all anymore if you make a new one (put in a scrambled password that you can't remember, e.g.). Happy editing!», quoting just the part which interests you is not the best way to argue. And when I say a neutral admin, I mean someone not the one who blocked me, which is you. I believe Od Mishehu is the reviewing administrator of this block appeal.

As I said, there is no point on a fresh start if it gets crosslinked to my old account and I want to use the new account and not the old one, which is my right and no rule forbids it (you haven't present any arguments against this), I don't understand why I must do what you want when I'm not breaking any rules. Otherwise all the work I had will go to waste and I'll just be forced to leave this one behind and start yet a new account from the start, but this time I'll be sure to use a new IP so no overzealous admin blocks me for considering me a sock puppet. And there is really no need for this except to make my life in Wikipedia harder, which is really demotivating for someone who just wants a fresh start and be useful for this community.

I could understand all this if I had used this account for malicious intents or to avoid a block, which I didn't, I haven't broken a single rule so far.

"Are you prepared to completely drop your previous areas of interest? If not, I see no reason not to ask you to stick with the original ID, or keep them linked." - What do you mean by this exactly? Not sure I understand. --Algarvean (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the whole thing, then emphasized what I saw as important. You need, in general, to change your engagement style, I think, editing here is not a right, but a priv, and you're asking for an unblock, not arguing a legal case. As for "not breaking any rules"... you were edit warring to keep spammy links in an article, and then blocked for it. Are you prepared to stop doing that, and further, to edit in areas of the project that have nothing to do with Algarve? Otherwise I see you as an WP:SPA that has little interest in general contributions and there is no actual need for a fresh start, you're just going to get blocked again so it's better to save the time in advance. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the frontpage of Wikipedia:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by its readers

It seems you have lost focus on what a Wikipedia is all about, where the readers are the editors, not a few editors and administrators. Unfortunately some may think they own Wikipedia and can do whatever they feel like.

As I stated already, and now repeat as you may have missed (I do type alot, sorry), I started this account so I can have a fresh start, obviously I have no intentions to repeat past mistakes related to adding links and I do want to contribute to many different subjects. But what I won't do is limit my contribution because someone (you or anyone else) wants so. Wikipedia is democratic and open to all, asking someone not to share their opinion on a particular subject or issue can be described as censorship or repression, something I could never agree to while I'm alive. Could even be considered abuse of power coming from a person with authority such as an administrator. So if being silenced and limited to my contributions is the price to pay for you to unblock me, I rather wait for the decision of the reviewing administrator of this appeal. --Algarvean (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Attacking me is probably not a good way to convince me that you should be unblocked. I had a chance to review your contributions in other conversations, and I find you rather argumentative. Nevertheless, I'll unblock you if you commit not to focus solely on Algarve related topics and spend at least 80% of your time somewhere else, and if you commit not to insert links more than once if someone else calls them spam, until and unless you get a clear consensus to do so on the talk page of the article in question. That's not "silencing". It's making sure you're not just an WP:SPA (did you read that link? If not, you should)

It may come as news to you, but anyone CAN edit here. As long as they abide by our policies. Up to you. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant as an attack, but I am quite straight forward and tell things as I seem them. I'm not a Wikipedia geek and still have a lot to learn how things work here, but I do understand the basics of freedom of speech and what Wikipedia is all about (the readers are its own editors). I'm all up for a civilized discussion, but I won't give up on my principals to get unblocked from an internet encyclopedia. I hope to become a "veteran" myself and be better trained for this sort of discussions, as they are obviously based in rules and conducts most people don't understand, including myself. I do accuse many editors and admins here of forgetting that newcomers are also part of Wikipedia and they should be given a chance instead of being crucified in the first spot as I was, in most cases without giving much room to argue. Obviously after your last message I don't mean you, although at first I assumed you had your mind made up already. I assume my mistake and apologize for rushing into conclusions.

I do agree with your proposal, and wish to contribute to Wikipedia more than just about the Algarve. Obviously when starting you try to focus on something you know well or enjoy, but I understand I need to focus in other areas as well to keep a unbiased spirit and not commit myself too much in just one cause. I'll refrain from editing or adding links to the Algarve article, although I'd like to finish my argument on the discussion about the links on that article. In the remote chance my arguments are actually approved by the majority I'll be sure not to be the one adding links and let someone else do so, if they feel it's appropriate. I do hope all this (block and discussion) can be removed from my record, or my fresh start has been permanently damaged.

And I did read the link regarding WP:SPA, namely the advice for newcomers. Thank you for pointing it out. --Algarvean (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

subject to commitment to broaden focus. I will remove the crosslinking, or you can, after 2 weeks of satisfactory editing. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I've blocked User:Xaman79 changed the tagging on it from sockmaster to former account. As I say, that can be removed in a while if you edit satisfactorily, as can this entire thread. Please advise what you want done on Commons where you also have 2 accounts. Right now, X is open to edit and A is blocked there. Presumably you want that flipped? ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same for Commons please. Thank you. --Algarvean (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a huge rush, I'd prefer to wait till the weekend, there's an admin I want to consult with regarding Commons. But yes. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ckatz^chat _spy 10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per your comments here and here at the spam blacklist page. If you are prepared to behave in a manner that meets Wikipedia's expectations for civil behaviour, you may apply for a review of this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. However, you should first read the guide to appealing blocks and understand that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. Ckatz^chat _spy 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]