Jump to content

User talk:Sju hav

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A notable controversy or a scandal?

[edit]

Among topics that interest me are notable controversies, including those that (might be) relate(d) to my culture—Norwegian. At least one other user of this website, prefers to use the word scandals, to label the topics that I have written about.

The difference between the two terms, is arguable POV. When the word "scandals" is used to label "my" topics, then please be aware that it might be used as "a tool of some sort of activism"—possibly to oppose views thought to be mine. --Sju hav (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there. Controversies is normally a better description of the topic of your edits than scandals, so I shall willingly stop referring to it as scandals. To your credit, you also normally source these controversy sections; the problem is undue weight (and often excessive details for an encyclopedia). Anyway, ...

Blocks that have not been contested

[edit]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the IRC channel where i can contact admins about having my block reverted somehow

[edit]

I have a suggestion for a well-researched and -referenced text, that will improve an article. What is the name of the appropriate IRC channel, for posting a request for a temporary (or permanent) stay in regards to my ban. --Sju hav (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for making an unblock request are contained in the block notices above. The only way to request an unblock is to follow those instructions. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Last year and before that I breached wikipedia guidelines. I was wrong for that. I am now requesting to be reinstated. I have already been reinstated at Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål for a few days already.

Decline reason:

You have engaged in block evasion as recently as today, three hours ago. As such, I'm not willing to consider unblocking you at this time. You need to stop sockpuppetry and ban evasion and given your exceptionally long history of this stretching back more than five years, you need to stop this for at least six months for us to take your request seriously. Yamla (talk) 11:31, 21 June 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.

Sju hav (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put it was that massive constructive edits, albeit by sock puppets, were performed. Of course it is a problematic - especially after a sockpuppet improves numerous articles, and when the socking is unveiled, the edits (with references) are often reverted (in accordance with guidelines). 178.232.194.23 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)/ Sju hav (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think the argument that your socking was fine because you were making good edits is likely to prove successful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
178.232.194.23 (talk · contribs) made a comment here. This appears to be Sju hav, the blocked user. If true, and I'm not absolutely convinced it is, that user made these two edits. If so, the block evasion has occurred as recently as today. If so, that would radically alter the discussion. The breaching of wikipedia guidelines didn't occur "last year and before" but "today, last year, and stretching back more than five years". Sju hav, can you comment please? --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. No need for the comment. I see Sju hav confirms that was indeed them. --Yamla (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP-range usually attributed to Sju hav is a IP-range used by Netcom, now Telia Sonera. Telia Sonera is the second largest on mobile access in Norway. When I use my fallback connection I'm given an IP in this range. IP-addresses in this range is dynamically allocated. I do not say Sju hav should not be blocked, but to claim an IP in this range is Sju hav, as some admins do, is just plain nonsense. Likewise when they try to connect user account on IP address alone. Jeblad (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request before the five year anniversary of 23 July 2016 (The regretable end of the life and artistry of Amy Winehouse)

[edit]

Hi administrators and Jimbo Wales,
I have recently been wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation .

Will I be granted a parole hearing, before my sentence ends?
Can my sentence be commuted?

I respectfully request to be unblocked, if for no other reason than that my back-to-back wiki-sentences have lasted since way before Amy Winehouse regretably passed away. That's a long time ago, even though it seems like yesterday.
Perhaps my sentence can be commuted to unblocking, on condition that I can only make one edit of my choosing - for every good edit I perform relating to articles from a list (for the next five months 25 days and a wake-up).
(That might compare to a work-release, or transferring someone to a halfway house?

If it makes a positive difference to this case, I might add that I have developed spiritually during my back to back wiki-sentences,
and my feet have grown, and now the socks do not fit well:
"If the sock does not fit, you must acquit", some say.

Will I have to spend the five year anniversary on 23 July, with my "body and soul in wiki-lockup"? Sju hav (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see explanation in the thread above

Decline reason:

First off you are not "wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation", you are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. A ban that you violated just 12 days ago. Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive it is clear you have no respect for the community's wishes. Normally I would recommend the standard offer to a user who wants to return, but that is not for people who continue to evade their block. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:25, 3 July 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.

List of articles that need fixing

[edit]

Unblock request January 2017

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Reason for unblocking: Please see below!

Decline reason:

You were evading the block a few days ago. That shows you are unwilling to work within Wikipedia's rules. Thus you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (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.

  • (It seems like the software is not able to show my reason for unblocking, within the template.)
  • I do contribute on Danish-wiki [1].
  • I was unblocked and blocked on Norwegian-wiki in 2016; I did not receive any temporary block during that period. I can not see that topics have been aired on my talk page there [2], that might indicate a justification even for a temporary block. Be that as it may.
  • It seems that I also did survive the opposite-of-a-beauty contest in 2016, on Norwegian-wiki; one person suggested that I should be be banned more severely than an indefinite ban; the vote ended at something like 14-12 - no consensus as far as I know. Be that as it may.
  • I am interested in contributing to wikipedia in English, without drama. (I believe that Jimbo Wales uses the phrase "wikipedia editing without the drama".)
  • I have been convicted of avoiding a block on several occasions, even as late as early July 2016.
  • Here is a link to the stuff that I removed from my talk page today [3].

Mit bestem Gruß! [a German topic that English-wiki does not yet have] - Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive indicates block avoidance has occurred earlier this month. Assuming that's accurate and given the history of sockpuppetry stretching back more than six years, I'd say this user simply isn't eligible for unblock consideration at this time. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now looked at the page that you have linked to. That page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
I now see that there have been allegations of block avoidance after that, and there have been assumptions, and the discussions have thereafter been closed.
Again, the page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Reason for unblocking: Please see below!

Decline reason:

Please see our guide to appealing blocks and note that none of our volunteer administrators are going to donate their time to reading through the wall of text you've provided. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:50, 17 January 2017 (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.

  • I have not been block evading for the last half year.
  • I am actually not the only one in Norway that owns a Sim card from this source (formerly this source).
  • In Norway we have had at least one administrator who has been revealed as a sockpuppet, and subsequently defrocked.
What stands in the way of someone not liking my edits, and editing arguably similar to my edits, so that I get blamed for those edits, and thereafter not be allowed to be unblocked?
  • How are we to know that there only was "one dirty cop on the block", on wikipedia in my country? (We can not know, one way or the other!)
  • (It seems like the software is not able to show my reason for unblocking, within the template.)
  • I do contribute on Danish-wiki [4].
  • I was unblocked and blocked on Norwegian-wiki in 2016; I did not receive any temporary block during that period. I can not see that topics have been aired on my talk page there [5], that might indicate a justification even for a temporary block. Be that as it may.
  • It seems that I also did survive the opposite-of-a-beauty contest in 2016, on Norwegian-wiki; one person suggested that I should be be banned more severely than an indefinite ban; the vote ended at something like 14-12 - no consensus as far as I know. Be that as it may.
  • I am interested in contributing to wikipedia in English, without drama. (I believe that @Jimbo Wales: uses the phrase "wikipedia editing without the drama".)
  • I have been convicted of avoiding a block on several occasions, even as late as early July 2016.
  • The sockpuppet investigations page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
I now see that there have been allegations of block avoidance after that, and there have been assumptions, and the discussions have thereafter been closed.
Again, the page confirmed me as a sockpuppet as late as 2015.
  • I would like to remind of the case of where one user was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of mine;
He was probably not even trying to copy my alleged style of editing etc.:
"Post-archival note: I have accepted GeneralPericles appeal and unblocked. — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)"
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, you are asking us to trust you. When you've previously lied, and when we have strong circumstantial evidence that you are still lying. And when you, even by your own admission, spent more than seven and a half years violating WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. Perhaps these recent edits, these edits that look exactly like you, aren't actually you. But given your long history of abuse stretching back the better part of a decade, you can hardly blame us for not believing you. Your actions have caused this. I simply can't imagine anyone unblocking you at this time. --Yamla (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are saying that I have lied in the past. Whether I have lied or not, is an assumption on your part. To be clear, I have been convicted by several processes of wikipedia, more than half a year ago. (It seems that in your court of public opinion, I have also been convicted more recently.)
  • I am interpreting that you will never have good faith that I can make good contributions to wikipedia.
  • I have faith that there is at least one administrator that does not see eye to eye with you (or however your view will be interpreted). Whether such an administrator will bother to step forward, and voice disagreement with you, that is a different matter.
  • Perhaps we should just gather a list of users that don't like my alleged edits or edits from more than half a year ago;
if evidence is lacking, perhaps an ugly contest/beauty contest will float your boat?
  • I find it likely that there will be other persons than you who will voice concerns to try to sway a decision against me; I think you have made your point. Perhaps you will consider to show some dignity, and step to the side for a while, and resist any urge to hog this thread.
  • I have never seen Jimbo Wales having to call persons a liar. If that is the case, then perhaps you can learn something from him. (Possibly your choice of words opens for drama: If you have a habit of calling people liars, when you are convinced that they are misrepresenting info, then you can later be accused of being a liar - either rightfully or wrongfully.)
  • Please do your bit, to keep the drama in this thread, at a low.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best Wishes! Sju hav (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link [6] showing more about the hurdles that US-American graduate student Max had to go thru, when his edits on en-wiki were not enough to prove that he was not a sockpuppet of mine. Part of his case was to prove that he was not Norwegian, and by showing that he had steam accounts and other accounts outside wikipedia.
Accusations against him started on 14 May, he acknowledged those on the 19th, later he was blocked, later he appealed, and he was unblocked 10 days after the first false accusation.
Mit bestem Gruß! / Best wishes! Sju hav (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Max"/@MaxSem: is the name of the Wikimedia employee, who from his private account asked [7] that the graduate student's block be reviewed.
Mit bestem Gruß / Best wishes! Sju hav (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Last year and before that I breached wikipedia guidelines" when in fact, you were knowingly continuing to breach wikipedia policies and guidelines. You argued that this was indeed problematic and tried to write it off with the justification that some of your edits were constructive. You also falsely claimed you "have recently been wiki-sentenced to 6 months isolation". As as pointed out to you, this wasn't true either. Really, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You've already wasted far too much of my time. I'm sure another admin will be along shortly to decline your unblock request, given your continued block avoidance. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have your opinion, and that is fine.
  • I was convicted slightly more than half a year ago. And it seems that you are trying to paint the picture, that arguments that I used prior to that conviction, are arguments that I still hold.
  • Wikipedia has at least two policies that might come into play in my case: The one is an essay that says something like, Stay away from sockpuppetry (and block evasion) for six months, and there will likely be a standard offer. There is another policy called "2nd chance". (I take for granted that you and some - or many - other individuals are against those policies being applied to me, for the time being. However, there is a chance that someone with clout sees beyond your moaning and your attempts at swaying a decision against me.
  • You said "Really, I have nothing more to say on the matter". I certainly hope that what you are saying on that point is true, however I have my doubts.
  • You said "given your continued block avoidance". I think that you are trying to say that you are convinced that I have avoided my current block within the last six months. Well, I haven't. (No matter how many times you repeat your beliefs, that will not make them the truth.)
  • You seem to be the sort of person who would have convicted the graduate student, GeneralPericles. A good faith conviction without any real evidence.
  • The graduate student was convicted after wikipedia's technical experts had their say.
  • Sometimes on wikipedia one gets wrongly convicted even after wikipedia's technical experts have their say.
  • I have within the last weeks been implicated without a shred of technical evidence, but with the same(?) behavioral "evidence" that convicted GeneralPericles (before he was later let off the hook). And no, I do not have a Steam account or the other bells and whistles that GeneralPericles had, to get your colleagues off his case.
  • I imagine that the system for catching sockpuppets and block evaders worked something like this: One uses behavioral indications to make a case that gets evaluated, and then possibly handed over to the tech experts.
  • It is my assertion that the instances of block evasion that have been loosely attributed to me over the last half year - that those instances have been completely accessible for technical investigation without delay.
  • There have been investigations within the last half year, and to my knowledge there has been no smoking gun. Not one tech expert has said that he/she is sure of anything, and they did not say if their guessing was based on tech matters and/or being swayed by opinions such as yours, in regard to my alleged M.O.
  • You have played the drama card more than once:
Have I lied within the last six months? No.
Is it so, that you lied at least once - more than six months ago? Maybe you are the only one in the world who never told a porker when you were young.
Perhaps the drama card now can be put to the side.
Mit bestem Gruß / Best wishes! 176.11.231.175 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)/Sju hav (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The range that my Sim card is associated with, has around 56 000 different IP addresses. That number could be compared to about one percent of the inhabitants in my country. However, around 25 to 40 percent of the sim cards online in my country, are of the same brand as mine, to my knowledge. Sju hav (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A former tech employee of Wikimedia in Germany - Jeblad - has now [8] offered some insight on the lack of technical evidence in my case. It seems that he is saying that he has no opinion if I should be blocked or not, however it seems to be his professional opinion as a computer scientist, that there is no technical evidence that links me to IPs that have been loosely attributed to me [within the last half year]. Sju hav (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move for having Yamla taken off the further proceedings of this case

[edit]
  • The following edit makes me think that Yamla is getting toõ close to the case:

"14:08, 17 January 2017 Yamla (talk | contribs) blocked 176.11.231.175 (talk) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Sju hav)".

  • Taking Yamla off the case probably would not change too much: All Yamla would have to do, would be to hand his/her arguments on to a colleague, and have the colleague further the arguments. Sju hav (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

From the talk page of Theeasytarget [9]:
"Sure, if that's the right thing to do, then I fully comply. Many thanks again. Theeasytarget (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user was subsequently caught using 176.112.17.175 (talk · contribs) to evade their block. Please take this into account when they inevitably resurface here, asking to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)"
Sju hav (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On IP-range and this user

[edit]

The IP-range usually attributed to Sju hav is a IP-range used by Netcom, now Telia Sonera. Telia Sonera is the second largest on mobile access in Norway. When I use my fallback connection I'm given an IP in this range. IP-addresses in this range is dynamically allocated. I do not say Sju hav should not be blocked, but to claim an IP in this range is Sju hav, as some admins do, is just plain nonsense. Likewise when they try to connect user account on IP address alone. Jeblad (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that it is possible to track down users with a much higher degree of certainty that IP-address alone, but that would open up for a lot more investigative power to a small group of users. It is possible to pin-point the location. It is possible to fingerprint the user. Do we want that? I am not sure, but it is possible. Jeblad (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I allege that you have also said that idiosyncrasies of the timing of the various keystrokes could be used as evidence, without you saying that is a desirable technology. (Think: What if Vickypedia Foundation funded keyboard-keystroke analysis software that were to be used to convict dissidents who were later executed in Saudado-Bahranistan.) Sju hav (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request without alleged wall of text

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I am interested in contributing to wikipedia in English, without drama. (I believe that @Jimbo Wales: uses the phrase "wikipedia editing without the drama".)
*I have not been evading a block (or sockpuppeting) for the last six months.
*A former tech employee of Wikimedia in Germany - Jeblad - yesterday [10] offered some insight on the lack of technical evidence in my case. It seems that he is saying that he has no opinion if I should be blocked or not, however it seems to be his professional opinion as a computer scientist, that there is no technical evidence that links me to IPs that have been loosely attributed to me [within the last half year].
*I do contribute on Danish-wiki [11].
*I have faith that a misunderstanding on anyone's part, and good faith, are not mutually exclusive by default. Sju hav (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC) :*For information: Latest today I have been in articles such as [12] to copy references for articles on Danish-wiki. (I am blocked from editing, but not blocked from copying references.) Sju hav (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reading through the extensive history of sockpuppetry and the walls of text on this page, I'm convinced that you fail to understand what you have done wrong, accept no responsibility for your actions, and have no intention of editing productively under one account. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:35, 8 March 2017 (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.

Need help to change date from "7 months ago" to 21 January 2017

[edit]

Hi! It seems like wikipedia has a piece of information about me, that is wrong[13]:
My current unblock request is dated 21 January, not "7 months ago". Regards! Sju hav (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important, your unblock request still shows up and an incorrect entry in that automatically-generated table won't have any real effect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am hereby requesting to be unblocked, as per the standard offer (in a relevant essay). I am looking forward to contribute at en-wiki in the same spirit as my best edits at Simple English Wikipedia and the best ones at Wikipedia in Danish. For those who say that I should not be unblocked, please study my contributions at Simple English Wikipedia. If I have not corrected my ways, then I would likely have been blocked there, or possibly permanently blocked at Wikipedia på Dansk. I am including a small work list [14] regarding mistakes on en-wiki, that I found yesterday. Sju hav (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Normally I'm fairly willing to start SO discussions, but I see no point in wasting editors' time by posting a standard offer appeal to AN based on the evidence provided. It would be a landslide rejection of the appeal. Yunshui 雲水 10:01, 11 August 2017 (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.

I won't officially decline here (I'll leave that for another admin), but I'll say as both an English and Simple English administrator, I would not support an unblock. Sju hav has been frequently contentious at Simple Wikipedia and often needs to have his edits addressed in some way by admins or other users. He is currently making "List of ________ scientists" articles (all of which are up at RFD on Simple) which consist of only redlinked names. When I pointed out that guidelines state we shouldn't have redlinked only lists and suggested he should turn a reference into an article, he responded that the way I addressed him was "questionable", with an "objectionable tone" and opened a vague discussion about "politeness". I do not believe he has the mentality for contributing on Wikipedia, and would not be surprised if he winds up blocked on Simple English Wikipedia eventually. only (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that one of your pieces of evidence is that you haven't been blocked indefinitely on the Danish Wikipedia. It's worth considering for our reviewing admins that you had a month long block there that ended no less than 3 hours before you posted this unblock request on the English Wikipedia. only (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Only - I hope that your view is not colored by the following deletion discussion [15], where your point of view did not become a guideline.
Note that I was blocked on this wikipedia for using sockpuppets, not for being contentious ("contentious" being the way that Only is describing my edits). Sju hav (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, hence why I didn't bring it up. Consensus has been against me in AFDs before and I'm sure in the future too. I can deal with it. only (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until my next Unblock Request, you might want to consider reading up on how to avoid placing a "poisoned pill", into a discussion.
(The "pill" is your POV etc. about ongoings at Simple English Wikipedia.)
Likely you will want to have the last word in this discussion, and I will attempt to answer it "at the following link" [16]. Sju hav (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can contributions at Wikidata, "add somethings positive" to unblock requests? My contributions at the Wikidata part of the Wiki-project. Sju hav (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request December 2017

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock so that I can remove "Y2750 is around USD400" and also remove a porn link. I want to contribute in other positive ways, without drama. An article about a cigarette lighter company has a link that must be removed immediately: Citation 9 in revision https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Zippo&oldid=814717428 . Another article, Electric bicycle, says that "E-bikes and electric scooters in a specialized shop in Beijing in 2008. (Y2750 is around USD400)". (From today's version https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Electric_bicycle&oldid=815674230.) My German and Danish user pages [17][18] have information about my good behavior for the last 11 months (including a previous one-month block for not writing good enough in one language). Sju hav (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts; you will need to address that, and only that, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:10, 18 December 2017 (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.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sju_hav&oldid=816029739"