User talk:Trefoil13

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 10:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the block have expired but i can't edit? What's wrong?--Trefoil13 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2019 (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).

Trefoil13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

48 hours block expired=48 hours block expired and i can't edit--Trefoil13 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not provided enough information to take action. Please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to edit. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2019 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Blocked due to resumption of edit warring in relation to locations of stadiums in Greece. See e.g. Confirmed SPI case for Trefoil13] and comments on the puppet talk page, N.J.A. | talk

18:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging KillerChihuahua, Floquenbeam and MelanieN due to recent familiarity of this case and perhaps to chime in in case other action is needed or otherwise more appropriate, thanks! N.J.A. | talk 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but i can't understand why are you blocking me. For use of multiple acoounts?? How? Where the other account? My block for this are expired!--Trefoil13 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit for the a further rationale in addition to WP:NOTHERE, N.J.A. | talk 19:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to make useful edits and revert some trolls, the previous time which i blocked, i blocked because use this account originally a friend's non active for years account and i blocked. I use only this account since the block. I never had been blocked for my edits. And sorry for my bad english--Trefoil13 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, which is why I’ll appreciate insight from other admins as it’s hard to fully understand the issue. I understand you are trying to ensure the information is correct, but in doing so you are continuing to edit disruptively. I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally, but that is what is happening. Perhaps there’s a way forward but we need time for some other eyes on this, N.J.A. | talk 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ N.J.A.talk The 331dot admin reject my unblock request because your block i think that you understand that was a wrong to block, i did't use multiples account, and i'm here to make usefull edits, i would request you to unblock me, when KillerChihuahua, Floquenbeam and MelanieN are come it will too late for my request--Trefoil13 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert edits by the same troll i report them to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations Trefoil13 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And i prepare second report see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/ARORLAVE , and others--Trefoil13 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

And how i use multiple accounts??? my block are expired and the other account isn't active anymore!!--Trefoil13 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin to check it, this is unbelievable--Trefoil13 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged: I can't provide much insight, as I never fully understood what was going on. It is apparently related to spill-over from a dispute on the Greek Wikipedia. User:MelanieN provided a link to a Greek editor who made a compelling case - I think - that Trefoil13 is wrong on the merits of the edit, but (a) I can't find that link now, and (b) it's the edit warring that's the problem anyway. ~~Unless there's a third account, or they're editing with an IP, I'm not sure this is still socking~~ (Oh, I see from MelanieN's page that they've been editing while logged out); the block on this account for socking expired on the 21st. But the fact that Trefoil13 started reverting again as soon as their sockpuppetry block expired, leads me to believe that an indef block is warranted, at least until Trefoil13 agrees to stop reverting on this issue. Forever. As in, they should simply be told they are never to change Piraeus to Athens. Otherwise, their presence here is of no real benefit. Whether they're able to convince a reviewing admin of their willingness to abide by this is an open question. I won't review an unblock request myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Trefoil13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

28 September 2019, I am blocking for no reason, please an admin to check it--Trefoil13 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The given reasons for the block are 'clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia' and 'abusing multiple accounts'. You will need to address this in any unblock request. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2019 (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 am blocking for no reason, please an admin to check it--Trefoil13 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Trefoil13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here. I am blocking today for use multiples accounts but i didn't use it, and later a user accuse me for not usefull accounts because i revert only one troll which have 1000 accounts and ip's. I blocked one time before for using second account which was a mistake, not for my edits, i discuss in talk pages etc. Trefoil13 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no doubt. We established you have abused multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2019 (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.

Comment

I’ve been out of town for a few days; sorry I missed the pings and the discussion. About the editing issue: Here was the explanation from a Greek global sysop. Cliff Notes version: “There is a crosswiki attempt to remove any reference to Piraeus and replace it with Athens in sport related articles as petty trolling of Olympiacos FC's fans.” They made it clear that Piraeus is distinct from Athens, and that changing it to Athens is a way of annoying the fans of Piraeus teams. IMO anyone we see doing that should be considered a troll - possibly sock puppet, possibly meat puppet, but in any case up to no good and NOTHERE. I think we should indef them on sight.

As for this account, Trefoil13, it was minimally involved in the recent trolling - in fact I thought Jjik43 was the sockmaster. But the SPI folks determined that Trefoil13 was the original account, so the SPI file is under that name. The first thing Trefoil13 did after their block expired was to go right back to trolling, and they were rightly indeffed by NJA. They made a string of unblock requests, the most recent on September 28. The next day, September 29 an IPv6 showed up and made a dozen troll edits, and was blocked for a month for EW and block evasion.

Bottom line, I concur with the block of Trefoil13, and if they make any more unblock requests, I suggest we remove talk page access. -- MelanieN (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]