User talk:Politikk

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Government of the Soviet Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congress of People's Deputies

List of governments of the Soviet Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congress of People's Deputies

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union

Since you seem unwilling to follow WP:BRD, here's a straight warning: your edit has been challenged. Until consensus is reached on the talk page, you do NOT get to force your preferred version through. I will revert to the previous version; if you remove the text again, I will report you for edit-warring. Now be a darling and discuss. FWIW, it seems to me that the article contains a fair amount of material that is not present in the redirect target, and thsu this should to be at least a merge. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —DoRD (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

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).

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

Request reason:

Wow. I havn't been active for a while and this is what I come back too? Whats the proof? Can someone tell me whats going on? --Politikk (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence seems pretty clear to me that you are TIAYN; if you are not, you will need to address the reasons why we think you are that user better than just a denial. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 6 July 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.

Just saw the page. Some of these arguements are rather strange.

"An obsession with redirecting pages concerned with various People's Commissariats to Ministries of the Soviet Union:

See this June 2010, this September 2010 or this also September 2010 This person also commented on my user page here for example. Back in 2010 I was involved in a discussion here (I was using the User name Harry Potter at the time)" ... and "Repeated assertions that they are right and other people are wrong See here for example" (when you are right you usually assert you're right... right?) .... "Swearing and using capital letters for emphasis." Is that unormal?

Considering that these "proofs" are so vague how can I disprove them? --Politikk (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: So how can I do that? --Politikk (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you can. All I can suggest is that you read WP:GAB to learn how to craft an acceptable unblock request. You are free to make another request, but simply denying sockpuppetry never works(as then all actual sockpuppeteers and block evaders would just deny it to be unblocked). If you are TIAYN, you will need to request unblock from that account. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: But since I'm not TIAYN ............... --Politikk (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock process shouldn't be impossible to put to an end especially if its founded on guess work. Its feels like Im not being given a free hearing and I feel that to be very sad.. There has to be one way or another you can prove that I am the person you say I am. --Politikk (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all I can say about this. You are free to make another request, for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Yes, but It seems rather pointless since you're saying "You can't prove it. Denying it won't work. We think its you. Good luck!" Is this really the best procedure WP has to offer? --Politikk (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock decline July 8, 2019

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not TIAYN. On the other hand I'm stubborn and not always the most negotiable. Alas I find it hard to accept that WP:CONSENSUS protects users from improving articles. That is, they don't use sources to back up their assertions but rather WP:CONSENSUS. If that is how English WP wants to be fine. I'll just edit other articles and respect the existing culture. I feel its sad that people have just accused me of being TISYN and get away with it. So what if it looks similar? I find the lack of trust hurtful. I am not admitting to being someone I'm not. I do understand however that my behavior at the Council of People's Commissars page wasn't helpful. I find it hard to swallow that "opinion of users" are more important then Soviet laws and Western third party sources. BUT if that is how WP works I will accept those rules completely. The saddest thing is.. I don't even know if I want to be part of the WP community anymore. Getting accused of this just feels terrible! --Politikk (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. Generally, behavioral issues are also a factor. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, and we are dubious of coincidences when combined with technical findings. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. You will need to deal with all the issues associated with all of your accounts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 8 July 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.

@Dlohcierekim: Can you get them to implement a CheckUser thingydingy? THen this will be solved. --Politikk (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A check user can be used to prove a connection, but it cannot prove a non connection. On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying @Dlohcierekim: its impossible to unblock me? Why event grant me the right to request unblock if its impossible? I am not TAYIN --Politikk (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:SOCKBLOCK states, "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." Unless you have other information to share, this is probably the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What information do you need? --Politikk (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular information I am looking for, I'm simply stating the current state of your situation. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: But you would have thought that a user with your responsiblity would take this seriously. Is it really worth losing a good WP contributor just because of a maybe? I will literally give you any information you want, but I have no clue what you want because no one is saying anything at all. --Politikk (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do take this seriously, and you have been given much information about this here and by the sockpuppet investigation. My opinion is unchanged from my decline of your request above; "The evidence seems pretty clear to me that you are TIAYN; if you are not, you will need to address the reasons why we think you are that user better than just a denial." 331dot (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What does this even mean?; "if you are not, you will need to address the reasons why we think you are that user better than just a denial". What should I do? Give you my birth name, country, city of origin, send you my CV? That sentence literally only makes sense to you anyone else who speaks the same language as you. How can I defend against extremely vague charges? We apparently have interests in the same thing. What can I do about that? Literally nothing. Its nothing to deny, nothing to argue about. But that's the sole arguement behind the block. It looks like him.

You guys have given me much information which literally says one thing; it doesn't matter if its true or not, you have limited abilities to prove yourself and we don't care if we're wrong (that is, better to uphold a wrongful block then letting a sockpuppeter run free). As far as I can tell I havn't received one single solution out of this problem. You gius might feel like you're informed me. But I am the receiver of you're messages and I am as clueless as when I logged inn, tried to edit and saw that I had been blocked. My heart rate actually increased when I saw it. --Politikk (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given a solution to this problem; if you are unable or unwilling to follow through with it, there is nothing more to be done here, as policy states. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reading and rereading the GAB, my best advice is to email the WP:arbitration committee--

arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Sorry I could not be more helpful. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Thank you! :) --Politikk (talk) 15:21, 10 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. Im still not the other guy but I' a productive member of Norwegian WP. I've created a number of articles there that are missing here, mostly about Cuba. Interestingly the reason I want to edit here is because of information in this article [1]. This means that information on WP English is out of date. Bashar al-Assad stopped being Regional Secretary in 2018. In 2018 the National and Regional leadership were merged, and Bashar al-Assad became Secretary General and Hilal Hilal went from "Assistant Regional Secretary" to "Assistant Secretary General". It also means that Abdullah al-Ahmar is no longer the de facto head of the pan-Arab Ba'ath national movement. :In either case I haven't evaded the block, and I'm active on Norwegian WP. --Politikk (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC) : I also found this source [2] The National Command article has to be moved to "Central Leadership", and the "National Command" was dissolved on 14. May 2017. Interesting things that have been missed. --Politikk (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's nothing new here, and no grounds to consider lifting the block. Perhaps your best chance is arbcom, as explained above. Yamla (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2020 (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'm not reviewing this, but you still have not addressed the fact that there is technical information to support the block. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The problem here is that I've been accused of being a user because I have likeness to the user - that is my understanding of the technical details. I honestly don't know how to refute that. Or are the other technical details I should know about? :) --Politikk (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only checkusers are privy to the exact technical information(even regular admins like me are not) and they can only talk in vague generalities as to what the technical information is. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: The problem Yamla is that Arbcom said I could only be blocked here. And "There's nothing new here"... Doesn't that arguement fall flat when its proven if you ask at Norwegian Wikipedia that I function (if not well) averagely? Or doesn't that count? What counts? What do you want? I mean, I could have established a new account a long time ago. It would have been easier. Just editing Indian history instead of Cuban and Russian :P But I haven't. Isn't that proof? --Politikk (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Yes, but how can I defend myself from unknown accusations? You are really making that hard for me --Politikk (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing we can do for you here. We simply aren't equipped to review blocks like this, given both the behavioural and technical evidence noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trust Is All You Need/Archive. ArbCom is. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]