User talk:Norvikk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 26 March 2019

July 2018 temporary block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:27, 22 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain to me. Why did the evil admin SQL attack me and block me?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (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.

July 2018 indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

That's enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I have revoked your talk page access. If you wish to appeal this block, first read Wikipedia:Appealing a block, then visit the unblock requests system (UTRS). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak while I obviously don't agree with the language used here nor any of the other antics that had been exhibited by the user, I am also not sure if an indefinite block with revocation of talk page access is in the best interest of Wikipedia. This user has meticulously updated several hundred articles on a daily basis. We all know that Wikipedia is experiencing a severe downfall in the number of active daily users. I would say that the revocation of talk page access should have only matched the length of the block for things outside this talk page ie. until heads have cooled off. Increasing the block over things said on the talk page while passions were still running high, allowing the user to continue venting off his stress here to the point where he earns an indefinite block doesn't serve any purpose really. I may find many things that were said about me incomprehensible and more than rude, but in the end the most important thing is Wikipedia.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the analysis and sentiment expressed by User:Twofortnights.

I prophesy that it may be a long and unpleasant task to attempt to channel and modify the behaviour of User:Norvikk (and ultimately prove unsuccesful); however, I do believe the attempt to be worthwhile.

I would propose a number of safeguards, though:

1) Each time he reverts anything other than obvious vandalism, he must use a helpful and non-offensive edit summary. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run concurrently rather than consecutively in the event of multiple infringements)

2) He may not blank this talk page. Archiving after a minimum period of 14 days allowed. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements)

3) He may not make any reversions whatsoever on this talk page. Strike through is allowed. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements) --BushelCandle (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) now I've had time to think about this further, there is a fourth condition I'd like to propose to try and forestall the possibility of two problematic behaviours that occurred in the past popping up again. The two past problematic behaviours were

a) mass reverts to a large number of articles in less than an hour for reasons only of vindictiveness towards a particular editor

b) efforts to circumvent normal edit warring rules by employing additional alternative accounts (or anonymous editing). {In this regard, there may be an increased temptation for him to circumvent any of the special individual rules above, should my proposals meet favour, by tag-teaming and/or sock or meat puppetry.}

Consequently:

4) In any 24 hour period, he may not revert the same Extended Confirmed User more than 3 times. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements) --BushelCandle (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on this since it happened and to be honest I support the block, There's clearly a language barrier here and IMHO there's also a case of NOTHERE too, But the final nail for me was this which is wholly inappropriate,

They've been told why they were blocked and instead of them shutting up and accepting it they've continued their battleground mentality and have given the impression them being blocked is like being a prisoner in a war camp .....

IMHO the indef was justified here but that being said indef doesn't mean forever, They have UTRS so it's not the end of the world for them. –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your uninvolved opinion, Dave, but you may not realise just how many technical and excellent edits Norvikk has made (when he's calm and rational).

Also, you may want to slightly change the diff you used since the one just above is actually a diff showing slightly improved behaviour by Norvikk (since that edit actually removed an offensive adverb) (wan smile). This may be the diff you meant ... --BushelCandle (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BushelCandle, I mean this in the nicest possible way .... but having excellent edits isn't a free pass to behave like they have over the last few days, Sure we all reach the end of our tether and sure most of us either control or go elsewhere .... but unfortunately with this editor instead of them leaving they've just dug themselves a deeper hole as time's gone on,

I would hardly call them removing the word "fucking" as "slightly improved behaviour" - That's no different to me smashing someones door in to rob their house but then fix their door before I leave ..... Point is I robbed someones house (I haven't!!) and Norvikk added the picture under a searing title,

I still feel an indef block is all but justified here sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Anna Frodesiak's block and Davey2010's endorsement of it I'm afraid. It wasn't the word "fucking" that was fucking inappropriate, it was comparing a well-meaning editor, who was going to (possibly unnecessary!) lengths to try and help, to fucking Himmler or one of his admirers. No amount of good editing scrubs that slate clean—at least, not immediately. That was what was "fucking" inappropriate methinks.

I recommend the standard offer. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that the user wasn't ignored either. If it was obvious that he reached the end of his tether then why continue to engage and allow for things to reach Reductio ad Hitlerum? I would say a more sensible thing would have been to restrict talk page access for the duration of the block until everyone cooled off. Also I can't speak for others but for me personally I would never put personal offence above Wikipedia. If someone compared me to Himler during a heated debate but had great contribution I would probably get over it, but that's just me. I was at the receiving end of one Chinese user who used to write such nasty stuff at me that admins had to remove it from the logs more than once. On each occasion the block was given but never an indefinite one, so he is still around and his contribution is practically none.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a standard offer as per Serial Number 54129 just providing they don't repeat this all again. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. However, tolerating an abusive person in the workplace because they make a lot of money for the company is never okay. We would not permit a newcomer to attack others this way. His productivity was the reason we allowed it for so long.

Any admin should feel free to reverse or modify my actions. Changing the block from indefinite to another time would be fine with me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24435 was submitted on Mar 25, 2019 07:43:03.

Notes:

If you are the blocked user, an administrator will find your request on UTRS and should email you shortly. Please do not request additional unblocks. Tickets may take 24-48 hours to process. Tickets will expire after 1 week if you have not responded via the web interface to any emails from the reviewing administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ixfd64 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Norvikk (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter Добрый вечер, я напишу вам по-русски. Вы правы, я не говорю на английском, я использую онлайн-переводчик. Я осознаю, что я выгляжу глупее, когда я использую механический английский. Поэтому я не могу донести свои мысли, смысл искажается переводчиком. Побудьте, пожалуйста, моим переводчиком с английского на русский, с русского менталитета на западный.
Я много раз пытался донести свою точку зрения, но они не понимаю меня или делают вид.
Поехали?) Я около 5 лет редактирую статьи на визовых тематику. Я создавал, поддерживал актуальную информацию и вносил креативные идеи о изменениях и улучшениях, какие-то идеи были воплощены, какие-то нет. Были созданы целые разделы, написаны исторические факты, изменены карты. Это то, что мне нравится - карты, таблицы, история. Я реализовался тут.
Эти статьи, их около 400, иногда подвергаются нападению, как и другие, я полагаю. Это легко отменялось и возвращался прежний вид статьи. В один прекрасный день, приходит некий юзер, и без обсуждения на talkpage начинает вносить свои правки. Я согласен, это не вандализм в его проявлении, правки просто являются его видением, он считал что так лучше, а мнение всех других спрашивать не надо. Например, были изменены размеры карт, наверное, на его компьютере это смотрелось лучше, но зато на планшетах, мониторах с другим разрешением это выглядело плохо. Размер карт сейчас это компромисс, который был достигнут между планшетом и стационарным компьютером. Эти правки были отменены. И тут начинаются чудеса. Юзер начинает не просить, а требовать объяснений, разъяснений, продавливать свою точку зрения, абсолютная уверенностей в своей правоте. А когда его правки были отменены, обиделся и позвал других англ. пользователей для поддержки. Я должен был молча смотреть как рушится то, что я и другие пользователи создавали годами?! Да, я вспылил, эмоции взяли вверх над разумом. А какая реакция должна быть?
Есть такое понятие - «не подходите к крокодилу». Не важно с какими намерениями вы к нему подошли, не важно любите вы его или ненавидите, хотите его ударить или погладить - крокодил есть крокодил: ему все равно, он укусит.
Я был в состоянии деструктивных эмоций. Какую реакцию кто-то ожидает от горячих голов? Кто-то до сих пор обижен!? Говорю, извините. Но я все равно не могу согласится, с тем, что я - вандал.
Я получил замечания, я огрызался в ответ, но никто не сделал замечания другим, когда меня поддевали, то все молчали. Это тоже не остужает. «Признай вину, а потом будем разбираться кто виноват.» Демократия, однако.
Меня заблокировали трижды
За деструктивное поведение - я объяснился, наконец. За создание марионеток. Тут мое упущение, я не знал, что это запрещено и спокойно пользовался этим несколько лет без каких-либо проблем. И третье. Я думаю, что это произошло от непонимания менталитета. Я воспитывался в советской идеологии и советском взгляде на историю. Есть несколько фотографий, которые иллюстрируют эмоции или человеческие качества того времени. Это известная фотография. [1] На ней изображён узник концлагеря, который смотрит на нациста. Для меня и для советской идеологии это символизирует бесстрашие, прямой взгляд, несгибаемость характера. Для меня символична левая часть снимка, но администраторы увидели здесь прославление фашизма! и тут у Анны, судьи, эмоции берут вверх над разумом, и она блокирует меня навечно. Я пониманию ее, я тоже не поддерживаю фашизм. Что сказать, молодец. Это чистое недопонимание.
Что сейчас. Я хочу, чтобы мой аккаунт был разблокирован, я не планирую возвращаться к ежедневному редактированию. Мне нужно закрыть этот вопрос из прошлого и очистить эту ситуацию. Я не считаю себя вандалом и негодяем. Случилось то, что случилось. Надо искать выход из ситуации, а не ворошить это. Во время блокировки я сделал сотни правок. Все они были конструктивными и улучшили статьи. Я использовал несколько ip и аккаунт из городской библиотеки. Если это помеха, то я призываю не блокировать это, потому что это создаст помехи другим, кто использует эти диапазоны. Повторюсь: я не планирую больше редактировать, я не имею для этого свободного времени. Я не буду более создавать другие аккаунты, нарушать какие-либо правила. Я реализовался тут, пришло время двигаться дальше. Много букв, но зато всё. Спасибо. Norvikk (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter Дайте мне знать, если вы не хотите в этом учавствовать. Потому что я подумал, что вы хотите помочь закрыть это дело. Вы единственный русскоговорящий администратор в английской википедии, поэтому написал; это ни к чему вас не обязывает.--Norvikk (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Russian, but I believe the comments above make clear that part of the difficulties were occasioned by Norvik not being fluent in English and using machine translation. I also believe and sympathise with his explanations.

I would support un-blocking Norvik - but with safeguards so that other editors don't have to waste too much of their time because of Norvik's self-confessed faults/handicaps:

1) Each time he reverts anything other than obvious vandalism, he must use a helpful and non-offensive edit summary. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run concurrently rather than consecutively in the event of multiple infringements). Certainly this will be an extra burden for him with his limited English, but it may slow him down and make him think about hitting the revert button rather than cogitating on whether undoing a previous editor's work is really the best course of action.

2) He may not blank this talk page. Archiving after a minimum period of 14 days allowed. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements). This is to encourage education and dialogue - if he had taken the time to (machine) translate and ponder some of the comments left on this page prviously, he might not have ended up in this current position.

3) He may not make any reversions whatsoever on this talk page. Strike through is allowed. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements)

The fourth condition I'd like to maintain is to try and forestall the possibility of two problematic behaviours that occurred in the past occurring again. The two past problematic behaviours were

a) mass reverts to a large number of articles in less than an hour for reasons only of vindictiveness towards a particular editor

b) efforts to circumvent normal edit warring rules by employing additional alternative accounts (or anonymous editing). {In this regard, there may be an increased temptation for him to circumvent any of the special individual rules above, should my proposals meet favour, by tag-teaming and/or sock or meat puppetry. However, if I have understood what Norvik wrote above, he now understands that he should not sock or meat puppet)

Consequently:

4) In any 24 hour period, he may not revert the same Extended Confirmed User more than 3 times. (Penalty 24 hours block for each infringement - to run consecutively rather than concurrently in the event of multiple infringements)

I still believe that it may be a long and unpleasant task to attempt to channel and modify the behaviour of User:Norvikk (and ultimately may prove unsuccessful); however, I still do believe the attempt to be worthwhile since I continue to believe that an indefinite block of Norvik is not in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Before his block, he meticulously updated several hundred articles on a daily basis and with Stakhanovite vigour. Since Wikipedia continues to experience a severe downturn in the number of active daily editors he should be allowed to continue to improve our encyclopedia - but only if his unblocking is subject to logical safeguards and restraints. --BushelCandle (talk) 12:37 NZST, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

talk page access

A note at WP:AN says you want to a request an unblock. I've restored your access to your talk page so you can make a proper unblock request here. See WP:GAB first, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Norvikk (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Anna Frodesiak

I will leave it to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak Why? Be with me. You tried, sentenced, and executed. But this is not the end. This tangle must be untangled. Let's close this case and shake hands.--Norvikk (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Let's shake. I'm sorry if I overreacted. I may have. I do hope you and Wikipedia are reunited and you have many happy years here. Please, please, please be kind and gentle with others. And if others are not kind and gentle with you, I will stick up for you and be on your side. It is most important that you are not chased away and that others are not chased away either. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Google it translate is not perfect, it really does a decent job on the above russian text. Try to be a nice crocodile! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

😀 I try) Thank you.--Norvikk (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak It’s great! Those were dark times for me. I apologize for my rude thoughts and words. If you have any questions or want clarification to clarify the situation, let me know.

I don't plan on going back to daily editing, I don't have time for that anymore. I want to close this book, it's time to move on. This situation weighs on me. I want to leave with a positive, so it's important to me. I wrote it in English, I wrote it in Russian: apologized and promised not to break the rules of Wikipedia. I don't understand what else I can do to unlock my account. Could you help me please?Norvikk (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are now unblocked. Welcome back. You seem like a very nice person who just got very upset. Please be patient with others. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 :::{{u|Anna Frodesiak}} It’s great! Those were dark times for me. I apologize for my rude thoughts and words. If you have any questions or want clarification to clarify the situation, let me know.
 :::I don't plan on going back to daily editing, I don't have time for that anymore. I want to close this book, it's time to move on.  This situation weighs on me.  I want to leave with a positive, so it's important to me. I wrote it in English, I wrote it in Russian: apologized and promised not to break the rules of Wikipedia. I don't understand what else I can do to unlock my account. Could you help me please?[[User:Norvikk|Norvikk]] ([[User talk:Norvikk#top|talk]]) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
+You are now unblocked. Welcome back. You seem like a very nice person who just got very upset. Please be patient with others. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)