User talk:Åsa Gunilla

Welcome!

Hello, Åsa Gunilla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Skellefteå. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Skellefteå

You need to take your fringe theories to the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors for it there, before adding them to the article again. Thomas.W ^talk 21:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Skellefteå shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your repeated edits violate WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Thomas.W ^talk 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history records of the Skellefteå article, the info about the river Skellefteå still in the 16th century forming the border between the Swedish-speaking and the Finnish- and Sami-speaking populations has been provided in the article for a long time. A well-known linguist and ethnologist Kustaa Vilkuna is offered as a source for this info. All of a sudden, you have began campaigning to have this info deleted.

Prior to you commenting anything about this here, your disruptive actions related to the article were brought up on your talk page. There and on the talk page of the article you have been asked to explain your reasoning for your continued reverts of the well-established and appropriately sourced info in the article. Instead of offering anything which would contradict the widely accepted info and sources, you have simply continued your reverts. I repeat: If some study published after Vilkuna's study contradicts his teaching, please present it, along with an exact quote and a source. If such study exists, perhaps we can include that one too.

(Please note that prior to my establishing this Wikipedia account, Åsa Gunilla, a single edit was made by me in Wikipedia as Annika Dlb. There is no "sock-puppeting" involved: the two accounts have not been used for editing of a same Wikipedia article, and there has been NO such intent. Yet, if required, I suggest that an administrator would help to unite the accounts.) Åsa Gunilla (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Bbb23. I used separate accounts to make edits on separate articles, and I explained that I edited that way. However, I thought this is not against Wikipedia editing rules. If it is, where is that stated? I need an administrator to unblock me. I do not mind using just one account for all articles, if that is what is required from all editors. Åsa Gunilla (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for violating Wikipedia's policy regarding sockpuppetry over a period of several years, by creating a large number of throw-away accounts, in most cases not only one account for each article you have edited but for each time you have edited an article, in order to evade scrutiny (the policy expressly forbids "Creating new accounts to avoid detection"). A violation that has been confirmed by a checkuser. And it's not only this specific account that has been blocked indefinitely but you, so any and all new accounts you might create can be blocked on sight. Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No such checkuser was needed. I am the one who told you in the first place that the account which you mentioned was mine, used for editing another article. I would have responded more, but I was not able to comment on the administrator's talk page. I have not "created new accounts to avoid detection". I do honest work. I have not edited Wikipedia on a steady bases. If I were to return to an article which I know I have edited before, I would make an effort to look up the user account through which I have previously edited, and I would use that account to edit.

As far as I recall having been told, it is not a violation of Wikipedia rules for someone to have edited separate articles through separate user accounts. If an administrator disagrees about that, I wish to hear from them, and we can act accordingly. I'd understand your point, if I would have complimented myself in one single article through a second account, or if I would deny an account used by me to be mine. Unlike you stated, I have not made "repeated claims" that I am a "new editor" in Wikipedia. I have never made such a claim. As I told you before, I have edited Wikipedia prior to this, just not actively. Accordingly, please provide an example of such a claim which you believe was made by me. Then that account needs to be compared with mine, and a checkuser can confirm that you're mistaken. Åsa Gunilla (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted using Annika Dlb after reading what I wrote on the talkpage of another user, but you did not admit using Karin Andxxx alongside this account, but on another article. We can prove that you've been doing this for years, so there's no point in denying it. Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did tell you on your talk page that "I have edited Wikipedia prior to this", and I denied having ever made claims about being new in Wikipedia. I had not been asked any particular question about my editing, and I was away in between, and I had no access to the administrator's page to comment anything. That indeed is account I used for editing another Wikipedia article, not the same. I am not the person who you suggested for me to be. The administrator is correct about that. I do not deny any of my editing. Åsa Gunilla (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully to Paavo273^talk or any Wipedia administrator:

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).

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

Request reason:

I edited separate articles using separate accounts, thinking it's permitted, and I admitted this. Accordingly, as I was notified about Thomas.W ^talk mentioning me to an administrator, I immediately wanted to clarify that I do not use the same user name for editing of a different article, providing an example of my editing done just before as Annika Dlb (no-one had asked about this), stating: "The two accounts have not been used for editing the same article in Wikipedia." I denied Thomas' charges: "I have not made "repeated claims" that I am a "new editor" in Wikipedia. I have never made such a claim. I have edited Wikipedia prior to this, just not actively. I only stated to you: "I'm not banned from anywhere." I have never pushed any "fringe material" anywhere." I asked Thomas, "please do not lie to Wikipedia administrators". When Thomas requested archaeological evidence and Finnish name for Skellefteå, I included such information with sources on my next edit, and I offered more: "There's much more available." I noted, "however, it is not any Wikipedia editor's duty to try to make you understand what has lead each researcher to their conclusions." Thomas reverted my edits. I had no access to respond on the administrator's page, nor was I questioned. Briefly after, I was blocked. Thomas appears to continue suggesting to Favonian^talk that I am the same as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi, even after the administrator stated, "the similarity was not sufficient for me to swing the ban hammer." Thomas misleadingly told the administrator, that I have promoted "Finns being the original population of most of Sweden, including all of Svealand." I have not done so, and neither has professor Julku, whom Thomas mentions in the same context. However, since practically all historians agree (whether Swedish, Finnish or anything) that at least a part of the modern-day area of Sweden has for long been inhabited by ethnically Finnic people, editing anything related to Fennoscandia in an Encyclopedia-like way, using appropriate sources, could not be accomplished if it were to be done the way Thomas appears to want. I have not "created new accounts to avoid detection". As I wrote: "I have not edited Wikipedia on a steady bases. If I were to return to an article which I know I have edited before, I would make an effort to look up the user account through which I have previously edited, and I would use that account to edit. As far as I recall having been told, it is not a violation of Wikipedia rules for someone to have edited separate articles through separate user accounts. If an administrator disagrees about that, I wish to hear from them, and we can act accordingly. I'd understand your point, if I would have complimented myself in one single article through a second account, or if I would deny an account used by me to be mine." In all, I have made only a small amount of Wikipedia contributions, only in a neural manner, only contributing information, quotes and sources (with internet links and ISBN information when possible) which are widely available, easy to confirm and accepted widely as appropriate in Wikipedia and elsewhere. If need, I don't mind using just one account for all articles. Thanks for help.

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you misused multiple accounts, there is still the issue of you creating a new account just to edit-war fringe theories into Skellefteå. If you intend to resume that sort of editing, there is no reason to unblock you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 22 September 2015 (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.

@Ohnoitsjamie: Åsa Gunilla (along with related accounts Karin Andxxx and Annika Dlb) was blocked after a checkuser confirmed they were violating the sockpuppetry policy (by creating multiple throwaway accounts and using various other tricks to evade detection). There's a formal SPI underway, but it's a big case going all the way back to a user that was indeffed in 2006, and has been socking ever since, without being detected until now. Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-one had mentioned anything about Annika Dlb before I pointed out having just made an edit using that name on another article. I have not denied having edited separate articles from separate accounts, thinking it was permitted. Volunteering to explain my way of editing - prior to any sort of user check - is not "evading detection". The small amount of edits I've made are signed the same way, and I have not tried to evade anything, nor have I ever complemented or supported my own edit using another name in the same article. Åsa Gunilla (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a load of BS, and you know it. I posted about Annika Dlb, and about it obviously being connected to you, 3½ hours before you mentioned it, even spilling enough beans for you to realise that there was no point in denying it. And since you've been around for about ten years now you know how to check contributions. It is also obvious that you have read that discussion since you have made very selective quotes from it here. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That part I could not find for that comment. However, I thought I had found it before, and - accordingly - I then accurately stated, "I am the one who told you in the first place, that the account which you mentioned was mine, used for editing another article." Åsa Gunilla (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ohnoitsjamie or any other administrator: I made this contribution and I brought it up for comments and possible objections at the article's talk page. Why? Because the article's history section provided nearly no material, and there was a sign on the top asking for citations. The archaeological info with sources was added after Thomas.W ^talk suggested that such info was lacking.

The Finnish name for Skellefteå is "Heletti". It is a well established fact that still in the 16th century the river Heletti - Skellefteå - formed a linguistic border. I have never heard of anyone trying to deny this. I therefore asked for Thomas.W ^talk to please present any contradicting info, stating that "If such study exists, perhaps we can include that one too." That is not "warring", but offering a compromise instead, a shaking hand.

As Annika Dlb was mentioned, I immediately pointed out having made an edit using that name, but for another article. I have not denied having edited separate articles from separate accounts, thinking it was permitted. Volunteering to explain my way of editing - prior to any sort of user check - is not "evading detection". The separate accounts for separate articles were not made to look different, and the small amount of edits I've made are signed the same way: I have not tried to evade anything, nor have I ever complemented or supported my own edit by using another name.

I have provided hypotheses and sources in a balanced way, in Encyclopedia-style, and only those commonly accepted as appropriate not only widely in Wikipedia but everywhere else alike. That is not pushing fringe. What info should not be included? I don't mind discussing the edit (in contrary), or compromising, or leaving out something, etc. No-one has responded to my proposal to discuss my contribution at the article's talk page, and no-one has opposed it there, after I presented it there in it's entirety, just as Thomas.W ^talk suggested I'd do.

I'll be glad to use one account only for all articles, if an administrator so rules. Why remove a Wikipedia editor who is happy to learn and do what is told? Åsa Gunilla (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

These clearly were throw-away accounts used to promote the same content across multiple pages in an attempt to evade scrutiny. The claim that you didn't edit the same article with multiple accounts, which may well be doubted, amounts to wikilawyering at best. There's no valid reason for this pattern of accounts, nor have you provided a reason why you thought assuming your different identities would be a good idea in the first place. Huon (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2015 (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.

FYI it is a checkuser-block, and cannot be lifted by another administrator without consulting a checkuser, so you're wasting both your own time and everyone else's time here. Thomas.W ^talk
Checkuser blocks can still be contested with {{unblock}}. It just means a checkuser has to be the one to assess it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori!. Are you an administrator? Would you kindly please consult checkuser about this. I'll be glad to use one account for all articles. Why remove a Wikipedia editor who is happy to learn and do what is told? Åsa Gunilla (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for your response, Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! Åsa Gunilla (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Just as I said: "cannot be lifted by another administrator without consulting a checkuser". Thomas.W ^talk 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not exactly a waste of everyone's time. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste of anyone's time, except those who decide to recreationally type about matters they can't do anything about. There are checkusers who monitor CAT:RFU, such as me, and other admins are free to either deny the unblock request, or ignore the request until a checkuser comes around to process it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:28, 2 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Quoting myself first: "As Annika Dlb was mentioned, I immediately pointed out having made an edit using that name, but for another article. I have not denied having edited separate articles from separate accounts, thinking it was permitted. Volunteering to explain my way of editing – prior to any sort of user check – is not "evading detection". The separate accounts for separate articles were not made to look different, and the small amount of edits I've made are signed the same way: I have not tried to evade anything, nor have I ever complemented or supported my own edit by using another name."

Administrator Huon wrote that I have not "provided a reason why" I am using separate accounts for separate articles. These are the reasons:

(1) I recall someone (to my recollection a Wikipedia administrator) writing in the past that it is NOT against Wikipedia rules – although also not recommended – to edit separate articles using separate accounts. To my recollection, he/she too had used separate accounts (not in the same article). As/if indeed this was not against rules, I saw no reason not to proceed with separate accounts for separate articles, especially as the following is true:

(2) My edits in Wikipedia have been far apart from each other. Because of that, and due to my somewhat abstracted memory, the easiest way for me to locate my user-account has been to look it up from the history of the article which I've edited before and which I wanted to edit more, and then continue editing through that account. Later, coming across another article which I had forgotten about, and which I had edited in the past using another account, I was onto keeping separate user-accounts for separate articles. As this was also the most practical, convenient and fastest way for me to move on to editing, this became a pattern: I kept the separate accounts for separate articles, and for all signing-in I've used a common password.

Again, I was under the impression that this is perfectly appropriate way to edit. This way of editing has not been to "promote" "same content across multiple pages" (and I have not participated in such "promotion"), and my accounts are not "throw-away accounts". These are regular accounts created for normal editing of Wikipedia. However, as I stated before, I do not mind settling to use just one account for all future editing, if the rules indeed so determine. -- Åsa Gunilla (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are Art Dominique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a long-blocked user with a history of sockery. We're not unblocking you. Also, there were enough unblock requests already - talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2015 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: It's a checkuserblock related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique, one of three CU-confirmed socks, used in parallell, that were blocked at the same time. Thomas.W ^talk 17:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]