User talk:Henrik Ebeltoft

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Henrik Ebeltoft, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~. Aloha, please accept the WikiWelcome Lei as a welcoming gift for your arrival to Wikipedia.

Once again, welcome!

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 131.111.8.97 lifted or expired. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Can you please clarify what exactly I have done that is block-worthy. As far as I know, occasionally editing as an IP (while forgetting to log in), while reprehensible, is hardly a ground for an indef block. Also, please review my contributions -- are they really so evil? Indeed I have often expressed negative opinions on AfD (as recently), but as far as I am aware, I was always quoting relevant policies.

Decline reason:

In general, editing while not logged in isn't a problem. However, the evidence provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Henrik Ebeltoft confirms that you were using another IP address for purposes that are not in accordance with policy. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (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.

Sorry, Hersfold, but as far as I could tell I agree with Henrik. I'm checking with Casliber to make sure I'm not missing any evidence, but the RFCU doesn't actually present any evidence of abuse, and should have been declined. Mango juice^talk 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkuser case is interesting in that it depends on interpretation. The account is from the same IP as a previous vandalism-only account User:Mean Person, the block of which does give a reason for tendentious editing. More important I guess is the edits in the checkuser highlighted and how one interprets them, either as misleading in contentious areas or a genuine oversight as an accidental forgotten login. The critical issue is how far one is prepared to accept good faith here.

Henrik bear with me, I did discuss this with another editor who thought a block was warranted after I became aware of the case yesterday. I will seek a wider audience to ensure there is consensus that you have been dealt with fairly. If the consensus is that the block was unwarranted then I (or someone esle) will happily unblock and apologise preemptively. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mean person really doesn't concern me. Look -- all those edits were almost a year ago and even at the time were merely jokey and completely unrelated to the kind of editing Henrik does. Note that Henrik mostly seems to edit in project space, for instance. But also check the WHOIS for the IP address: it's a university IP where there are probably loads of students who edit Wikipedia, and where users float from IP to IP anyway. Ebeltoft has a long productive history here and a few people vandalizing from the same school should not make us conclude that he is the same person. And barring that, there's not a shred of evidence that there might be abuse of multiple accounts here. Mango juice^talk 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Generally, there is nothing specifically wrong with editing while logged out, unless one is trying to give the impression of being two different people. Has this happened? If not then there is no reason for a block at all. If so, then we would generally expect the user to be warned and given a short block for a first offense. Also, there seems to be no call for blocking a user based on a checkuser report made 4 months prior. What prompted this?

On the other hand, Henrik Ebeltoft is not the only account editing from this IP address. The two accounts have very few overlapping contributions and have not double-voted on any AfDs. However the overlapping contribs and other evidence suggest the IP is stable and not particularly shared. A word of explanation would be in order. Thatcher 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher -- you're a checkuser so you might as well check -- it seems clear to me that Henrik doesn't use just this one IP address. It's on a campus so who knows how shared it is. See the Checkuser; there was presented as evidence that an IP continued Henrik's reverting but it wasn't the same IP. Mango juice^talk 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the timeframe covered by the current checkuser logs, Henrik Ebeltoft has used only a single IP address, the one confirmed on the CU case. That IP has only been used by Henrik and one other registered user, plus a number of anonymous edits. All the edits (registered and anon) have the same user agent. Minor edits to three shared, rather obscure, articles, plus the fact that the user agent is the same for all edits, suggest Henrik and the other editor are the same person. The checkuser case alleges only similarity of editing, there are no 3RR violations or evidence of deception (the IP pretending not to be Henrik), so it is hard to see this as deliberate evasion of scrutiny rather than accidentally being logged out. There seems to be no cause for an indefinite block here, just a warning for a first (rather minor) offense, and in this case a request to use only one account or to make sure that the 2 accounts are not used in an inappropriate way. Thatcher 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this other account is indeed Henrik's should we request that he indicate that fact on his userpage? I notice that other users with additional or former accounts tend to indicate it on their user pages: User:Secret, User:Bearian'sBooties, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher -- just to be clear -- is the other account blocked, or a vandal? I presume you aren't talking about User:Mean person, which has no similarity to Henrik's edit pattern. LGR: might as well ask, but if there's no abuse, I wouldn't push on it. Mango juice^talk 18:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Mean person, it's not a vandal, and it's not blocked. (Although it hasn't editing in a few weeks.) I'm not sure about divulging it at this point, as the whole block seems out of proportion to the offense in the first place, not to mention 2-1/2 months late. Assuming this is a shared IP (library PC or something) there is no reason to divulge the name. If this is a solo IP, then I'm still not sure that Henrik's offenses (one day of monkey business with Mean person and some logged out editing) warrant an indefinite block. Thatcher 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think, then, that I will simply unblock. Henrik: Please try to remember to log in, for your own protection; if your IP address is used by others inappropriately, there can be collateral damage that affects you, and you can avoid this as much as possible by not editing anonymously. If you are using any other accounts, it would be good to disclose them unless you have a legitimate reason not to. Just to be on the safe side, review Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for what kinds of uses of multiple accounts are considered inappropriate. You are now unblocked. Mango juice^talk 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - Henrik, sorry about the block and I accept Mangojuice's unblock. I agree with Mangojuice and recommend disclosing the other account if it is/was you. Unfortunately there is alot of sockpuppetry about at the moment (i.e. editors involved in AfD with sock accounts for vote stacking etc.) so it may be good to edit in other areas for a while. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ize

Sorry; someone turned your redirect into an article about a non-notable corporation, and I mistakenly credited you with its creation. I'll restore the useful redirect. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]