User talk:The Skywatcher and me

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Skywatcher and me! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 01:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hi The Skywatcher and me, a number of edits from this account have raised red flags. Your first edit to a sock-puppet account's talk page is probably the most obvious[1]. Further edits such as this[2][3] conform to a pattern of ppl abusing multiple accounts to harass another editor. Your focus on British and Irish articles, and accounts engaged in disputes therein displays a knowledge of wikipedia not congruent with a new account[4][5].
Please also be aware that edits such as this[6] are subject to Arbitration committee rulings & sanctions (especially Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Final_remedies_for_AE_case & Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles) - tendentious or otherwise pointy edits will result in sanctions being imposed on accounts--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watcha Cailil! No need for you to bother yourself. All this talk of red flags; bit over the top really. I'm not a new user, as I make clear on my page, and Sven turns out not to be sock, and what's this focus you're on about? I don't see it. Cheers. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message on my talk page. Thank you. You were one of a couple of individuals to respond in a friendly, reasonable manner. I am sorry but all the idiocy and crap put me right off wanting to do anything for this website, which was probably the intention. A strange welcoming party. All the same, I am back and did what you suggested. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for Wikihounding in violation of WP:TROUBLES

This account has been blocked for an indefinite duration for breaching an Arbitration ruling. Said breach occured when edits wikihounding user:HighKing were made on the following articles: 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games medal table, UK_Alfa_Romeo_Owners_Club, and Swallowtail butterfly (which this account has never edited before).

The sepcific parts of the 'The Troubles' RfAr findings that I am referring two are principles 4 & 5 ('Harassment' and 'Tit for Tat')

This account was warned[7] about such behaviour above (specifically about hounding and reverting User:HighKing in a manner that conforms to serial sock- and meat- puppets that are being encouraged and/or co-ordinated from off-site). But they have ignored that warning. Since then they have gone on to make remarks that violate WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL about the same user here[8], here[9] and here[10] (where they attempt to defend another account who has been blocked under the same ruling for engaging in the same behaviour).

Considering the level of violation here, the number of red flags raised, and the account's attitude to Arbitration Enforcement in this area (as exemplified in their defence of wikihounding of User:HighKing by other accounts) it is clear that account is either a single purpose account here to "police" HighKing's edits (violating WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLE), or is involved in serial sock- and/or meat- puppetry to harass User:HighKing (co-ordinated from offiste).

Wikipedia is not a battleground. The use of it for such behaviour will be prevented. There are a series of Arbitration findings, community probations as well as ordinary site policies that mark out such behaviour as utterly inappropriate. For the above reasons and the seriousness of these violations you have been blocked indefinitely. As this is an Arbitration enforcement block you may appeal it directly to the Arbitration committee by e-mail to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org--Cailil ^talk 21:12, 21 September 2011 (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).

The Skywatcher and me (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not in violation of WP:TROUBLES. This is clear from reading the text of that enforcement. None of the articles I've edited come under the sanction - none have the Troubles banner. Troubles is related to "The Troubles", Ulster Banner and British Baronets. The editor who blocked me is incorrect in this respect so has no reason to impose a block. He states Single Purpose Account - no, see my edit history. It's clear this is not so. Serial sock, meat puppetry; there is no evidence of this - and I'm neither - apart from contacting User:Sven the Big Viking by email, which I don't see as going against policy. The edit differences cited merely show my concern about another editor. This is not Wikihoounding, it is commenting on a difficult situation and asking for advice. This current block implies that no one can now address problems that are apparent in the area of British and Irish editing, because if they do they will be blocked. I acknowledge that I was involved in some reverting of an article of interest to user HighKing yesterday and I will refrain from such warring in future. Regarding the deleted article UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club it is entirely proper that the deletion should be challenged. I noticed this deletion a while ago but only now got around to doing anything about it. Summary: this is not troubles related. I'm not a sock or meat, there's no evidence. I'm not wikihounding, just concerned about the edits of another user. My account does not operate as single purpose. I therefore ask to be unblocked, and because this is not actually Troubles related I ask using this template rather than approach the Arbcom.

Decline reason:

I can clearly see the line of logic leading to this being an AEBLOCK. You will need to debate this in the proper forum, which in this case will start with an e-mail to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (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.

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).

The Skywatcher and me (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request a second time to be unblocked, for the reasons already stated, but add that it would be useful if the reviewer could explain to me how I'm in breach of the WP:TROUBLES sanctions. As I said above, this does not seem to be the case, so before I have to take it to Arbcom maybe you could explain this. The first reviewer states "I can clearly see the line of logic leading to this being an AEBLOCK". How is this? I've looked long and hard at WP:TROUBLES and there is just no link from my editing to it. As I understand it The Troubles sanction does not extend to all areas of British and Irish editing, and even if it does, the articles I've edited only have a tenuous link to that area. I think the blocking admin is incorrect here. In any event, an immediate, permanent block is, I suggest, taking things too far.

Decline reason:

The only way to challenge a WP:AE block is through ArbCom, even if -- especially if -- you think the block is illegitimate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:43, 22 September 2011 (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.

Administrators will not review a block that arose from violation of an ArbCom ruling. You must appeal to the ArbCom via email. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly my point. This is not a violation of an Arbcom ruling. If you think it is, could you please explain how. Thanks. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skywatcher - any edit related to Irish nationalism related to Britain and/or British nationalism related to Ireland is covered by WP:TROUBLES. Following & reverting another editor, becuase of their percieved Irish nationalist or British nationalist edits, to other unrelated articles is also covered by that RFAR (principles 4 & 5). You had explicit warning of this above.
You've now been pointed to the appropriate process for AE unblock request (by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) by myself, 2 other sysops, and by Jéské Couriano.
Further abuse of the unblock template will result in this account being prevented from editing this page, as per site policy on unblock requests--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it should be noted that this account is blocked, not banned, and that that block is "indefinite" rather than "permanent" (ie of undecided or uncertain length).--Cailil ^talk 14:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

As per your BASC appeal, you have been unblocked. Keep in mind that this is not a guard against future blocks, and is contingent on avoiding the behavior that led to the original blocks. Good luck. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]