User talk:Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm

Welcome!

Hello, Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! →Stani Stani 21:11, 6 March 2014 (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).

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocking admin, Kww, in response to a single edit, took action against me with no communication, leaving "Abusing multiple accounts" in the block log, with no SPI, or other evidence whatsoever. Kww very clearly acted out of policy (Wikipedia:ADMINACCT). Therefore, I humbly ask that my editing rights be reinstated. Thank you. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have no idea how you know that Kww acted on the basis of only one of your edits. However, I have looked at all of your edits, and it is clear that this account is a sockpuppet. Also, apart from the sockpuppetry, your editing has been contentious and belligerent, frequently bordering on trolling. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (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.

Sockpuppet of whom?

@Kww: @JamesBWatson: I've yet to see an explanation exactly who this sock is socking for and why it unquestionably passes a duck test. KonveyorBelt 03:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also ran a check on this account, being pretty convinced it was a certain previously blocked sockpuppeteer. I was surprised to find that it actually wasn't, and that I couldn't find any other socking going on. I, too, would like to know who this is supposed to be a sock of. It's clearly some returning editor with some experience of internal workings, but I've no idea whether it's an abusive sock or just a new account, or an experienced IP deciding to create an account - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reincarnation of an indefinitely-blocked user (though probably not the one people have in mind). Given the circumstances surrounding the previous block, I don't feel comfortable discussing further details on-wiki. @Alison:, feel free to send me an email. T. Canens (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed my concern at User:Kww's talk page over this block. This user opposes Kww's bot request, and as such I felt that any block was best handled by another admin. User:Alison of course has the advantage that the account appears to edit at Wikipediocracy - that presumably rules out the small number of really unsavoury folk (at least those that are not still editing

). But I am always leery about off-wiki discussion of "appears to be" suspicions, unless we are protecting someone's physical or mental well-being. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC).