User talk:Suzanne Olsson

Reminder of your topic ban
I'm not suggesting you've broken it or forgotten it, but it applies to this account also: "'s topic ban is extended to include all pages on Wikipedia, with the exception of User talk:SuzanneOlsson. Suzanne Olsson is, however, allowed to make comments regarding her biography on Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and on WP:BLPN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:03, 13 May2013 (UTC)  I'll consider it as allowing you to comment where you are commenting, Talk:Suzanne Olsson  Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You have broken your topic ban by posting at WP:FTN
This sort of behavior is part of what got you into trouble before. Not me. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Behavior?
Mr. Weller- I haven't broken any bans that I'm aware of! What are you talking about?. I am following Wiki rules and getting messages of encouragement from Wiki- welcoming me back as an editor. I was advised by other wiki editors where to go and what to do. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On 19 February 2013, User:SuzanneOlsson was issued a topic ban that covered "all Roza Bal related article edits, broadly construed". Subsequently, on 13 May 2013, this ban was extended to encompass all of Wikipedia, except for two pages, User talk:SuzanneOlsson and Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson.   You have now switched to a different User name, which you are allowed to do, so long as you quit using the old one entirely, but there should be a notice on your new User page that you are the same editor as the now-inactive old one.  However, this does not absolve you of the ban.  At the same time, Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson has been deleted, but it seems reasonable to view Talk:Suzanne Olsson as its effective successor.  That means, taking the common-sense interpretation of the ban, that you are only allowed to edit only Talk:Suzanne Olsson and User talk:Suzanne Olsson (this page).  Thus User:Doug Weller is accurately characterizing your edit to the Fringe Theory/Noticeboard WP:FTN as a violation of this ban.  If you think the ban should no longer apply, then you can petition to have revoked but your postings today are exactly the sort that got you banned to begin with, as far as I can tell from the record, so it will be difficult to make a persuasive case for reinstatement.  Until/unless that happens, your activities on Wikipedia are narrowly delimited, and do not include FTN.  I have made a note there suggesting that any subsequent relevant discussion takes place where you can participate. Agricolae (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agricolae, I am aware what happened several years ago. It was Doug Weller at that time who insisted on banning me and reverting the page to what we now have. I have no idea what FTN stands for. I was browsing Wiki, trying different links to find out what page I should post on to get help from other more impartial editors. It is not about me editing wiki pages- it is about me asking other editors for help with one page. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Missing the point. You can only edit two Talk pages.  Full stop.  Anywhere else, including the Fringe Theory/Noticeboard (WP:FTN) as you did today, is a violation of that ban.  If you ever want to be reinstated, quit whinging and start suggesting specific improvements to the one article you can influence, without any mention of other editors.  Agricolae (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agricolae, are you really claiming that when I asked for help from editors on the FTN page, you consider this a gross violation of the topic ban? I should be drawn, quartered and shot by Jimmie Wales for that! Oh wait. I see you've already banned me.   Suzanne Olsson (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a gross violation, but a violation nonetheless. However, 1) that is not why you were blocked, it was for sock puppetry, and 2) I didn't block you - I have never blocked anyone. At some point here you might want to start taking responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. Agricolae (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to stop blaming me for your being banned. All I did was vote for you to be banned at Roza Bal. One vote among another. I didn't even participate in the discussion that got you banned from most of the encyclopaedia. And I told you that at the talk page of your article. Doug Weller  talk 05:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that my post above was before Suzanne Olsson's post - the ban she mentions is a block and was not done by User:Agricolae. The ban I didn't take part in is the one that she's breaking. Doug Weller  talk 08:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug, This is what I see from you. I see you guarding a page about me that has been fraught with errors for years, yet anyone, any time, who makes efforts to correct these errors, you revert with one lame reason or another. You accuse me of every wiki sin,you even accused my granddaughter of being a sock puppet! Do you know who first created the pages for Laurence Gardner and Dan Brown? Their wives. This is very common on Wikipedia and usually not a big deal if it is for the good opf Wikipedia.  But you are missing the point.  This is not about stalkers and hackers, sock puppets and damages. This is about about making one little insignificant page a decent Wiki page with correct information. This is NOT a power struggle or an ego struggle. This is about making a correct Wiki page, such as removing the false comment that the Ahmaddis were the first to mention the tomb in 1902.  Totally false and this has been pointed out for years, but for whatever reasons, you wont allow the corrections. You go right back to finding fault with me, or with the style of edits, or with the sources- anything at all to assert your grand position and denigrate me. You should do less attacking of me, and show less bias, and do more fact checking if you want to be a good editor and administrator. I have examined your 'edits' on wiki, and there are many. I see a pattern. I suspect you have at least one, perhaps two other identities on Wiki. You should be using them all for making positive changes. I am nobody. Why do you take such a special interest in me all these years? You seem to hate me and hate my page. You claim it is about "technicalities" or about how sinful I am as a wiki editor,  but this is not true- or you would have encouraged the page to be corrected years ago. I'm sure you are a really nice guy who just needs a break.  You have a nice day. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that you are naive and didn't understand the sockpuppet issue when you first started. That doesn't excuses your later sockpuppets which I list below. I agreed last night that I'd change the bit about who were the first to mention the tomb, so accusing me today that I'm blocking it is ridiculous. Just as is accusing me of having sockpuppets. Or of being the cause of your almost site-wide ban. You really need to get your facts right and not make accusations like these. As for facts, Dan Brown was created by a male Administrator in January 2004. Laurence Gardner was created by an IP in March 2004. but of course I have no way of knowing who that was. I only mention this to point out that you ask me to do more fact checking and my fact check doesn't agree with your statement. Of course, if you've examined my edits you will have seen that I spend a lot of time checking and finding reliable sources.  Doug Weller  talk 08:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What part of "quit whinging" and "without any mention of other editors" did you not understand? You may think User:Doug Weller needs a break, but you are the one getting one.  You now have two weeks to contemplate which approach to take: you can work toward fixing the Suzanne Olsson page, as you had begun to do on its Talk page, or you can continue this unhealthy fixation on all the many supposed sins of User:Doug Weller that will lead to no improvement to the page but, if pursued, is likely to earn yourself more time to consider your priorities.  Agricolae (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A two week block is very lenient considering your past history. The next block will likely be an indefinite one. --Neil N  talk to me 12:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR PAGE DELETION
NEIL N- I would like the entire page 'Suzanne Olsson' deleted. All efforts to help or improve or correct have been reverted or blocked. This has been ongoing for years. I am not important. This page is not important. My family is much more important to me than wikipedia. What appears on my page continues to be inaccurate and biased, and demeaning to all of us. As a living human person, I am offended, and this IS against Wikipedia policy. At "Wikipedia Biographies of Living persons" it is made very clear that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity....Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion..." I have not been given this courtesy or respect despite years of asking. Therefore, without further discussion, remove/delete  ALL pages related to me or discussing me. Immediately, as per wiki rules. Block others from trying to revert to deletion. Problem solved. Doug will be overjoyed. So will my family and friends. Thank you. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope, I won't be overjoyed. I would be happy however if you stopped the personal attacks and accusations. Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Earlier sockpuppets, current topic ban violation
See Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive. Note the statement that "On 24 May 2008 SuzanneOlsson stated on Katchu2's user talk page that Kashmir2, Katchu2 and NewYork10021 were family members sharing computers, and apologised for the resulting confused edits which had given the appearance of sockpuppetry.[4] She also undertook not to use multiple accounts again." These socks were editing in 2014 and ignoring the topic ban. This morning Brainydad was blocked indefinitely as a sock and Suzanne Olsson (who has broken her ban again at WP:FTN despite my warning her about it) for 2 weeks. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite block
I've blocked you indefinitely for sock puppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not using this page for legitimate unblock requests. Instead, you are using it as a platform to continue your personal attacks and melodramatic allegations. I have therefore revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)