User talk:Sven the Big Viking

Blocked
On July 29th of this year User:Amatulic offered to provisionally unblocked this account with its apparent agreement to refrain from wikihounding and reverting User:HighKing's edits, and to avoid editwars. Since being unblocked it has returned to the behaviour that got it blocked in the first place (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-wiki). This behaviour breaches an ArbCom finding of 2007 - TROUBLES - specifically principles 4 and 5 (Harassment & Tit for Tat) I draw the attention of reviewing admins to this diff that revert edits by User:HighKing, and these diff that show other actions on articles on which User:HighKing is active but that this account has never edited before. The 1st diff listed here shows this account returning to the original site of the edit war that got it blocked originally (original diff from June 2011). At no point has this account attempted to discuss these reverts rather using the talk-space to discuss editors and subjects instead of article content. There is also the matter of this account's use of another editor's RFA to harass "the other side" - again breaching the 'Troubles' RfAR ruling and WP:BATTLE. It's worth noting in this instance that this account has had no interaction whatsoever with the user going through RFA prior to this account making comments at that forum. For the above reasons it is clear that this account is either, as it was original blocked for, a sock- or meat- puppet of a recurring 'Troubles' sock-puppeteer who is engaged in harassment of User:HighKing; or is otherwise here to engage in battleground activity on articles, and in the talk-space, where editors of the "other side" are active. It is also clear that this account has breached its unblock agreement by returning to the above outlined reverting (without discussion) and wikihounding of User:HighKing. For these reasons I am re-instating the indefinite block on this account for disruption of wikipedia to make a point and failure to abide by unblock agreements-- Cailil  talk 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin integrity and inconsistencies relating to HighKing
As far as the comments relating to "attempting to engage HighKing in discussions to come to a mutual understanding" ... could I just state that Wikipedia admins in general would come off looking far better if there was evenhandedness in this area.

Let's be honest, HighKing has working on an Irish nationalistic agenda to remove the word British Isles from the Wikipedia for years. He knows what he is doing and why. Increasingly, so does everyone else. Whereas HighKing could just use Google to check reference for its 'fair and balanced' use, he instead places the burden on others to have to do so, time and time again placing the burden on them to go and find what are perfectly simple and easy references to do so.

It is a prolonged campaign that is supported by other Irish or anti-British editors and admins.

How does the Wikipedia deal with such situations? It does not. It operates at a level of tribal warfare where the side with most warriors wins, or the most obsessive warriors with the most amount of time on their hands wins.

HighKing proposes, someone opposes with references, Cailil etc bans. Time and time again.

You cannot create a consistent encyclopedia with that model. You are not measuring the loss and waste, nor corruption of knowledge, it creates. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which part of "you must e-mail arbcom to overturn this block" are you having issues with? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a point of clarification, and I wish to underline this, I am not involved in British and Irish topics. I have been enforcing the community probation for the British Isles naming Dispute and Troubles RFAR as appropriate. It should also be noted that HighKing was (topic-)banned by me from this area. British and Irish admins who are uninvolved in editting these topics *are* mandatted (just as much as sysops not from these places are) to uphold wikipedia's policies and decisions on these topics. Conflating an editor's (or sysop's) nationality with a content position and casting aspersions contrary to evidentiary fact is a breach of this site's talk page guidelines, civility requirements and done while blocked are grounds for removal of talk page access. If this behaviour continues this account will be prevented from making further posts to this page. Please see here for a gude to requesting unblockng from the Arb Com-- Cailil  talk 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The block imposed here is, in my opinion, unjustified. If it was reviewed by a truly impartial person who knew nothing of the British Isles debacle, but who looked at the underlying causes of the disruption, it would probably be reversed. Please allow me to make some observations, given that I've been watching the disruption surrounding British Isles for a while now.

Firstly to Bwilkins; your tone in dealing with this matter is not helpful and only serves to further inflame the situation. You talk to the user in an offhand, sarcastic and childish manner. For example "You spend so much time focusing on other people's actions you seem to believe that excuses your own behaviours. Well, guess what ... it doesn't. ". Also, "Which part of "you must e-mail arbcom to overturn this block" are you having issues with?". You are talking to other adults here, so I suggest you adjust your style accordingly.

Now to Cailil; I note you topic banned HighKing after his most recent set of British Isles removals, but he doesn't seem to have learned from this. He is now deleting by proxy, as it were, tagging the term for citations and relying on others to do the deletions. Here are just two recent examples - and. Are you actually aware of the disruption that this user has caused over an extended period of time? If so, you don't seem to be dealing with the situation particularly well. As a result of this dereliction of duty on the part of you and several other admins the disruption continues apace and nothing is done about it. Here in the form of Sven we have yet another editor trying to limit the disruption - and there is just no other word for it - and like others before him, he pays the price. Instead of concentrating on editors around the periphery of the dispute you really should get to grips with the root cause. The problem is never going to go away until you or some other admin is brave enough to deal with it properly. Enough is enough, now please sort it out. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)