User talk:Enivak
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Enivak in topic about the block
Welcome to Meta!
Hello, Enivak. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!
— billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Thanks! I will create an page for the closing of the Pontic wikipedia. Eni vak (speak) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
about the block
[edit]@TonyBallioni: can you provide the links i requested to you? you know i did not do anything wrong, when this joke will end? This was not funny. Eni vak (speak) 13:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You requested a link of the blocking admin requesting CheckUser, which considering the blocking admin is a CheckUser, doesn't really apply. You also requested links to "any other clue against me". TonyBallioni supplied two links that hint at it being your sock, and he cannot share CheckUser data regarding that. This is not a joke. Vermont (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Vermont: Except the checkuser data (which only a few access), i suppose that i have the right to know all facts against me, and, as such, i believe i must have them. I don't care the slightest if he's an checkuser or not, just running an program and believing an huge false positive does not seem normal; you are hiding something. I urge you to provide me ALL data (except checkuser) to me, and re-run it. How many times you have blocked an innocent guy because an odd program has done an error? My case is surely not the first. Eni vak (speak) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- The blocking admin was a CheckUser. He was the 2nd CU to look at it, as the first wanted to verify because of your false claims the other accounts weren’t you. As you continued lying here on meta about it, I looked and concurred with their judgement. As I said earlier, it’s my policy to indefinitely block anyone who creates socks to harass themselves, so consider yourself lucky someone else provided a second opinion first. There’s not much else to say: you were blocked because the CheckUser evidence was quite conclusive. Either you were harassing yourself, or you were giving someone else in the same room as you your computer to harass you before requesting it back minutes later to edit again yourself. That’s not the type of thing that’s a false positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: At least, thank you very much for providing me the story behind that thing. However: what's an example of a "type of thing that’s a false positive"? Computers aren't supposed to be flawless. You said that you and the blocking admin "reviewed" the data; you just re-saw the false data. Even my grandmother knows that if there are opposing facts, you shall re-run that thing; you re-reviewed the false data. If you were putting an parrot in your position it would be the same thing; I ask an BEGuser like you (I say that because the blocked guy begs you to re-run that thing) to activate an Completely new checkuser run against me (not just to "look and concur with his judgement); if, again, the results are same (which will not be), block me indefinitely and never call me again "Enivak". Eni vak (speak) 20:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The blocking admin was a CheckUser. He was the 2nd CU to look at it, as the first wanted to verify because of your false claims the other accounts weren’t you. As you continued lying here on meta about it, I looked and concurred with their judgement. As I said earlier, it’s my policy to indefinitely block anyone who creates socks to harass themselves, so consider yourself lucky someone else provided a second opinion first. There’s not much else to say: you were blocked because the CheckUser evidence was quite conclusive. Either you were harassing yourself, or you were giving someone else in the same room as you your computer to harass you before requesting it back minutes later to edit again yourself. That’s not the type of thing that’s a false positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Vermont: Except the checkuser data (which only a few access), i suppose that i have the right to know all facts against me, and, as such, i believe i must have them. I don't care the slightest if he's an checkuser or not, just running an program and believing an huge false positive does not seem normal; you are hiding something. I urge you to provide me ALL data (except checkuser) to me, and re-run it. How many times you have blocked an innocent guy because an odd program has done an error? My case is surely not the first. Eni vak (speak) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)