User talk:Anders Svensen

I don't bear any resemblance in any respect. The block is entirely unjustified and has no factual basis. An Administrator stated that editors privacy is a requirement on Wikipedia. I assumed that to be true, but I am not knowledgeable enough of Wikipedia rules to know if it is. So I returned to that administrators ruling on an article on one single occasion. The editor that imposed this ban has (1) disregarded that ruling, (2) has already banned somebody else who reversed it, (3) banned me for reversing it, and (4) is breaching Wikipedia rules by trying to add editors personal details to Wikipedia. Is it right that somebody can ban anyone who alters in any respect what they have done, and disregard Wikipedia rules ? --Anders Svensen (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New editors don't make such edits.  Sandstein  22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new editor. I used to edit Wikipedia in the past. Also, the IP address is given as being known for your "General Tojo" as being 88.etc. My IP address is completely different as can be seen from the blocking details : It states "IP address: 90.207.71.234" as being my IP address. It doesn't come anywhere near the IP address for your "General Tojo". This should have been checked prior to blocking.

This edit indicates that if you are not him, you are here to agitate on his behalf. Either way, the block is perfectly valid. Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one single edit in question was solely returning to an edit made by "Alison" a respected editor on 28th August 2008. Her edit had reversed what I eventually reversed and had stood in place completely unopposed for six months. The edit therefore can not justifiably described as being to "agitate" because it was a respected administrator that determied in should be that way. "Alison" retired from Wikipedia weeks ago. According to the article's history, the editor that blocked me "Chris 73" originally added what she reversed and only reversed it just after she had gone. I understand that "Chris 73"'s edit is in breach of Wikipedia rules. Reversing breaches of Wikipedia rules can not be considered vandalism. "Chris 73" appears to have blocked me solely for reversing his/her attempt at reversing the judgement of a respected administrator. All my previous IP addresses could be checked. It will be seen that they do not come within the range of "General Tojo".

Throwing vague accusations at the blocking admin is not going to produce the result you desire. What policy, specifically, are you claiming that Chris 73 violated? Simply undoing an edit made by another admin is not a policy violation - Alison made her edit based on her opinion, and Chris 73 apparently disagreed with it. On the other hand, if you are not a sockpuppet as accused, what led you to make a very specific edit to such an obscure page, anyway? —

My username is my actual name rather than a made up pseudonym. I saw no harm in this, as a number of people appear to use actual names. A friend of mine suggested that I use a pseudonym instead. He warned me against using my actual name, because editors personal details had been added to Wikipedia, such as actual names, e-mails, addresses, workplaces, universities, etc. and that editors had been caused problems because of this. He referred to articles on which this had been done, including the article referred to. It was widely accepted that "Alison" was correct in removing personal details from Wikipedia articles. Even "Chris 73" had accepted this as no alteration was made to the article for six months -until immediately after she retired from Wikipedia. Vandalism is adding abuse, obscenities, or trivialities to an article. Reversing to a respected administrator's descision on only one occasion can not possibly be considered as vandaliam or unreasonable. So what is Wikipedia's policy on adding editor's personal details to articles ? I do not know where to find the relevant policy.

Sorry, but your pattern of editing is highly suggestive of a sockpuppet of General Tojo. We have the technical tools to check, but due to privacy concerns, and due to the work it imposes on the users with these special tools, blatantly obvious cases don't get checked. Your story is suspicious: I find it odd that General Tojo's long term abuse page, which his sockpuppets regularly attempt to edit, which is obscure even to users very familiar with Wikipedia, was held out as an example of protecting privacy to the degree you describe. Please see User:Mangojuice/A letter to sockpuppets; I'm now closing down this talk page against further requests because they will be unproductive. Mangojuice^talk 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three administrators declined the unblock, but their reasons for declining were answered with valid evidence that has not been contradicted with opposing evidence. Each time, a completely different issue has been raised and has been fully answered.

Duplicate. Mangojuice^talk 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]