User talk:Dolberty

Dolberty, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Dolberty! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Dolberty (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm finally here :) Pris La Cil (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Light (fantasy) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Light (fantasy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light (fantasy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2017 (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).

Dolberty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no information in this message??

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you're believed to be the same person as community-banned User:Guido den Broeder, evading that account's block. You'll need to address that. Huon (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2017 (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.

Info for reviewing admin:

I wrote this at WP:REFUND, but I'll put it here. User:Dolberty is a new account who shares an interest in User:Guido den Broeder's invented micronation, Paraduin, and is apparently the only person on WP who thinks Guido was railroaded in his recent community ban (posting about it at Paraduin's AFD and the Teahouse). They "share an IP" with User:Pris La Cil, another new account who shares an interest in an actresses (article now deleted) related to Guido's favorite upcoming movie, and two child models and actresses who are also past editing interests of Guido's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean anything to me. Paraduin was linked right above an edit I made. That's how I got there and how I saw somebody was getting a bad deal. Is it forbidden to stand up for someone? Dolberty (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, oh, ok, I didn't understand. That is easy then. I am not that user. Dolberty (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's convincing behavioural evidence to the contrary. So sorry, but that's not going to cut it. Huon (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence? And what would? You are talking in riddles. Dolberty (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions, and the ones of the account happening to share your IP address, show quite some overlap in interests with each other and with Guido den Broeder. Those are highly specific topics, several of them. Let's just say the statistical chances of coincidence are low. Huon (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interests in common with Pris, I think, she only commented on an article because she saw me comment, but there are other users that I have interests in common with. However I will ask my math teacher. I know something about chances but not very much. That will be on Monday. Can you point out which topics you're thinking of? These are the ones I have edited or commented on:

Thanks, Dolberty (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're aware that Guido den Broeder is the leader of Paraduin since it's noted further up on this page. Your assessments of the quality of the now-deleted article are so wildly inaccurate that a conflict of interest on your part seems likely, and your mode of argument also resembles den Broeder's. Huon (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's about a single topic out of seventeen. One that I haven't even edited. Are you crazy?? You are punishing me for having a different opinion! I already thought there was something fishy when I found that discussion. Liberland fanatics like Yopie coming in to vote. Is there a secret deal with Liberland that I don't know about? Dolberty (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (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).

Dolberty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My teacher says you are calculating the wrong odds. The chance for two people X and Y to have a topic in common is always low, no matter who user X is. You should look at the chance that SOMEONE has a topic in common with user X, not that it's user Y. And because everyone can edit Wikipedia, that chance is high. Also, he says that every topic is specific, what matters is that if a topic is hot, more users will show up. Micronations are somewhat hot among students. They are on the list of 50 topics that we can choose from for our summerschool project, and Paraduin was being discussed on student fora when I learned this. And what Pris says, there is now evidence supporting us.

Decline reason:

This is not about math. This is about your connection to User:Guido den Broeder and User:Pris La Cil. We know there's a connection. Please, explain it. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2017 (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.

No Vanjagenije, the only connection is that I wanted to work on the page about Paraduin. I never even got a chance to do so. You are blind because of your hate and got caught with your pants down, twice. Your math is wrong but also my internet address is different. Dolberty (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you it's different? — fortunavelut luna 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know? Because I'm not him, duh. The point is that you also know it because you did a check. Dolberty (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2017 (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).

Dolberty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Checkuser clearly shows that the block reason is false. I am not a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder, and neither is Pris La Cil. Being interested in the same topic as another user (for both of us one of many topics, mind you), is not forbidden. Users are real people and will have connections to other real people. Some of these connections they may not even be aware of. It is none of your business. Checkuser is not meant to satisfy your curiosity regarding my personal life. Once you have established that the internet address is different, it ends. You should unblock and move on, and respect my privacy.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. This and Pris La Cil are unambiguously technically indistinguishable, and that suffices for this block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:10, 5 August 2017 (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.

Note: given the practically identical declined unblock request at User talk:Pris La Cil, I have removed the talkpage access from this account as well. Any further unblock requests can be made at WP:UTRS. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]