Suzanne Olsson
Reminder of your topic ban edit
I'm not suggesting you've broken it or forgotten it, but it applies to this account also: "SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs)'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)
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? edit
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".[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] Laurence Gardner was created by an IP in March 2004. 62.254.0.14 (talk · contribs) 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 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been trying to get attention of other wiki editors to help. I should not be blocked. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This appears to be an admission of a deliberate violation of WP:MEAT, even though you earlier promised to avoid any further violations of this policy. This is grounds to leave the block in place, not to lift it. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
A two week block is very lenient considering your past history. The next block will likely be an indefinite one. --NeilN talk to me 12:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
REQUEST FOR PAGE DELETION edit
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 edit
See Wikipedia: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 edit
I've blocked you indefinitely for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18007 was submitted on Apr 12, 2017 00:05:00. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Editors have butchered the original article, inserting biased and outright false information that can endanger me and totally destroy my work in India. I have begged for corrections, begged for help, pointed out the wiki policies regarding Biographies of living people-when anyone tries to correct, then some editors slam me and state that I dont have the right to get "nice" pages written about me. In the beginning, I spoke on three TALK pages asking for help- for this I was accused of breaking the 3 edit rule. I was slammed with even more sanctions. The point is about removing untrue or biased comments on my biography page that hurt me- as you would do if anyone was being hurt or targeted with bias and misinformation, whether yourself, your daughter, or your grandmother. Neither I, nor anyone you "accuse" of being me (sock-puppetry-) has EVER edited any other pages on Wikipedia (not that I can recall.) Why this unfair heavy-handed, prejudice and over-reaction to just this one page? Are we dangerous threats to all Wikipedia? When myself, or my family and friends see the injustice and bad editing, anyone can speak out. The fault is not with any of us. This has been ongoing for nine years. Some editors see the problem immediately and try to repair the damage, but their help is usually edited out and over ridden quickly. Some editors gleefully make it worse, as when one editor just stated he could not verify 'a source'- which I was able to verify almost immediately.But because of him, some vital information was removed. Another editor insists on his right to insert a comment supporting one priest's 'point of view' in an attempt to slant and bias the article- otherwise the comment serves no purpose in the article. These repeated attacks against me, and the bias in editing, has caused me great harm, very real harm in the real world. This is not something I, nor friends & family & co-workers should be blocked for. These hurtful actions should not remain. I am asking the block be removed, the page be modified,WITH MY FINAL APPROVAL and then Page Protected. If this cannot be done, then I am demanding the page be deleted. I see no other way to end this viscous cycle.If I am a 'danger' to Wiki, if I did malicious edits or ANY edits anywhere else on Wikipedia, a ban might be appropriate, but I never edit anywhere else! Some may now note a COI prevents me from addressing these issues, and rightly so ! I am a living human being who has to function in an unusual place in the world rife with terrorism every day. Let me repeat that: EVERY DAY. I have to protect myself and others who work with me. Wiki editors have almost completely destroyed my reputation and work by repeating lies and falsehoods- just because they claim they found these "in print"...I am not a grave robber. I was NEVER accused of planting evidence. I DID have authority from the highest powers (who have repeatedly been fully named). One or two fundamentalist Muslims once raised questions about 'Muslim sensitivities' , but on the whole, my presence and work was warmly received and supported. I am shocked how negatively the Wiki 'bias' editors have deliberately hurt me. Wiki is supposed to be respectable and trustworthy for information- not a sensational tabloid with remarks from dubious sources repeated by disgruntled or naive people. What am I supposed to do next, when I have already begged for help from Wiki for so many years? I have every right to be angry here. This has been extremely hurtful and damaging to me personally, to my entire family, and to those who remain in India and Pakistan to carry on this work. I am weary of this. It is hurtful and fruitless. Thank you.
Decline reason:
You don't get to decide with your "final approval" what can and cannot be on the page. There is no bias here, you have been told by many editors, multiple times that your edits are out of line, you need to need them. Resorting to deliberate sockpuppetry it try to change things only makes it worse. Also, you continued to attack other editors repeatedly after being told not to do so. I'm declining the request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Rick in Baltimore, please address the repeated lies and slander posted about me- that is the real issue. Just enforcing the ban without considerations for the surrounding circumstances is not right. You make it appear that "my sins" are worthy of the most severe punishment, but not those who lie and spin wild yarns about me. Are they NOT accountable? Are they left free to roam wiki devastating peoples' lives with lies and character witness attacks? How many more will be breaking down and crying- because emotionally and professionally their lives are destroyed on Wiki by "editors" who get away with this behavior? You say I "attack" them? What do you call what they have done to me? Please reconsider or just delete the whole page. Surely you cant be that oblivious to the situation here. Thank You.Suzanne Olsson (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not a constructive unblock request; see Bbb23's comment below. Favonian (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
- 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)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18093 was submitted on Apr 21, 2017 03:15:28. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18140 was submitted on Apr 26, 2017 22:48:45. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18297 was submitted on May 16, 2017 00:45:23. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18298 was submitted on May 16, 2017 03:08:52. This review is now closed.