You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bbb23 Good job. You didn't understand the situation, but you made a decision. Bravo. Norvikk (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When will it end? How many times should be told same? Anna Frodesiak Anna, you saw my Russian text? [1] I will copy a part of this text. Again.
Во время блокировки я сделал сотни правок. Все они были конструктивными и улучшили статьи. Я использовал несколько ip и аккаунт из городской библиотеки. Если это помеха, то я призываю не блокировать это, потому что это создаст помехи другим, кто использует эти диапазоны. Повторюсь: я не планирую больше редактировать, я не имею для этого свободного времени. Я не буду более создавать другие аккаунты, нарушать какие-либо правила.
Google translate
During the blocking I have done hundreds of edits. All of them were constructive and improved the articles. I used several ip's and an account from the city library. If it's a hindrance, then I urge you not to block it because it will interfere with others who use these ranges. Again, I don't plan to edit anymore, I don't have any free time for that. I will not create other accounts to break any of the rules.
I TOLD THE TRUTH. Anna believed me, I believed Anna. The ball was untangled.
We decided that. I explained everything. I made a promise I keep!!! What else is needed?!?!?!
I broke promise? No.
Why am I being blocked over and over again.
I left yesterday. I added a retired template. I apologized and made promises. Why don't you let me go?!?! Norvikk (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read through your long rambling notes. I even translated the Russian. I found it hard to believe that anyone would unblock you when you admitted rampant block evasion. The fact that you claim those edits were constructive is absolutely immaterial. When you are blocked, you cannot edit. Putting that aside, you also recently created a named account, NavalDirk (talk · contribs · count), and evaded your block with that account as well. I didn't see any disclosure of that account in your comments (or now). And the fact that you "retired" that account just before you requested an unblock here doesn't help you. Let me remind you that in your extensive block log, you have already been blocked for socking. Finally, I don't see why you even care if you claim you are not going to edit here anymore because you don't have time (although you seem to have a lot of time on your hands frankly). Just so you know, this is a CheckUser block and can only be overturned by me or by another CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I admitted this fact. account from the city library Where here deception?Norvikk (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exit from this situation? What it is necessary to make that the account was unblocking and I could leave from here. What?!?Norvikk (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can change the block for month, half a year, year. After this time I will come here, I will clean the page, I will add a template. What should I do to get a divorce? Norvikk (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't name the account, but even if you had, it would have made no difference. You have talk page access at the moment. If you want to come back in six months and request an unblock, it will be considered, but it will be rejected if you have been evading your block in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it doesn't matter, why are you talking and asking about it? Do you have any questions that metter? Do you want to clarify something else? Because I don't want to hear it again: you didn't say it.
I have a dynamic ip. It changes every day. I use the Internet in the city library. Someone else can use these ip addresses. How can I prove it wasn't me?
I didn't plan on coming back here, but you won't let me go. I will invite you here on September 27, 2019. I hope you will remember me and this case, because I do not want to repeat everything again and again.--Norvikk (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

«...I found it hard to believe that anyone would unblock you when you admitted rampant block evasion...» It's trust and mercy. These are amazing qualities for a judge.Norvikk (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bbb23: I ask for clarification. I was locked 4 months ago and can only apply for an unlock in September. But I've read about the possibility of doing this before - Standard offer with Variations. Can my contribution for Wiki Commons be used to reduce the blocking time? [2] --Norvikk (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CheckUser Bbb23 is apparently too busy to answer. Let me ask others: Can I ask about early account unlock in this situation? NinjaRobotPirate thanks. Norvikk (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Frodesiak Yesterday I came cap in hand. I wanted to close this case. It was our conflict, it was resolved, we shook hands. I wrote the truth. I did not deceive you and did not use your kindness in the mercenary purposes. You believed me, I believed you. You made the decision, but your powers were not enough for this purpose. They think that I am a vandal and the villain. It is a lie. Thanks for your trust.Norvikk (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what's going on here or why I was pinged. If you want to be unblocked, please use ((unblock)). I would suggest including 50–100 words in the reason= field that concisely explain what happened, why you were blocked, and why it's no longer necessary. By the way, it's probably best to avoid doing a mass-ping on your talk page when you're blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's what I needed.Norvikk (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am asking to consider removing the lock.
On the standard offer page, I read about the possibility to request an unlock earlier than six months if there is a useful contribution to other WMF projects. I hope my contribution for WikiCommons is such. [3]
I was blocked by Bbb23 4 months ago because I created and used a puppet account. I used the account for normal editing. I didn't use it for vandalism or destruction. The contribution was useful and relevant.
*Without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. with no edit, using any account or anonymously (IP) Done *I promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Done I'm ready to move on. Thanks Norvikk (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[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.

Even if we were to consider a standard offer, it's only been four months. Looking at the block log, which deals with disruption, and personal attacks, I would not be inclined to the standard offer. Please address the issues that led to your many blocks. It's seems to me you have had more than a "second chance". It would take much to persuade me even if the six month minimum had been meant.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked about the possibility to file a petition earlier. I heard no objection. The standard proposal allows for this option. No violations.
Maybe you weren't paying attention. The problems that led to the block were ustraneny 4 months ago. We solved all the issues and I was unlocked. But during this period I used a puppet account. This is the reason for the current blockage.
Have you decided to go back to the past block of emotional behavior? It's closed. You think I should pay the fine again and again. If you pay a Parking fine, do you pay it every year or once? One of the foundations of jurisprudence: no one can be convicted twice for one crime.
“It would take much to persuade me”. I have to write a hundred times, "I won't dodge the block anymore."? I'm sorry, I don't know what you want me to do. This application will be submitted unchanged in 6 months, a year. I don't know what else to add. Causes long been eliminated. I asked about the possibility to unlock early.
I have a different opinion, but in any case, thank you for your time. --Norvikk (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the only problem is time. I propose to replace an infinite block to a time block.Norvikk (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the face of it a time block would seem reasonable - but only if the behavioural problems of edit warring and refusal to engage civilly and in a collegiate spirit with other editors are resolved (for example, Norvikk has a habit of promptly deleting/censoring any comment that he disagrees with/shows him in a bad light).

For what it's worth, I agree with Norvikk's own assessment that he is neither "a vandal" nor a "villain" but while he edit wars without dialogue his behaviour remains problematic for our project. --BushelCandle (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use Google translate to communicate. Electronic translator distorts thoughts. Grammatical and punctuation errors are also possible. Sorry about that.

The war ended over a year ago. If you're still on the battlefield after all this time, it's sad. I do not lead any wars, I live a quiet life. If you want to meet with me, I live in the Central district of Moscow, Russia. There are many attractions here and we can walk from Red Square to Zaryadye Park, for example. A 15-minute walk will be enough. Let me know if you will be in Moscow.

Any other interaction is excluded. Because I don't plan on being an everyday-editor anymore or doing a mass update. I was planning to focus on the Russian articles, because the information in Wikipedia appears after a significant period of time or does not appear at all. I can edit visa articles using Russian sources of information. No one else is doing it. That's why I can be useful. I could update this anonymously, but don't see the point in it, I did it during the previous block. and as told by Bbb23 “The fact that you claim those edits were constructive is absolutely immaterial”. I thought Wikipedia's interests were higher than following the rules. But it turned out that there can be no exceptions. If you are blocked, you can only watch as “your” articles slowly decay (current information does not appear, erroneous changes are made). Rules are more important. I've taken note of that.

I didn't use a puppet account for vandalism, commercial editing, destructive editing. How am I supposed to prove that I won't do it in the future if I didn't do it in the past?? I admitted a mistake in breaking the rules, I made promises to follow the rules from now on. My contribution to commons is proof of that. I did everything I could. Norvikk (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Visa requirements for Somaliland citizens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AINH (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Visa requirements for Somaliland citizens 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/Visa requirements for Somaliland citizens until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

AINH (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]