User talk:Boomer Vial

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Boomer Vial's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 7 days

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!}

If I see something such as a box, template, image, etc., on another user/user talk page that catches my eye, I will "borrow" it. More than likely without asking. ;) Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!}

WikiLove, barnstars, and more!

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boomer Vial. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an explanation for this edit?

Do you have any explanation for this highly-inappropriate edit, or should we be considering taking action such as a topic ban from gender-related topics? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NorthbySouthBaranof I reverted it after I did it, lmfao. What absolute Nazism that you threaten to ban me for vandalizing an article one time, and proceeded to revert said vandalism. Wikipedia has become a joke. The true proprietary of fake news. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 00:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, revoking talk page access because this account has clearly been compromised. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact trustandsafety

wikimedia.org. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}.

I just don't see a user who was extremely active in reverting vandalism and this sort of stuff going on to vandalize an article this way. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson Wrong. I see since the accusation of my account being compromised didn't stick, you've moved on to baseless accusations that I'm a sock. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Actually, Ian was defending you in his comments, as he believed you wouldn't have purposely vandalised Wikipedia, based on your history of good edits. That is why he believed your account had been compromised, meaning that someone else had stolen your password or otherwise hacked your account, and made the vandalism from another location with another device. The account was then blocked to protect you and your reputation. As part of that block, a Check User was then run to determine the extent to which your account was hacked/compromised, and block those locations. Instead, it proved that your account had not been hacked, and that the same computer/device you usually edit from had been used to make the vandalism. In addition, it proved that this computer/device had been used to make vandalism edits using IP addresses or another account, not this registered account, and that your registered account uses the same IP addresses. In other words, the evidence showed that you had regularly logged out of your account to perform vandalism on Wikipedia. In this case, you forgot to log out first, and when you realized that, you immediately reverted yourself. You got caught, and that's why you've been blocked.

I know you're not the only user to log out to vandalize a page. I've logged out myself on occasion to make an edit I didn't want to be connected to my account, though it was not strictly vandalism in those case. That was years ago, and I've since realized that a Check User could have proved that it was me. I've stopped doing that, as I realize it was wrong to log out to make those edits.

The reason that check user data is kept private it to protect your identity, as it would reveal your IP addresses, and other information that could be used to identify you. This is something that Wikipedia takes seriously, and you should not want it to be made public. You already know what edits you made logged out, so there's no need to prove it to you. (There of course is the very slim possibility that someone else is using your device to vandalize Wikipedia. In such cases, you are still held responsible, as your device was used, and you didn't protect it. Thus "someone else used my device" is not an acceptable excuse.)

I'm not an administrator/CheckUser, so I have no access to the Check User information. However, I've been on Wikipedia a long time, and I've seen this type of behavior many times. My advice at this time is that the best thing that you can do now is just to come clean, admit that you did wrong, and take responsibility for your own actions. If you don't, there's absolutely no chance you'll be allowed to edit Wikipedia again as a user in good standing. If you do admit that you have logged out to commit vandalism, and promise never to do it again, you'll probably have to remain blocked for a few weeks or months, but then probably you'll be allowed edit with this account again. As you've done good work in the past, and had good reputation up to this point, you ought to seriously consider that before throwing it all away. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Revisions BilCat (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but not for account compromise

CheckUser indicates that there was no compromise on this account and that this is not the first time you have vandalized Wikipedia. Your block as a compromised account has been converted to a CheckUser block. If you wish to appeal, follow the instructions at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni Stop lying. That's not me, and you have zero evidence that it is. Oh, let me guess? We're just supposed to take your word for it because you're an admin? How sad. I will not be appealing, as I've already denounced Wikipedia. It's just nice to see you admins being exposed for the frauds you are, and watching you scramble to come up with an excuse as to why I was banned. LOL. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the evidence and Tony isn't lying. I have placed the evidence where other checkusers can see it here just in case it comes up again.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BereanHunter Oh, but how coincidental that I'm not allowed to see this supposed evidence which you back myself. How convenient for those laying down the accusations. If there is actual proof, which there isn't, why can't I see it? Why is there zero mention of which account I'm a supposedly a sock of? How come to conversation went from 'Compromised", to "CheckUser blocked" when I replied to my talk page? Nothing here adds up, except for the fact that I'm no longer interested in upholding ypur narrative, so you therefore blocked me from editing.

I don't understand how you cannot see this. Of course you wouldn't, though. It's more important to protect the cabal of administrators, isn't it?

How sad. I, again, don't want to come back. The attitude and self-protection displayed by yourself, as well as other administrators is why. Thank you for accusing me of something completely false, ans changing your story in the face of vandalizing a single article (which I myself reverted). Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BereanHunter [1] Busted. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A check was run because a steward was considering locking this account as compromised. They usually ask a local CheckUser to confirm before they do so. When I ran the check, it indicated that your account has always been operated by you. It also indicated that you have vandalized this project on multiple occassions. After you denied this, I asked for independent review by another CheckUser. Berean Hunter reviewed your block at my request, and well, you’re still blocked. You can’t see the evidence as we do not publicly connect accounts and their technical data. Also, no clue how he’s “busted”: he’s agreeing with my conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"It indicated that you vandalized Wikipedia multiple times." Changing the story, again, I see. First it was 'compromised', then it was 'checkuser blocked' (including zero evidence of which account I am supposedly a sock of), and now it's 'Oh, you vandalized Wikipedia multiple times'. So, where is the evidence in my contribution history, if that's the case? [[2]] Stop embarrassing yourself, Tony. We both know what was meant by that is, "He's no longer buying into the narrative. Time to ban, and make up a reason why this done."

Furthermore, it's just so sad that you have another admin saying the evidence is confirmed, but refuses to display it themselves. Posting a link that only certain editors can view is not providing evidence. In fact, to do so would be on the contrary. 😂 Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser indicates that there was no compromise on this account and that this is not the first time you have vandalized Wikipedia. The story has not changed: the CheckUser block is because you have vandalized Wikipedia while not editing from this account. Only CheckUsers can review CU data because of the privacy policy, and I also can't say any more than what I have because of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Boomer, we can post your IP info as evidence so that you can see what we are talking about but you need to give us permission to do so. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and the privacy policy, #4, first bullet point. Just say so, and we will be happy to show others the edits that we attribute to you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter TonyBalloni The range in mention is provided through my phone carrier, and the other IP I use is my wifi. Is it possible that my IP is being used by other people with the same carrier? I looked up what you are talking about abuse-wise using Berean's contribution/talk page history, and I can guarantee that I have zero relation to that account. Yeah, I deleted a whole page, and then reverted. I'm unhappy with the direction the site is headed in. That doesn't make it right nor excuse it, but that was the rationale behind why I made that edit. I understand the morale behind blocking me for said edit, but not these cheap shots of accusing me of having any relation to the abuse that took place on this range. I don't really want to be a part of the website any ways, after these false accusations. As well the direction that the website is going in, as I've said before. Just do me one favor before I go, and fix Soviet Union page where it says

"Before the start of World War II in 1939, the Soviets signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, agreeing to non-aggression with Nazi Germany, after which the USSR invaded Poland on 17 September 1939." We all know that isn't right. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 17:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) How would you rewrite that statement? I don't see an obvious error per Soviet invasion of Poland. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]