User talk:Boringbob4wk
Welcome
[edit]
|
Roberto
[edit]I'm afraid I find your remarks puzzling, as an admin agreed to semi-protect Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa because an anonymous IP was consistently adding non-MOS footnoting, removing citation requests, WP:PEACOCK terms, and most seriously inserting uncited personal material in violation of WP:BLP — doing so by inserting them within footnoted passages to make them appear to be cited. Given the vague and non-specific claims you made in your post at my talk page, I don't believe your charges are valid, and perhaps we need to seek an RfC or other third-party mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've just gone to the page and I'm afraid that your calling my good-faith fully edit-summarized edits, which included restoring citation requests from uncited claims, and adding titles, bylines and dates to footnotes, as vandalism, is inaccurate and slanderous. I understand you are a new user who has only been on since April, but that is no excuse for such behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- For example, Metro Weekly is a periodical. They are italicized. By changing the field from "work" to "publisher", you remove the italics. That is an example of the changes you made to my so-called vandalism. Your intemperate actions and accusations are inaccurate and uncalled for. I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I must italicize that periodical. I will also add bylines to the Playbill footnotes. In addition, we don't say "Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa," which I will remove. I don't believe an admin would consider this vandalism, and in fact, at this point, I believe a Wiki etiquette filing would not be out of order. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- You additionally removed full citations, inserting instead footnotes that simply lead to a number and a link. Despite what your colleague, the anonymous IP, wrote, Wikipedia does indeed have standards for footnotes and citations, and leaving a bare number and a link is certainly not one of them. I would respectfully ask that you temper your comments, behave more collegially, and, as a new user, read up on Wikipedia citation guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- You did not do that. Fixing the footnotes is fine, please do it some more. But (1) the requests for citations were incorrect because you didn't read the text, the citation was already there. If you had looked before your vandalism you would have seen that yesterday a citation was put for every entry as you wanted. (2) Note the required policies. If you didn't see the reference to the Pittsburgh interview re:son of diplomat, you should have put in a [citation needed] and someone would have pointed out your error, not slandered the editor. (3) The admin agreement to protect was an error, I wasn't going to make an issue about it, but do you want one? (4) I don't recall how many years I have been registered with WP, but I don't see that makes a difference, except that such things as learning how to complain takes more time which I don't wish to do. (5) The vandalism I was referring to is wholesale removal of text which had nothing to do with your complaint about format- it was only because you didn’t like the editor. You can change footnotes all you want; I just asked you to on the page. (6) “In addition, we don't say "Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa,"...” In what English class is an article with every line begining He. He, He. acceptable? Please point out the WP style page regarding this issue. (7) Removal of citations? I put the review citations in the visible text from their hidden location in the former text, with the express notation, which you apparently didn’t bother to read, that they were “preliminary”, so you could fix them. If you had edited those versions properly, it would have been done. Boringbob4wk (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Boringbob4wk. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have no right to slander me to another editor, as you do here. Two admins at the above Wiki Etiquette alert have stated in no uncertain terms that I committed no vandalism, among other things. Your behavior has crossed a very serious line of incivility and you should be ashamed of yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Cirt#special request. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Cirt#special request. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be disquieted by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Cirt#special request. While you probably didn't intend any malice, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
The first two are at level two in relation to the above complaint by your target and the Wikiquette alert that is currently open.
The last is being placed as you post contains explicit intent to harass an editor.
You have been made aware of the Wikiquette alert, including a link to it. If you wish to comment on the situation that is the proper venue.
Thanks,
- J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(This refactoring is being done so that the editor is not "breaking up" another's comments. -J Greb (talk))
- I did not intend to attack anyone. I was simply looking for information- but this whole issue is not about article content. I will try to clarify the request.
- How so?
- Please explain.
- Will do.
- Boringbob4wk (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- And answering bluntly considering the block and your evasion:
- "I did not intend to attack anyone." - You chose to use words to damage another. That is intent. You attacked, and attacked, and attacked. You did so referring to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There is no excuse for your actions on this.
- "I was simply looking for information..." - No. You were not.
- "How so?" [re: not assuming good faith] - You jumped to "He is a vandal! He is biased against IPs!" right off the bat. No pretense of assuming the other editor was editing in good faith. You even referenced a level 1 warning template for not assuming good faith in accusing him.
- "Please explain." [re: Harassment] - You warned the editor off to get your way by way of threat. The edit referred to in the warning to you includes your explicit intent to hound the editor. This warning was placed to inform or remind that this is not acceptable behavior before any damage is done.
- "Will do." [re: WQA thread] - That's unlikely at this point since it will likely be archived before you an legitimately edit again. Ideally you would have gone to that thread to comment when your were first notified. You didn't. It would have been nice if you had been able to before your use of multiple accounts bit you.
- As far is that goes, between the sockpuppet investigation that blocked you for a week and your willingness to evade the block to shop you case across other user talk pages, damage has been done. Damage to the ability of others to accept your edits and those of the IPs you've used at face value. Damage, at least for the short term, that you are willing to work with the Wikipedia community. Damage that you will have to deal with if and when you resume legitimately editing on Wikipedia.
- And one last thing, your evasion edits would have gotten you slapped with level 3 NPA warning for the comments at Hersfold's talk page and a level 3 AGF for the one at Crit's.
- - J Greb (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- >First of all, thanks for trying to explain things.
- >As I noted below, my reading of "blocking" did not say that it was intended to prohibit administrative discussion, I thought that was a technical error when it was doing so. The article should be changed to specifically mention administrative pages.
- >attacked, and attacked? I am sorry, although I am preparing to back up my original report, the need for further discussion was not anticipated. Why isn’t there some private forum for such things so such reports are not misconstrued?
- >Not looking for information? Responding to the "Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts" was going to take some time (which I had started even before the last few days spent on the "blocking" issue below, since short responses were not understood). The first thing I wanted to know is whether a RFPP is taken at face value or investigated. And how can an archived completed request be accessed? I am sorry that my language was misconstrued. That reasons "were false" was not intended as a attack, as the requestor in this case had obviously made a mistake and didn't know that at least his first item was false, and I tried to reiterate that point, that I was not accusing. But the question was, were requests checked? And if they were checked, would the error have been discovered? My assumption would be that requests would be judged on the relative weight of the things mentioned, not whether the things were mistaken or not. Is there someone else who can answer this question generally, about any request?
- >[re: not assuming good faith] I had been reading Wikipedia long enough, and reading hist logs, to see plenty of notations of vandalism. I was shocked by what I saw in this case. I spent a lot of time looking at the policies and what you were supposed to do. But more importantly, I thought that the finding had to be made to justify undoing it, which if you look at the history has been vindicated. Even he didn't try to justify what he had done in haste. I thought that the result of the report would have been a simple "sorry, my mistake, won't happen again". I certainly did miss the page “Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"” when researching that.
- >referenced a level 1 warning template. I'm not sure what you mean, I thought that was what one was supposed to do, that other things were for repeated incidents. I was looking for the lowest level thing to do.
- >[re: Harassment]- (a complaint that I was harassing?) I still don't understand what I did, or what I should have done. (my complaint on being harassed?) T.'s searching for everything I had done in order to inject his comments seemed excessive, and certainly intimidating. That will have to wait for after the investigation.
- >”re: WQA thread] - That's unlikely at this point since it will likely be archived”- if that's the case, would you kindly explain how to appeal to a higher level or arbitration? I started working on my case as soon as I read the link, and have much more to do.
- >sockpuppet investigation- my reading of the policy says that something harmful has to be shown, which was not the case- only that we were related, which was actually stated explicitly on the talk page, it turns out. I am sorry for the damage you describe.Boringbob4wk (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid (Talk) 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Boringbob4wk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1)there is no valid reason to block, if so what? 2)the issue of vandalism by others has nothing to do with any reason for blockingBoringbob4wk (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You answered your own question. Edit warring by "others" is a valid reason to block you when the "others" are in fact you while logged out. Logging out to continue to make your edits is not acceptable conduct on our site; disputes are resolved by discussion and consensus, not whoever can cycle their connection the fastest. You are welcome to return after one week, during which time you are invited to review our sockpuppetry policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (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.
Stop evading your block
[edit]Self-admitted block evasion is a very good way to have your block extended. If you wish to appeal your block, there are appropriate means to do so (namely, the template you used above). Editing while logged out while your account remains blocked is a violation of our policies, and the reason you got blocked in the first place. Continuing to do so will result in an extension of your block. As it is, your network range has been blocked for the remainder of your account's block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Boringbob4wk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Re:”Edit warring by others is a valid reason to block you when the others are in fact you while logged out. Logging out to continue to make your edits is not acceptable conduct on our site”... There has been no “edit warring” at all. The content provided by myself and earlier related IP editors remains the accepted content of the article; there was no simultaneous use of accounts for any purpose (and this incident has scared off first-time users who might have considered registering). There was no “logging out to continue to make your edits”, just the opposite, which I thought was the intended result of page protection. My original complaint regarded an edit that materially reduced the article quality. No one has suggested restoring it.
As a result of this incident, I learned of the policy that “Editors ... who edit as an IP separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics”. I am going to suggest a specific modification of this policy: “unless specifically requested or required by Wikipedia”. Nonetheless, I had always adhered to that principle, as I can not recall any prior case in which the status of an article changed in the middle of significant unfinished work.
When the enhancement of the “Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa” (R.A.S.) article was begun, the need to use a registered account was not anticipated; in general, I would never use my password when demonstrating or explaining Wikipedia. The policy states that what is forbidden is “the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards”. The multiple accounts in question did none of those things.
The accuser in this case, Tenebrae, starts by making false statements concerning “removing citation requests” etc (he simply didn’t read the in-text attribution and its citation, even after hidden text for him was added), and regards as incivility the reminder that the sources in the text, which he made into references, were not in fact references for the text he had applied them to.
As a result of his error in checking a reference, he accused the IP-identified editor of all kinds of violations and evil intentions and falsely claimed that protection was warranted.
He then complained of incivility when I followed what I was led to believe was the proper procedure after discovering that he had resorted to removing all the work of the editor- vandalism according to my lengthy reading of the policies- instead of making content-based edits; I see no evidence that admins have actually reviewed the particular facts, as I am still preparing a document for that purpose and have been prevented from presenting a case.
He makes a great deal out of the fact that I restored work that was the same as that he had destroyed- as if I should have re-done it in a different style, just to be different.
Being the official owner or not of the connections 69.72.27.213, 69.72.27.109, etc is irrelevant, as my affinity with them was obvious and explicit, (and in fact I assisted and suggested the research and style being implemented). It was made explicit by the post on the talk page of the R.A.S. article (04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC), signed 69.72.27.191), that there was more work forthcoming “incorporating the Washington interview”.
This post, when the specified edits “incorporating the Washington interview” were completed after I had looked up my username and password, constitutes effective “linking” of the accounts and disclosure as per WP:SHARE. If I had known that another action was required, I would have done so. In any case, there was no issue where the work of multiple accounts caused any problem or violated any community standards.
Tenebrae complains that I used the phrase “the editor” instead of “I”. That dispute with Tenebrae, which should have no bearing on the present discussion, will remain phrased about his actions at that time using that phrase; my new personal dispute with him about his subsequent actions is also not supposed to have anything to do with the present discussion. I am the only user who is in a position to participate in discussions, effectively complying with “Closely connected users may be considered a single user”. Tenebrae complains “I am against two editors”, but there is no “voting” issue, and I am the only one who can (and did) complain, and by the above policy he is protected against “voting” issues what ever they might be.
In none of my actions or discussions was there any intentional violation of policy regarding multiple accounts, and no deception or disruption, and he shows no evidence of any.
Please also note that I had never heard of the term “evading blocking” prior to this incident. I did not consider responding to administrative issues “editing” and considered being blocked after being asked to respond a technical shortcoming of the system being exploited by other parties in a dispute for their advantage. The parties certainly did not show deception or disruption, merely the existence of related accounts. The article on “blocking” specifically talks about “to prevent users from editing Wikipedia” and “to protect Wikipedia from disruption”; it does not say anything about preventing participation in administrative discussion. In fact, it implies the opposite, that blocking is not used for punishment. Boringbob4wk (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's an awful lot of words, but, unless I missed it, none of them have much to do with your plan to edit differently when your block expires. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:24, 2 June 2011 (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.
...and this incident has scared off first-time users who might have considered registering... → Which is probably true, assuming you were able to scare yourself off. Otherwise, you were clearly and unambiguously edit warring and being otherwise very disruptive, hence the block. If you cannot understand that, then we cannot help you. –MuZemike 08:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover, please give us one reason why your block should not be extended to indefinite, given your demonstrated lack of competence above. –MuZemike 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Boringbob4wk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The short version:
The original report said “Boringbob4wk's has implied that the IPs and him/her are different” but I was never asked about anything, did not have opportunity to comment originally, and I did not say or imply elsewhere that we were not related; relation was obvious from actions and content, and relation was mentioned on talk page of article prior to any complaint. No “abuse” of multiple accounts/related accounts/shared accounts/ took place, which violates policy requiring same. IP edits were done 21 May to 26 May, my edits were 27 May; complaints made after that time due to my use of poor terminology and tone in admin discussion do not relate to multiple/related/shared accounts, and is not supposed to influence blocking.
How to edit differently: 1) specify relation on every edit if on same article 2) learn proper tone and terminology to use Boringbob4wk (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Referring to yourself in the third person ("the editor") clearly implies that you were not the same person. Persistently denying what is visible for anyone to see is more likely to get your block length increased than to get the block lifted. That is sufficient reason for declining the unblock, but I will also answer another point. To the best of my knowledge there is no policy, guideline, accepted tradition, or anything else that says "In considering a block made for a particular reason, an administrator may not also take into account other aspects of an editor's history". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (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.