User talk:Borvo

Why?

Why I hell's name should I write in English about a Dutch case at the Dutch Wikipedia at the Dutch Arbitragecommissie? Do we also ask all British/American visitors to write in Dutch at wp:nl? --Borvo (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ti-Château, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

I have already warned you once.

Since that warning, you have made multiple edits on other user talk pages discussing your dispute with Wikiklaas. I'll say this once, with emphasis: this is not a case for the English Wikipedia. We are not here to facilitate the continuation of your disagreements. So, I'll say it again - if you continue discussing this on the English Wikipedia, I will remove your editing privileges. If you have any questions about how to edit constructively, feel free to ask. Regards, m.o.p 15:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean my talk with Kleuske? I hope you withdraw this warning, as Kleuske is a Dutch Arbitration Committee member and I have a case running (against Wikiklaas, for his dealings at the Dutch Wikipedia, not at the English Wikipedia) at the Dutch Arbitration Committee. Because I didn't receive a message about the case (their guideline says they are supposed to react within 72 hours, which they didn't), I decided to post messages at the English talk pages of the Arbitration Committee members (like IJzeren Jan and Vinvlugt). This is because I am blocked at the Dutch Wikipedia, and the commission poorly reacts to mails. --Borvo (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is for the Dutch Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. We cannot and will not help you with your dispute there. --Rs chen 7754 18:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This warning will not be withdrawn. I'm afraid you'll have to use e-mails or an alternative form of communication. You've already - multiple times - requested that editors here help you with matters on the Netherlands-language version. Furthermore, Kleuske has requested that you cease communicating through her English talk page and stick to the existing Arbcom channels.

So, again - do not make any edits pertaining to the aforementioned dispute here. m.o.p 20:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Enough is enough. I've given you multiple chances, but yet all you seem to be interested in is provoking other editors (namely, myself) and digging up your nl-wiki history on this project. You've been asked to drop the issue multiple times, and yet you've insisted on being combative.
If you'd like to make an unblock request detailing how you will attempt to make constructive contributions, avoid edit-warring, abstain from using sockpuppets and avoid disrupting in general, then we'll deal with that accordingly. Otherwise, don't continue banging your war drum or I'll have to remove talk page access as well.
To any uninvolved administrators: please note that Borvo has a long history of disruption on the Netherlands-language version of Wikipedia, where he has been blocked indefinitely. I've conversed with multiple stewards from that project and they've agreed that he should not have editing privileges as long as he continues to act in this manner. m.o.p 06:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UT-block is harsh, the page for disruptive editing says you should start with a 24 hours block, though I really don't mind. --Borvo (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sockpuppetry: I didn't commit it here, but as Mathonius told you at wp:nl, I am not to be trusted, so I advise you a CU. Disruptive editing: that's your claim, but I'll stop it. The ARBCOM-case ended, so I have no reason to continue it (and I won't continue it, I promise). Edit-warring: WP:BITE, everyone was once new here and made stupid faults. I already stopped edit-warring. Constructive contributions: see my user page, I already dìd constructive contributions (though no-one is interested in them). I will continue writing articles about the Hotton area.

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (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.

As a comment: you keep citing BITE, but it doesn't apply here. You are not a new user. You've been editing for months previously on the Netherlands-language edition, and there aren't many differences between here and there. Unless you were under the impression that we welcome users who bring their dirty laundry into our editing environment, you can't keep claiming to be a newcomer.

As for the indefinite block: I gave you multiple warnings to drop the issue. Yet, you kept pushing it, even insisting that I was warning you due to some hidden racist agenda. Why should we believe you when you say you'll stop that? Did the multiple previous warnings (both here and on nl-wiki) not clue you in to the disruptive nature of your edits? m.o.p 07:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my style: I always go òver the edge into the canyon. I never listen to warnings, I feel too independent for that. <humor>m.o.p. says I never listen, at least that is what I think he said.</humor> --Borvo (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My last try

I think I can be fairly safe in saying, on behalf of all administrators, no. You are WP:NOTHERE to assist the encyclopaedia. If you don't take the request down, you will be blocked from editing your talk page. Take it down and then try again much later.--Laun chba ller 11:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to explain myself: I am really sorry to have disrupted Wikipedia. The Dutch case had my priorities, but it is finished. I don't have any reason now to disrupt Wikipedia, so why would I? The block came from m.o.p. because the Dutch case had my priorities. Now I know I was terribly wrong and I am terribly sorry for that. You state WP:NOTHERE, which is true, but I won't in the future. Why don't you want to give me a second chance? I believe I can be a good, respected editor. And if you (administrators) don't find me that, you can block me again.

Administrators notice: This is a serious proposal. Give me for one week my rights back so I can edit. If you are content, you unblock me completely and if you are discontent, you block me again. We can talk 24/24 7/7 about all matters concerning my edits, and I must reply to one's information/criticism before I can edit again (because you blocked me till I answered). --Borvo (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the actual request up to an uninvolved admin, but I'd decline it on the spot.

We gave you plenty of chances on this project, even though I was warned by multiple stewards that it wasn't a good idea to have you around. I didn't block you even after you outright ignored my warnings multiple times. In the span of time between then and now, you:

I've got a massive supply of good faith, but even I can't take everything you've said and excuse it because you promised to be a good boy. m.o.p 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a continuation of his behavior on nl.wiki: creating some kind of controversy, crossing the line and then apologising profusely. After having to deal with this character extensively, it is my opinion that he craves the attention and will use any opportunity, as he did on nl.wiki. Kleuske (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my request.

First diff: I really didn't know that Kleuske wanted nothing to do with me. If I knew I wouldn't have written him. As far as I know, I didn't vandalise him.

Second and third diff: I was angry and said things and didn't mean. People don't always tell the truth when they are angry. Sorry.

Kleuske's reaction isn't true: I am (nowadays) not seeking attention.

About the warnings I neglected: yes, but as I told you, I always go òver the edge. I first needed a block to see what I was doing wrong. Now I know what I did wrong and how I can prevent it in the future.

About the angryness: I was angry about the Dutch block and the failing Arbitration Committee.

About all the rest: I was stupid and I admit it. I want to refer to my actions at wikivoyage-nl, where I have become a respected user. I doing there great: I don't have any trouble there, I even identified a malicious user from Stena Line.

Of course you can have your doubts, but I believe I am capable in being a good user. I'm really sorry and <humor> I promise to be a good boy</humor> (No, I really do promise). --Borvo (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had similar problems with false accusations and slander on the Dutch version. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/2A02:A03F:167D:5900:9545:E113:D6E0:D450 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:2A02:A03F:167D:5900:91C:E987:CE00:52CA censuring comment pages etc... Terrible. The english version looks much more correct.

See here how factual comments were destriyed by Moira Moira etc.. 2A02:A03F:1696:6700:ACAA:588D:D11F:5295 (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]