User talk:RandomBlobby
Welcome!
[edit]Hi RandomBlobby! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! (ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC))
Drmies bullying me
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
I blocked your other account, User talk:ThirteenToThirty, and the IP range you used to edit your hobby horse. It is obvious that this was abuse. If you wish to try and make progress with that Buss article, you may do so from the talk page; please be forewarned that any further disruption may result in more blocks, with either a block on editing article space or an indefinite block as possible options. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
RandomBlobby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I primarily edit Wikipedia from and IP because I prefer it; far from hiding that, I openly stated it on my userpage in full disclosure and stated it on multiple other occasions such as before I made this account. I only created a Commons account ThirteenToThirty to add media (and unfortunately, I was accidentally logged into Wikipedia when I made my first edit but I've never edited WP with it again). I only created this account because I was referencing multiple other surname SIAs which were not extant, and making an account was the easiest way to make then without being burdensome on the AfC community, as explained here because I made 18 SIAs in 3 days (with no issues from New Pages Patrol), and it was my intention to translate the 30+ interlanguage links that I added to a page. No one ever raised that being problematic and I can't see why my good faith effort to be less of a burden to AfC would be. I've never intentionally done anything against Wikipedia rules and all of my edits using my account and IP have been made in good faith to improve the project, so there's no vandalism or anything like that -- and I only use the word "intentionally" because I did once do a cut and paste move because I didn't know any better, and a kind user assumed good faith and helped me with the correct approach.
I've never done anything against the rules about sockpuppetry: I have never (1) created an illusion of support, (2) used multiple accounts in internal discussions, (3) circumvented policies, (4) had a strawman sock, (5) evaded sanctions, (6) contributed to the same discussion with multiple accounts, (7) avoided scrutiny, (8) had a "good hand" and "bad hand" account, (9) misused a clean start, (10) had a role account, (11) deceptively sought positions of trust, (12) had more than one administrator account, or (13) posed as a neutral commentators. I have technically contributed to the same page with multiple accounts, but that was fully compliant with the rules: my first edit to the Buss page was while accidentally logged into my Wiki Commons account on 20 March 2022 and I never edited Wikipedia from that account since on any page such that it is retired on Wikipedia; and then two months later on 21 May 2022 I made this account, immediately disclosed on my userpage that I edit with an IP address and published the IP address, and then I made 3 minor edits (on 3, 4, and 5 June 2022 respectively) to the Buss page when accidentally logged in. I have also edited while logged out but that was also fully compliant with the many rules as I did not do so in order to mislead (WP:LOUTSOCK) and I fully disclosed it. I do all edits that aren't about creating pages via IP, except when I forget that I'm logged in -- when I forget I'm logged in, these are all minor edits except the one that Drmies forced me to do on my account by blocking my IP without explanation.[1]
I edit obscure and uncontroversial articles to avoid the bullies and gatekeepers, so I began editing Buss. It is an orphan, only linked to by the DAB page: here. It was ranked N/A for importance and List for quality: here. It’s a niche article with low readership in which no one had taken real interest in 12 years, with it listing just 11 of the many people with the surname on WP. I'm not sure it's possible to find a more uninteresting article, which is why I chose it. It went from this to this. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but it's quality was consistent with other WikiProject Anthroponymy class B articles, and it used the same sources as other surname articles. For 3 months' work, I like to think I did a good job, and it was my hope to keep improving it up to FA status. A user by the name of Hipal disliked it because I used the same source as used on over 19,000 other articles (as well as 172 other sources), and rather than improving it (or giving me and other editors the chance to), he deleted large portions of it, so I politely messaged him on his talk page to collaborate.[2] Hipal wasn't willing to collaborate with me so I decided I would move on to other articles, and told him "I'm going to leave you to it" [3] and I did. Hipal teamed up with Drmies to delete half of my contributions[4] for invalid reasons, and then Drmies proposed reverting back to before I even worked on the article[5] despite all the reasons not to, so I reverted back my 3 months of hard work to circuit-break the bullying, but I did so without any animosity, stating in the edit summary "I tried to do something nice, it backfired, c'est la vie".[6] And my only edit to the article thereafter was to add a hatnote to reference the DAB page.
I edit Wikipedia as escapism from the stresses of life, and because I edit non-controversial pages, I just wasn't prepared for the abuse I got. The experience was not a pleasant one, so I told to two users that I felt bullied by that I would leave English Wikipedia to them[7] and I edited my userpage to say I'm retired because, after 15 years in the community (albeit small edits for the last decade), the bullies were getting to me. But, after 15 years in the community, I also can't help but correct typos, formatting errors, etc. when I see them because I want Wikipedia to be the best it can be. When I came to do that today, I saw Drmies blocked my whole IP range, RandomBlobby and ThirteenToThirty for disruptive editing stating:
I blocked your other account, User talk:ThirteenToThirty, and the IP range you used to edit your hobby horse. It is obvious that this was abuse. If you wish to try and make progress with that Buss article, you may do so from the talk page; please be forewarned that any further disruption may result in more blocks, with either a block on editing article space or an indefinite block as possible options.
There is no evidence that I have ever abused or disruptively edited Wikipedia. Ever. How turning this into this is considered abusive and disruptive is beyond me. That was practically the only page edited aside from minor edits elsewhere and creating many of the SIAs it linked to. I made a positive contribution to the project in good faith, I did so in a polite manner when faced with hostility from others, and far from being protective of my hard work, I left Hipal and Drmies to delete it against the interests of our users who surely prefer a pretty good article that can be improved above what they have now which is no article at all. I'm not looking for a pat on the back for my hard work, which is one reason I edit anonymously when I can, because people shouldn't be interested in the editor, but in the edits. Most of the deletion was by Drmies,[8] who never made any effort to collaborate or understand the reasoning behind the inclusion various sections (if he did, he would learn that I included standard sections used in the highest rated anthroponymy articles). His only involvement in surname articles is SIAs which all have no citations despite unevidenced claims about geographic origin ([9], [10], [11]) because he holds articles that I contribute to to a far higher standard that the ones he authors.
All this was, was a content dispute for what Drmies has termed my "hobby horse" and made clear the block was in relation to the "Buss article", threatening me with further blocks if I edit that article space instead of its talk page. As such, the block is contrary to WP:BLOCKNO and WP:INVOLVED; it was made without me actually doing anything against the interests of WP contrary to WP:BP; and I certainly received no warnings or advice on the best conduct contrary to WP:BEFOREBLOCK. When I felt bullied on that article, I walked away whilst all of the content was maliciously and gleefully deleted, and when I felt bullied on Wikipedia as a whole by the same two users, I walked away from the whole project: I put on my userpage RandomBlobby that I'm retired, and I never edited with this or any other account since (except to address this block) showing Drmies block against me has nothing to do with being preventative, contrary to WP:BLOCKP, and everything to do with gaining advantage in a dispute contrary to WP:ADMIN. The block should never have been put in place by Drmies, and this account, my other account, and my IP range should be unblocked.
Once I am unblocked, I will confirm with an administrator that I trust, but as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to just always edit using IP and put the tens of new articles through AfC. I only made an account to be less of a burden on that process, and for my good faith I have been punished by an admin abusing their privileges in a content dispute. I do not believe bullies should win and I don't want to leave Wikipedia under a cloud when I can evidence that I've done nothing wrong, hence I want all 3 blocks lifted. RandomBlobby (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have still not received any response to this unblock request from an independent admin. It seems by the time this gets looked at, the ban will have already expired. It means that I have to suffer Drmies's abuse of admin privileges in a content dispute to block an already retired editor, thus it was not for prevention but for punishment because I disagreed about content inclusion. RandomBlobby (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Editor is no longer blocked. SQLQuery Me! 22:03, 17 June 2022 (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.
- If your other account wasn't meant to edit on Wikipedia it shouldn't be a problem if it is blocked. But you should not be surprised to find that your range is blocked if you edit both logged in and out. That's just really basic. Whether this temporary block should be lifted, I'll leave that to the next administrator--but I can predict that an unblock would likely be based on you stating that you will NOT edit while not logged in, and that any future switching (especially within the same article) between being logged in and logged out will be regarded as disruptive. BTW, you aren't blocked because you edited that article one way or another; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts and editing while logged out. That's the disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies That is the first time you messaged me. I received no warning from you, when that would be the appropriate response if the real issue was me occasionally forgetting that I was logged in, although that is not what you put in your block explaination. I can't see how anyone was disrupted by me being accidentally logged in on rare occasions; it is not about the contributor but about the contributions, and my contributions have always been in the interests of the collaborative project as my edit histories show. From what I can see, I am allowed to edit logged out: WP:LOGGEDOUT, WP:IPSOCK, WP:LOGOUT. As I have stated, this account is exclusively to create articles because otherwise I am excessively burdensome on AfC. Occasionally I edit Wikipedia from this account because I forget I am logged in: prior to reverting the page at your suggestion yesterday, and being forced by a block to do it logged in, I only edited the Buss page 3 times before whilst logged into this account and all 3 were minor edits for typos, formatting, and bundling citations. I need to log in for use of the various tools I have installed, and its easy to forget to log out. Blocks have to be made for legitimate reasons, so of course it is problematic if ThirteenToThirty is blocked despite only making one edit which no one had any issue with. As shown by my edit histories, I have never used the accounts or IP for sockpuppetry; if I start a conversation with one account or IP, I always use that for the same conversation. Too many accounts are arrogant because they've made edits with an account rather than their IP, as if that makes any difference to their contributions. That will never be me.
- I spent a lot of my time writing a good article in good faith. The number of articles on Wikipedia without references, or with tags for better references that are over a decade old, is innumerable but you and Hipal haven't addressed those, and nor have either of you addressed the 10,000+ articles that reference Ancestry.com or the 600+ articles that reference Forebears.io that he claims to take issue with. The truth of the matter is that Hipal decided he had an issue with me and so you and him deleted my hard work piece by piece, when if there weren't an animus towards me some tags for improvement would have been put in place and I would have continued working on improving the article, as it was my ambition to get it to FA status. The destruction of the niche article with low readership without any willingness to collaborate from you or Hipal was nothing to do with the contents of the article and everything to do with who wrote it.
- This whole thing was entirely unnecessary, when Wikipedia could have had a good article and a good contributor working towards improving the project. Instead, a good article was needlessly reverted and I feel bullied off of Wikipedia. Contributors that abide by WP:GF actually support good faith editors to become better, like when I made a cut and paste move because I didn't know any better, and I was politely advised on the best way to move articles. Unfortunately, in this instance I have been treated poorly and unfairly, and I didn't deserve that at all. But I can't control what others do so, as I always say, take care and share some WP:WikiLove. RandomBlobby (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Something I've noticed in my years reviewing unblock requests is that extremely long walls of text like your request tend to get ignored. This can be amplified further in the case of checkuser blocks, where there are only a handful of us that can actually lift the block. You would stand a far better chance of getting someone to actually look at your request if you were to read the guide to appealing blocks, and then distill your request to a handful of sentences that directly explain why the block is no longer needed to protect the project. SQLQuery Me! 18:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Uwe Buß has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Person fails WP:NBIO.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)