User talk:RockingGeo

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Lotta vitriol against this quarterback tonight, huh? hewhoam areismyself 06:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And I don't even watch football! RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any football here, leastwise until the Patriots are in the playoffs. The rest of Boston's teams deserve the love more. hewhoam areismyself 06:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what that meant. :) RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

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) 13:02, 25 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had recently created new accounts for privacy reasons. I wasn't vandalizing Wikipedia or creating the illusion of support. I didn't edit on the same topics with the same accounts, and I don't think I made any other improper edits per WP:BADSOCK. I really tried to follow the instructions for using privacy accounts. I'm sorry if I accidentally broke a WP:SOCK rule, and I won't do it again. I want to keep making positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have a history of being positively involved in anti-vandalism (I even got a barnstar). RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 22:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comments below. RockingGeo's argument that the people commenting are "involved" is unpersuasive (are they more involved than you are?). And it's not just that you created a sock, but the bad behavior of that sock, violating WP:HAND. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 30 November 2019 (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.

Comment: To the uninvolved admin making the final decision, please keep in mind that the users below were involved in a heated content dispute with me prior to this block. Their input may not be 100% unbiased, and their underlying motivations may be punitive instead preventative. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, was not involved in any 'heated dispute' whatsoever, didn't interact directly with this person apart from via edit summaries, and have no underlying motive other than to protect the project from non-constructive editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep blocked - their behavior violates the WP:SCRUTINY and WP:HAND portions of BADSOCK. And even aside from that, the behavior of them and especially their sock User:VF9 consists of wikilawyering, gaming the system, edit warring, and general nastiness. [1][2][3] -Crossroads- (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep blocked per Crossroads. Pinging Johnuniq, Cullen328, Peaceray, and Nick Moyes, who (like Crossroads) dealt with the bulk of RockingGeo's edits as VF9. Also, a CheckUser can look into how accurate RockingGeo's "privacy reasons" claim is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does a checkuser know who knows my real identity? RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 03:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you're all involved in recent content disputes with me, it would be best for you to avoid this discussion, as it's obviously a conflict of interest.

That aside, I will address the insultingly wrong complaints made against me. The examples given never showed any examples of wikilawyering, nastiness, or "gaming the system." I cited relevant policies (or at least what I thought were relevant at the time), used the talk page, was always polite, and admitted when I was wrong [4] (or at least tried to reach a compromise during those disputes I wasn't convinced [5]). I don't know what was meant by "gaming the system," but I can assure you that I had no such intention. As I said above, I didn't use alternate accounts to promote my side. I really wanted them to be as separate as possible. Also, regarding the "edit-warring," I was trying to reach WP:EDITCONSENSUS, as I felt that the appropriate response to the complaint could be stated in an edit summary. When I realized there would be more opposition than I originally thought, I stopped editing and used the talk page, per WP:BRD and WP:3RR.

Like I said above, I really just want to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Instead of focusing on a few heated content disputes, please focus on all the vandalism I've fought, the pages I've saved from deletion, the pages I've created, and all the other constructive edits I've made. I'll definitely avoid contributing to controversial topics in the future, and I'll avoid any more of this stupid drama. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 04:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more a conflict of interest than you have. And the bad behavior only stops when totally outnumbered, as at Masturbation where you reverted 3 times, the maximum amount under 3RR. And as to whether anyone should believe RockingGeo/VF9's sudden contrition, their behavior when not blocked speaks for itself, both in discussions as linked above and in article histories. [6][7][8][9] -Crossroads- (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason WP:INVOLVED exists; just apply the same logic to yourself when discussing severe administrative actions like this.

Again, [10][11][12] are a very small amount of the total contributions I've made to Wikipedia. They are also examples of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, not WP:3RR. As I've said, once I realized there was more opposition than I anticipated, I used the talk pages, per BRD, (or was planning on using the relevant the talk pages after I woke up but was blocked by then). And I didn't even make any reverts on [13]. That is simply content I added in good faith that you dislike. The fact you included it in one of the examples of my alleged "nasty bahaviour" just proves you're not really against my actions and are instead against the material. That kind of thinking is exactly why I wanted to keep those kinds of contributions private IRL. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 04:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More wikilawyering. WP:INVOLVED applies to admins taking action, not discussion participants. WP:EDITCONSENSUS explicitly forbids edit warring. You weren't reverted at Orgasm until you were at ANI a mere 1 hour before your block, so you get no credit for not edit warring there. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, a misinterpretation of a policy is not automatically wikilawyering. In my opinion, the spirit of the WP:INVOLVED policy applies here, and I still think WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies because we were communicating through the edit summary. Though if I'm wrong in these cases, I'll admit to it and change my ways. Arbitrarily assuming I didn't choose not to revert that edit in the orgasm article is at best not assuming good faith and at worst is an example of your bias in this discussion. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 05:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock I am not using my administrative toolset in this matter, so "involved" does not apply. The VF9 sockpuppet account has engaged in disruptive porn trolling behavior in recent days. Disruptive sockpuppetry cannot be tolerated. I see zero evidence that the disruption would not resume if this editor was unblocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, a few instances of adding images of people masturbating and orgasming to articles on masturbation and orgasms is not "porn trolling." However, before I added them, I was unaware of the unwritten policy against staged explicit photos, which I'm sorry for. I mean, I had already offered to compromise with you (example: [14]). It wasn't intended to be disruptive sock puppetry. It was just meant to be a private account lying low, and I didn't expect this kind of backlash against a few photos of naked people. Isn't offering to compromise and find consensus prior to the block already evidence that an unblock won't be disruptive (without even mentioning all the other positive contributions I've made)? RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I'm not totally clear on how CheckUser works, but if it was used only on the RockingGeo and VF9 accounts, and any CheckUsers are reading, it may be worth checking for sleepers. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In full disclosure, I had another account (which has also been blocked by the CheckUser) that I was planning to make a WP:CLEANSTART with. After learning how much I enjoy maintenance, I wanted to focus on WikiGnoming for awhile. I haven't made many edits with it, as the transition was going to be next month, but you can see that it's all maintenance related. Further evidence that I'm not a malicious sock-puppeteer. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that now they suddenly reveal they had this account also. Which account is this? And that it was blocked does imply CheckUser would have found any sleepers; but if it would not have, definitely worth checking, in case this last comment is an attempt to forestall further CheckUser investigation. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sudden or interesting. The account was blocked at the same time as this main one, and listed publicly as a sockpuppet under this account. You can easily find it. I just felt like your comment was a good prompt to explain the motivation behind it. If you want to checkuser me again, go ahead. Like I said, I have a full intention of doing everything legitimately, per WP:SOCKLEGIT. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would the reviewing admin please consider a comment by the sock VF9 (talk · contribs): 05:58, 25 November 2019. I had indirectly raised the issue of their background by referring to VF9's "two-week wiki-career". VF9 might have ignored the point or acknowledged that they had a prior account. Instead, VF9 gave an evasive reply and referred to WP:BITE as if they were a brand new user. Such behavior is corrosive and damaging to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As it was supposed to be a private account, I obviously did not want to say that I had another account. For full context, the relevant statement they gave was, "You have learned a lot of blue links in your two-week wiki-career but their meaning takes longer to absorb. In brief, none of the above apply in this case" And my reply was, "Saying that the policies don't apply because I'm too new to understand them is condescending and violates WP:PERSONALATTACKS, per WP:BITE." Nothing I said was a falsehood, nor was it inappropriate given the context. If anything, Johnuniq (talk · contribs)'s condescending attitude is the actual corrosive behaviour. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 05:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No to unblock Indefinite blocks are the remedy for sock puppetry. This editor has clearly disregarded the respect and civility pillar & the concensus, edit warring, dispute resolution, & sock puppetry policies. Even now, this editor dismissively refers to these disruptions with the statement "Oh come on, a few instances of adding images of people masturbating and orgasming..." This is not about censorship; this is about behavior. I see no reason to unblock while this editor fails to take responsibility for their own actions & instead blames everybody else. Peaceray (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When was I disrespectful? I've already linked examples of me trying to find consensus. And I've already stated I was trying to find WP:EDITCONSENSUS and used the talk page when that became untenable to avoid edit warring. I've also already explained that I had legitimate uses for having alternate accounts. This is just rehashing old arguments.
- And the images referred to are the same ones you tried to have speedy deleted [15] [16], and an admin had to step in [17]. Are you sure were not talking about censorship here? You purposefully misquoted me too. The full quote is "Oh come on, a few instances of adding images of people masturbating and orgasming to articles on masturbation and orgasms is not 'porn trolling.'" I imagine that the purpose of the misquote was to paint me as some kind of immoral "porn disruptor," when it is actually just a content dispute. This attitude is just another example of why I wanted that account to remain private. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I invite all to review both my & VF9's edits & edit summaries on enwiki & commons. I believe RockingGeo is offering a red herring when RockingGeo accuses me of censorship. My speedy deletion tags were solely due to my perception that anything with copyright markings within the image was potentially in violation of CC. As it turns out, I was wrong on that account, & acknowledged it on Commons. However, RockingGeo wants to make this all something else other than VF9's violation of the three-revert rule & attempts to cover up any activity by deleting warnings from VF9's talk page. Please, do not take my word for it, review the edits. I am confident others will find accuracy in my statement that this editor fails to take responsibility for their own actions & instead blames everybody else. Peaceray (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I mistook your actions for censorship, then I apologize, but in all fairness, they seem like something a censor would do. Also, I never violated the WP:3RR. You're making unfounded claims. And I fully admit that I deleted warnings from my talk page, but there's no policy against that. I'm free to do what I want on my talk page. A deletion is an acknowledgement of them. Why don't you focus on the fact that I never violated any final warnings instead? RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You restored your own edits 3 times by reversion on Masturbation within 61 minutes, & you reverted Deepfake 3 times without any discussion on Talk:Deepfake. Yes, technically WP:3RR typically applies to reverts in excess of three, but the policy also states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

I know that this is painful for you to be blocked when you thought you were doing good things for Wikipedia, but you egregiously violated policy with your sock puppet, which in itself is a transgression that can get one banned. But blaming others for the results of your own actions will just be an exercise in futility. Just look at the opposition to unblocking you. I would advise following a path of contriteness, apology, & accepting responsibility. Without that, your words are unimportant & I do not hear them.

Peaceray (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]hen you thought you were doing good things for Wikipedia" - I don't know about that one. AGF is not a suicide pact. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock Just investigating and responding fairly to the complaint made against VF9 at ANI made me conclude this person and their confrontational/challenging approach to everyone else was far from a net positive to the project. That they were running two or more very active accounts simultaneously is a serious issue. I see a lot of weaseling/wikilawyering, and very little skill in collaborative working. Indefinite doesn't have to mean 'forever', but a long period away from the project to gain some maturity would be beneficial to all. I respect some of their contributions in the earth and biological sciences, but that's as far as it goes. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Limited block and probation Given the blocked editor interest in Wikipedia and his pleas, I call for a limited block period and a probation period after that. --Thinker78 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lst of vegan media" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lst of vegan media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30#Lst of vegan media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ape research" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ape research. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Ape research until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Volcanos article edit proposal

Hello RockingGeo,

I've just made an edit request to the semi-protected article Volcano and I need a consensus. I know that you made contributions to the article. Care to take a look? Kind regards, Coel Jo (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]