User talk:NobleThinker

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


December 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Mike Buchanan (politician) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
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 ~~~~}}.  Widr (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20090 was submitted on Dec 17, 2017 13:48:50. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20092 was submitted on Dec 17, 2017 20:29:59. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20093 was submitted on Dec 17, 2017 22:00:38. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20096 was submitted on Dec 18, 2017 00:10:21. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20123 was submitted on Dec 20, 2017 22:00:43. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Please note that your username is inappropriate because it is soapboxing. If you suggest an alternative name here then, if it is suitable, I will change it. Availability can be checked here. Just Chilling (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here change name to NobleThinker FeminismDestroysBoys (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, no. The username is acceptable, even though it probably telegraphs your intent. (bias?) However, you have not addressed the more pervasive concern of disruptive editing. Given the tenor of your edits, I feel you may be nothere to build the encyclopedia so much as to soapbox your political views. I get the feeling you are editing at the behest or in league with some outside-of-Wikipedia influence. You would do well to give attention to WP:COI and WP:PAID. You will need to address this issue fully to be unblocked.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2018 (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.

How can I address the blocking issues until I can use an acceptable user name? > > So - I try to contact dlohcierakim and cannot do so because I am > blocked. It seems to me that there are two issues that concern my > account and a staged process to getting "live" again. > > Issue 1) Soapboxing - my original user name was considered > unacceptable - so I need to change my user name to something that is > acceptable so that I can follow through and get myself re-instated - > and I have selected a name that is acceptable > - that has been confirmed. Is my understanding of the process correct? > > Issue 2) It was an autobot that blocked me (later summarily > implemented by a part time editor) when I was struggling to put a > photo on a colleague's page but following some immoderate behaviour > for which I apologised. I tried to follow the instructions to get > some advice and not get blocked - and these instructions took me to a > process where I explained everything. Nevertheless, I was continually > and unintentionally blocked and not given any help or assistance, > despite my following suggestions to make such requests. A final block > was my user name, which had not been mentioned at all by anyone in any > previous correspondence. This final block seems to effectively exclude me from being able to do anything to clear my blocking. > > I cannot appeal directly to dlohcierakim (or can I? - if so how?). > How can I move this forward? How can I address the blocking issues > until I can use an acceptable user name? > > Can you please help or pass me on to someone who can?

If you don't think your edits on Mike Buchanan (politician) were disruptive, bordering on vandalism, then you should stay blocked. --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need a new user name to address your disruptive editing. You simply acknowledge it as such and identify in what way it was disruptive and affirm you will not repeat it. You then indicate what sorts of edits you will make instead. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments and entreaties carefully. What do I need to add to what I have already written?

You say "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." Kindly be specific in the terms that you see I am contravening? - I am asking for your assistance in a spirit of enquiry and seeking understanding.

Also - I asked for your help in understanding the process to be followed - again seeking assistance and support and wanting to understand. Could you please comment on the staged process I have outlined, starting with establishing an acceptable user name. Please correct any misunderstanding. Thank you very much in anticipation.

No, you don't start by getting a new user name. You start by what Dlohcierekim and I told you about your edits at Mike Buchanan (politician). You "...identify in what way it was disruptive and affirm you will not repeat it. You then indicate what sorts of edits you will make instead." --NeilN talk to me 18:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neiln; Thank you very much for your guidance – very much appreciated as I am seeking to properly comply with Wiki protocols and requirements and to find the correct way forward. As you may be aware, I am relatively new to the operation of Wiki and I am finding this process to be confusing as well as deeply distressing and upsetting on a personal level. May I please have your guidance and assistance to clarify some of the current confusion so that we may look to moving forward?

The current refusal to unblock me seems to focus on the editing of Mike Buchanan’s personal page and not on the actual cause of the block as detailed below. Is this perception correct?

Although I have donated, I had never edited Wiki before and did not understand the Wiki protocols, Wiki system operation or Wiki process. Of course, I apologised for my disruptive editing on Mike Buchanan’s page following advice and guidance from Wiki contributors and an increased understanding on my part, following my first ever attempt at Wiki editing. As far as I know, all Wiki’s requirements have been met in the full disclosures of the circumstances in UTRS 20090, 20092, 20093, 20096 and 20123 (as per my Talk page) as well as in Wiki correspondence with various members around the 17th December 2017. These were accepted, and I was able to continue editing having started to understand how the Wiki rules operate. Please refer to these UTRSs, relevant correspondence within Wiki and my ability to continue editing on a different Wiki page on a different subject. These factors suggest, and seem to confirm to me, that Wiki requirements have been met in this regard.

Please assist me by letting me know specifically and explicitly in what way Wiki’s requirements continue to be unfulfilled in relation to editing Mike Buchanan’s personal page. I honestly believe I have complied with all Wiki requirements at the time. This view is supported in my opinion by the fact that I was able to continue editing. Specific and explicit citations of the relevant Wiki requirements will enable me to address the issues to which Wiki would like me to attend as, in my understanding, all those issues of concern to the Wiki requirements have been fulfilled.

The block to my editing came from working on a completely different page on a completely different subject when an automated bot kicked in whilst I was fumbling with the Wiki photo process, trying to learn and navigate the Wiki system for posting photos. Mike Buchanan had asked me to add a photo of him to the Wiki page on his political party, in full compliance with Wiki policy, and which would add to and complement the information available to readers.

The Wiki records and the above UTRS clearly detail that my “block” came from an automatic system, confirmed by a part time/retired administrator who “rarely visits” his page. The block came from my difficulties and frustration in navigating the Wiki photo process and my repeated attempts to contribute to Wikipedia by including a compliant photo of Mike Buchanan on his party’s page. The block was not connected with my earlier disruptive editing on his personal page, for which I have repeatedly apologised etc. as above. Someone else has now added this photo to Mike’s personal page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Buchanan_(politician) thus confirming its compliance. However, it has not yet been added to his party’s page.

I was blocked because of my well intentioned fumbling in trying to get a compliant photo of Mike Buchanan into the relevant section of his political party’s page and not for disruptive editing on his personal page. I expected that the Wiki photo system for would be akin to MS Word, Excel or other popular software and be relatively straightforward to navigate. I found the Wiki process extremely difficult to comprehend and use but also tantalising as I continually seemed to be at the point of achieving what I had been asked to do when I was blocked in error by the auto system.

I do not consider this to be what Wiki would describe as vandalism, disruptive editing, a “not here” agenda or anything other than supportive of the Wiki ethos, policies and principles. Inept and inexperienced and needing support, yes, but not vandalism or disruptive editing according to my understanding of the Wiki policies and principles. Please assist me by specific and explicit citations if I have inadvertently transgressed some Wiki rules or protocols so that I can address the issues that Wiki has established in seeking to develop and improve the neutral Wiki content on the page for Justice for men and Boys and the women who love them.

Following the automated block, I followed Wiki protocols and instructions and raised an unblock request using the Unblock Ticket Request System. I was repeatedly told to copy and paste an entry on the bottom of my Talk page – but I could not see how to do this – there is no facility to make any entry at the bottom of my Talk page – it just displays the messages. I continually raised this point in the UTRS and was repeatedly told to copy and paste an entry at the bottom of my Talk page! Round and round – desperately seeking help and guidance as the UTRSs show.

I was not aware of any alternative action that was available to me. If just one person had suggested I should use the [edit source] link, then so much distress and suffering could have been avoided and I could have escaped this continuous UTRS loop and still be editing. I trust this explanation can be verified and accepted and that the automated erroneous block on my editing be removed.

It would have been very helpful if I could have added a screen shot of the difficulties I was facing – and that facility would be a huge benefit to this discussion in my opinion. However, this does not seem possible as far as I am aware.

Regarding the change of my user name. It would seem to me that Wiki was very clear that a more acceptable name could be used independently of other issues; “Please note that your username is inappropriate because it is soapboxing. If you suggest an alternative name here then, if it is suitable, I will change it. Availability can be checked here. Just Chilling (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC).” Please let me have your specific guidance and assistance to help me understand what precisely has changed since the 17th December and in what way I have not complied with Wiki’s requirements as set out on the 20th December. Your guidance and assistance would be very much appreciated so that we may look to resolving this confusion and move forward.[reply]

I am concerned that there may issues about which I am unaware. Perhaps yourself or Dlohcierekim can help me by clarifying what is the background to Dlohcierekim’s comment; “ .. I get the feeling you are editing at the behest or in league with some outside-of-Wikipedia influence. You would do well to give attention to WP:COI and WP:PAID. You will need to address this issue fully to be unblocked.”

I am a friend of Mike Buchanan and a supporter of Justice for Men and Boys and the women who love them. I have not come across any Wiki protocol that prohibits a friend or a supporter of a political party or interest group from adding to the useful, neutral, objective information on Wiki. The Wiki principles seem to focus on content, rather than the contributor. Could you please help by clarifying precisely what Wiki rules or protocols Dlohcierekim sees that I have broken? Clearly this is a very serious issue as Dlohcierekim is asserting that “ … You will need to address this issue fully to be unblocked.” and is, therefore, preventing resolution of this situation. Clearly, I need to understand what the Wiki issue is before I can address it. Please help me on this.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not getting paid by anyone in any way for any of this engagement with Wikipedia. I find it curious that such a thought would occur when I have demonstrated such inept and challenging actions in the past.

The block on my account comes from an automated system that detected my inexperience and inept fumbling in trying to get a valid photo set up on Mike Buchanan’s party’s Wiki page – not vandalism or disruptive editing or contravening any other Wiki principle or protocol so far as I am aware. I seek to have this automated error corrected and the block lifted in compliance with my understanding of Wiki principles and ethos.

I accept that my original user name constituted “soapboxing” and have offered, what has been agreed as, a suitable alternative in compliance with the Wiki requirement dated 20th December as above.

It is part of my understanding of the Wiki ethos that assistance and support should be provided so that the Encyclopaedia will be as inclusive, neutral, informative and objective as it can be, and I wholeheartedly embrace and support this. It is my clear and determined intention to be fully compliant with Wiki principles, ethos and objectives. I am new to Wiki editing and the Wiki systems which I have found opaque and difficult to navigate and use. I am seeking training and guidance so that I can become more familiar, effective and compliant with Wiki’s protocols and procedures.

I respectfully request that the erroneous block on my participation in the Wiki project be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeminismDestroysBoys (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course, I apologised for my disruptive editing on Mike Buchanan’s page following advice and guidance from Wiki contributors and an increased understanding on my part..." Where was this apology made? --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN; Thank you for your prompt response. Kindly refer to the continuing text after your quote (as follows);

" ....As far as I know, all Wiki’s requirements have been met in the full disclosures of the circumstances in UTRS 20090, 20092, 20093, 20096 and 20123 (as per my Talk page) as well as in Wiki correspondence with various members around the 17th December 2017. These were accepted, and I was able to continue editing having started to understand how the Wiki rules operate. Please refer to these UTRSs, relevant correspondence within Wiki and my ability to continue editing on a different Wiki page on a different subject. These factors suggest, and seem to confirm to me, that Wiki requirements have been met in this regard.”

I apologised in the Wiki correspondence to which I refer above. I truly believe that the above satisfied Wiki’s requirements as demonstrated by the fact that that I was able to continue editing as described in my text above. I was warned about, and I accepted and apologised for, my disruptive editing on Mike's page - but not blocked. This was my very first engagement with Wiki editing and did not know what to do – my struggle is described in the above correspondence and UTRS. I have taken the comments and guidance on board and feel I have a very much clearer understanding of the Wiki processes and procedures and, very importantly, the protocols to be followed in future.

I confirm that I was warned very clearly about my disruptive editing on Mike's personal page, which I accepted and for which I apologised (and for which I continue to apologise), but I was not blocked for this and was allowed to continue editing.

The actual block on editing was a result of an auto bot whilst I was working on another page and it is this auto block that I am asking Wiki to remove. The full details are set out above. I am asking to have the erroneous auto block that relates to the attempted insertion of a compliant photo on Mike's party's page to be lifted as described above. I am determinedly setting about developing the capacity to avoid triggering such events in the future.FeminismDestroysBoys (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were not autoblocked by a bot. You were blocked by admin Widr. Pinging them and Dlohcierekim for input on your unblock request. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think the foregoing discussion (eg, blocked by a bot) underscores a lack of WP:CIR or [WP:IDNH]] vs a need to edit disruptively, to argue, to give battle. As user refers to Buchanan by first name above, my continued perception is one one of an outside agenda in conflict and at variance with creating a neutrally worded/weighted encyclopedia. User, by edits and even by the original user name, signals being on a crusade against feminism (as the most obvious example), to right perceived societal wrongs, to rewrite Wikipedia to the tune of the user's own political agenda. I would counsel against an unblock.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim - Thank you for your comment. I will look into and carefully consider the references you have kindly provided. Thank you for your specific guidance.NobleThinker (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of talk page access

Since you are showing no inclination of submitting a valid appeal on here I am withdrawing your talk page access. Any further appeal should now be made at WP:UTRS. Please be aware that you will only be permitted a limited number of UTRS appeals so you need to demonstrate clearly that you understand the reason for your block and that the conduct that lead to your block will not be repeated. Just Chilling (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20936 was submitted on Mar 21, 2018 11:59:57. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from The Vintage Feminist

I've only just realised that this account is here and a replacement for User:FeminismDestroysBoys. You've said "I am a friend of Mike Buchanan and a supporter of Justice for Men and Boys and the women who love them." Someone claiming to be him (I have no way of verifying it) left a message on my talk page (link, scroll to bottom).
I moved the message and my answer to it here. If it is from him can you let him know. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:NobleThinker"