User talk:Tjholme

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Tjholme! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Tjholme, While contributions such as this are constructive and valuable, the allegations and insinuations against other editors in this or this edit are not. You are encouraged to rephrase those two statements to comment on content rather than contributors and refrain from similar comments in the future. You are however absolutely welcome to offer more of the first kind. MLauba (Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba - I appreciate your feedback but could you please be more specififc as to exactly what you find objectionable in the edits you cited and why? My points about an effort to play down Guede's antisocial behaviour by using intentionally weak, inaccurately weak, paraphrasing of WP:RS sources are obvious ones. I'm confused as to why a discussion is even necessary once the error has been identified. Also, my comments were not attacks on any individual. I dont know who wrote that section of the article, just that it's clearly wrong. Guede wasnt 'an uninvited guest', he didnt crash their barbeque. Rudy broke into an occupied home by climbing into an open window. When he was discovered he drew a knife and threatened the owner. The owner's statement as to these events was presented as evidence at his murder trial. So when an editor states that 'he was an uninvited guest' is an accurate representation of those events, how would you answer? It is what it is. I dont know how to candycoat it to make it easier to swallow. Do I need to use some of those fancy WP acronyms to have my simple points fairly considered and not dismissed out of hand? Tjholme (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No, all you need is to leave out all the posturing and grandstanding attacking other contributors, whether by name or as a group, claims of bias that you cannot substantiate, casting aspersions - in short, anything that discusses other contributors or their motives is out of line.
You are not on a blog's comment section, on a forum, or a social media site. You don't have to posture or soapbox to win points. All you need to do in order to influence the article is:
  • To propose changes, worded in the most neutral way possible
  • To advance solid third party reliable sources to support them
  • To be able to argue, factually, why these changes are needed and what they bring to the article.
  • To be able to let go when you lose an argument without resorting to name calling.
The purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. You are dealing with editors that come from all corners of the world, with different cultural backgrounds and sensitivities. Editing in a collegial manner requires that everyone concentrate on exactly one thing, discussing improvements to the article, and nothing else.
So please do consider this message as it is intended: An invitation to conform to the social norms that have been established on Wikipedia going forward and get your points heard and evaluated. But also as a final warning: the next time you attack others you will lose your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up MLauba's reminder, please do not poison the water by suggesting that editors on the topic are divided into a "British" and an "American contingent" (to use the description on your user page). That this is the English-language version of Wikipedia makes it clear that we, as users, are not supposed to regiment our actions on the grounds of nationality. Thank you, and regards, SuperMarioMan 22:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didnt express myself clearly. I was actually trying to say that our European editors work in a timezone several hours removed from our North American editors, and that discussing and coming to consensus (for or against) after only a few hours doesnt give all editors a chance to consider the issue under discussion, much less add their voice. It creates the appearance of impropriety. Tjholme (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my "notice" appears ill-advised, and I have struck it through. Due to the international nature of the topic, there has, in the past, been rather a lot of division at the talk page, but it now seems to me now that the content of that particular diff is not really objectionable after all. I apologise for jumping to conclusions so quickly. Regards, SuperMarioMan 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to this party, but I read it as a comment on timezones rather than factions. Maybe could have been better-worded, but not blatantly offensive.  pablo 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

Hi. It's usual practice to indent replies on talk pages (as described here) to make it clearer what you're responding to. This is done by prefixing your post with one more colon than whoever you're talking to has used.  pablo 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. First of all, thanks for this contribution to the ANI discussion. However, since it does not appear to take on board what other users have said in response, I have decided to offer a reply here. When a user comes to Wikipedia and, in the very first sentence of their very first contribution to this project, states without caveats that he is "a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence", one wonders whether it is a case of a player putting all their cards on the table in a defiant and intimidating manner. I also find it interesting that you appear sure of PhanuelB's inner thought processes in stating "When PhanuelB says 'The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so' it's obvious he's not suggesting that Guede be demonized or slandered, just that the quoted source be quoted accurately, which it isn't in it's current form." PhanuelB did not link to any diffs or external URLs in the statement referred to, which means that I am at a loss as to how you, a different user, seem to have a precise knowledge of what he left unsaid. As to the rest of your comment (allegations of a "bloody river", for example), the refuting arguments are further up the page, and it is tiresome to repeat these time and time again. Please provide some substantiation when offering counter-arguments so that they carry more weight. Thank you, and regards, SuperMarioMan 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re- "which means that I am at a loss as to how you, a different user, seem to have a precise knowledge of what he left unsaid." Are you implying that I'm a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or otherwise conspiring behind the scenes? Because it seems to me by the standards that PhanuelB has been held to and judged by that would amount to a personal attack. However, as I think that definition of a personal attack is a petty, twisted one I wouldn't think of using it against you or PhanuelB or anyone else. The truth is far more pedestrian. I've simply been watching the process of PhanuelB getting blocked and disagree with everything about it. My comments mean just what they say .. It's obvious to me what he means by "'The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so" and that specific line has been my pet peave all along. The substantiation is in the cited source [16].. What more could you want? I dont actually anticipate my opinion will make any difference at all. I just wanted to publically disagree with what's going on. Regards Tjholme (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't set out to imply sock- or meatpuppetry in that comment (sorry if it seemed suggestive of that), it just appeared to me that comments were being forced into PhanuelB's mouth. Thanks for clarifying, and regards, SuperMarioMan 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Regards, Tjholme (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for off-wiki co-ordinated votestacking and meatpuppetry (see this link - section "Meatpuppetry and votestacking at MfD"). You may be unblocked if you convincingly account for your editing patterns - i.e. 3 months of inactivity after only editing one topic area, followed by a sudden return (along with multiple other editors) to attempt to stack consensus at a deletion discussion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

|unblock|2=reason=This is a cheap and petty way to get rid of people that dont agree with the British consensus, and comes off as a temper tantrum from petulant children angry that the tide of public opinion is obviously turning in AK's favor. In my own defence, it was freaking Hanukkah (followed by Christmas.. yes I celebrate both.. so sue me.) and I've been busy.. I didnt have much to add to the conversation but I caught up on reading the debates as time permitted.. I only spoke up in defence of people Ive seen blocked with little cause in the past.. Thats been an ongoing discussion.. I'm neither sockpuppet nor meatpuppet anymore than you coordinated bunch of British Knox haters are.. I have one identity only and a unique IP.. If you have some PROOF that I sock or meat puppet.. If you have anything more than ill will and mean spiritedness then lets see it.. Otherwise unblock me!. I'll edit again when and if I get ready to. Not on your schedule. 67.168.126.17 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) That was me, tjholme, by the wayTjholme (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

See above Tjholme (talk) 12:10 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but blaming others and insulting them will not get your block lifted. Your unblock request must discuss your behavior and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked. TNXMan 15:35, 11 January 2011 (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.

{{unblock|1=I would like to restate my request to unblock my account. In my previous comments I was angry at being unexpectedly blocked and lost my cool. I've had time to compose myself and reflect upon the situation. Please allow me to restate my case. In January 2010 I was accused of being a meatpuppet along with a number of other editors. (Please see user: Pablo_X/spa) This took me by surpise as I have only one account, one user ID and am the only person logging in from my IP address. No one has ever instructed me to support their position. I support those that seem reasonable to me and oppose others. I cannot discuss my behavior as to my knowledge I broke none of the critical rules. I didnt threaten or attack others, I didnt vandalize, I didnt use vulgarities. to my knowledge, my sin was to openly disagree with the small group of admins that were controlling all edits, as well as supporting other editors that had IMO been blocked without good cause. I did in my frustration refer to the admins in question as a bunch of British Knox-Haters.. I admit that was less than civil and crossed a line. I apologize. I dont not wish or intend to engage in the kind of bitter and petty sniping that characterized the MoMK article in the Fall of 2010. I havent bothered to appeal my block since January as under the rule of the admins that have dominated I considered the article slanted and a lost cause. However, since Jimbo Wales has intervened to restore some balance, I see new hope for a Fair and Balanced article. I respectfully ask that you unblock both my account ( user: tjholme ) and my IP (67.168.126.17 ) }} [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • You neglect to mention that you have quite openly edited twice at the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page within the last 48 hours under the aforementioned IP address (now blocked for one month). Circumvention of blocks doesn't really sit well with Wikipedia administrators and the community in general, especially when it is used as a means to slander absent parties in a debate with claims of administrator corruption. I just thought that I should compensate for this strange omission in the above report. Not really a case of having only "one user ID", is it? SuperMarioMan 14:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely did comment twice under my IP address in the last 48 hours. I made no effort to hide my identity. In fact I signed my comment with my user name and proclaimed my status as INDEF blocked. I do not apologize for that. The context of my comments was specifically a discussion of unjust, unwarranted blocks done over the last 6 months or so and the proposal of a general amnesty. Jimbo Wales himself criticized the previous admins because at least some were clearly unwarranted and had the appearance of impropriety. As for slander , you’re awfully loose with your use of the word. The one admin I named directly was present and able to speak for his/herself.. and did. The fact that the others have quit Wiki in a snit, retired or taken extended breaks rather than coming back to explain or justify their actions is not my fault. The truth of my statements is clear in the Hit List stored at en.wikipedia/wiki/user:Pablo_X/spa . There was in fact a purge of editors that were opposed to the direction the MoMK article had taken. A purge of editors that took advantage of WP:SOCK without supporting evidence to ban numerous editors. -tjholme Tjholme (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILLEGIT, in a subsection titled "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts", quite clearly states: "Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account ... Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart. See also WP:EVASION." It would have been more sensible to ask for and acquire unblocking here before contributing to the talk page discussion. Not all accounts at User:Pablo X/spa are blocked. However, since it is somewhat puzzling (not to mention rather convenient) that there has been a trend for accounts that have been inactive for two or three or more months to re-awaken en masse for the latest AfD or major talk page debate, questions of meatpuppetry and POV-pushing abound - in the case of the restricted accounts, there has been a demonstrable pattern of this erratic and disruptive editing. SuperMarioMan 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzling? Why ? Until a couple days ago when I heard user: Jimbo Wales had joined the discussion there didn’t seem to be much point in appealing for an unblock. Even if I won the appeal and was unblocked (which was not likely as you’ve demonstrated by the way you’re camping my talk page) there was still only you lot to discuss edits with and I hope you’ll at least concede that your group of admins has been less than even handed in allowing edits that suggest AK might not have gotten a fair shake. Until and unless there was a fundamental shake up of the powers that be I saw no point in participating. Well, the worm has definitely turned and I have renewed enthusiasm. I imagine others feel the same way. This does seem to be the year that the oppressed push back worldwide. Regards Tjholme (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I hope you’ll at least concede that your group of admins has been less than even handed in allowing edits that suggest AK might not have gotten a fair shake." I am not "in league" in some manner (if I've read the bit about "your group of admins" correctly - please forgive me if not) with certain administrators. I have only agreed with many of the decisions of Black Kite and MLauba because these two particular administrators have acted as a voice of reason when there have been repeated and sustained attempts to insert often giant tracts of POV into an already troubled article, which has been rewritten and condensed from header to footer in the course of the last 12 months in a desperate attempt to make it at least vaguely readable. I admit that we have a considerable divergence of opinion, but that is my position. I also see how multiple, verbose posts at this user talk page could be construed as "camping out", for which I apologise: I will make no more comments here. I had originally set out simply to point out the evasion of the block - sorry that it has descended into something of an argument. I'll leave it there. Regards, SuperMarioMan 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:SuperMarioMan is correct. Editing as an IP when blocked is totally against policy. Blocked is blocked - no exceptions, except to this single page. Saying I do not apologize for that. will not help you gain support.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock: I agree with unblocking this user, who was indef-blocked as the first violation, when a 1-month initial block would have seemed more appropriate. Some users fail to understand that blocking is not applied only to a username (to lose the reputation associated with that username) but a block applies to all edit-access, including as IP edits. The blocking admin, User:Black_Kite, resigned from Wikipedia, on 25 January 2011, apparently due to family illness (see note in this edit), so there is no need to bother him further. This User:Tjholme has already explained the timing of edits, as merely watching the other discussions, but clarified the timing of the MfD edit, as saying, "I only spoke up in defence of people Ive seen blocked with little cause in the past". Perhaps this user should be reminded that if someone sends a specific email to join a discussion, and a user then proceeds to join, then both users risk being blocked for improper WP:CANVAS activities. However, if a general announcement is placed on a blog website or posted to Myspace, then Wikipedia cannot penalize people who joined a discussion after being informed by a wider notice. Also, the term "votestacking" is rather misleading in a WP:MfD discussion, where votes are not counted, and hence users cannot be expected to abide by illogical things being implied by such misleading terms. I have tried, for months, to improve Wikipedia's policies, but it is extremely difficult to get consensus in some discussions. Anyway, in this case, I recommend to unblock this user soon. -Wikid77 03:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In accordance with the above, I won't be going into further specifics here, but I have serious questions about this "rationale" for unblocking (such as the whole issue of abusing an alternative account being left out of it). I have set out concerns here. SuperMarioMan 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the user should be unblocked.

I do agree with Wikid77. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my own defense. I'm not an experienced Wiki user. I was INDEF'd for over three months and never tried to edit the article or talk page. It wasn't until Jimbo joined that I wanted to make a comment but didn't immediately know how to proceed. In truth I was surprised when the system let me open an edit on the talkpage..That's why I signed my user name. I didn't want anyone think I was trying to sneak back. I figured it must be ok to talk so long as I did not edit the article. I commented on one section dealing with the purge of December 2010 and supported an amnesty. The second comment was simply a clarification of the first. When the consensus seemed to be that the blocked editors should appeal through normal channels I read the section on block appeals and promptly posted one. I've done my 90 days and IMO paid my debt to Wiki for whatever you all think I did in December.. That's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Please remove the blocks so we can all go back to doing more productive things. Now I need to say something to SuperM. This is not an attack or an insult so please don't take it as such, but I have to ask; What is your fascination with me? We talked about your camping my talk page above and you stated you understood how you might be seen to be camping and so were going to let it go.. Yet I come back to check my unblock request and here you are again trying to undermine a fair review of my circumstances. I don't want to use the "S" word because it carries such ugly connotations, but please, let this go. I don't want to complain about anyone.. Just want a fair review from a neutral, uninvolved admin and I'll live with their determination. Regards- Tjholme (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | reason= I request that my block be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please allow me to request that both my user name, tjholme, and my IP range be unblocked. I do now understand that the comment I made under my IP Address was wrong and amounted to sockpuppetry. I am guilty and I apologize. I will not let it happen again. At the time the offense occurred I didn't realize that I was evading.. I was simply trying to get my previous INDEF, which had been in effect over 3 months, lifted. It was an error of ignorance on my part, not malice. I'm not sure what I did in December to get INDEF'd but I can appreciate how my break from commenting during the holidays followed by my sudden return might be misconstrued as some kind of offsite coordination. I should have calmly explained myself rather than getting angry. I will strive to be more circumspect in my actions going forward and to be more coorperative with the other editers and admins in general. [[User:Tjholme|Tjholme]] ([[User talk:Tjholme#top|talk]]) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)}}

I believe that this user should be unblocked.Turningpointe (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Is anyone even following up on these unblock requests anymore? Will some unbiased admin, and by unbiased I mean someone not aligned or in league with either side of the Amanda Knox debate, please take a minute to read the discussions above and review my unblock request on it's actual merits rather than simply popping in to say "I agree" with the openly anti-Knox crusader user: SuperMarioMan ? (Note: that was not intended as a slur on SMM. It is a documented fact that he/she is a posting member at the anti-Knox hate site PMF and/or TJMK) A brief review will show that I was blocked without cause during a mass blocking in Dec 2010. An act that Jimbo Wales himself has decried as improper. Thank you in advance for your time. Tjholme (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked both your account and your IP. It appears that you have been blocked for reasons you were not aware of before. Besides, for an offense like this, three months is long enough. Make sure that you completely understand our WP:SOCK policy before editing, or you may be reblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post on behalf of blocked editors

I have removed this post. PhanuelB is not only blocked from editing but has also had access to his talk page revoked, a step only taken around here for extreme situations. He can e-mail the Arbitration Committee, that is I believe his last avenue of appeal at the moment. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying edits for blocked users is not allowed. Please do not do it again. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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