User talk:Cityside189/Archive 2

WP:ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Another side of the street. Thank you. DES (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. Thank you. User:Beyond My Ken has accused me of sockpuppeting you, meaning that I am the owner of my and your accounts. Of course you are behind your account so I have started a sock puppet investigation on both myself and you in order to clear our names. Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》  05:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Me Frightening You.
Hi, Im sorry if you think I am scaring you off or frightening you. I just found out that there was an issue by coming across your post on Beyond My Kens talk page. In the future, it is always helpdul to let the user know on their talk page if you have an issue with them because it could very well be a misunderstanding. I am not entirely sure what comments may have scared you off so please let me know if you dont mind because again it was probably a misunderstanding and I can explain my ture intentions of the comment to you. I also would like to know so in the future I can be more careful and not scare another user off with a similar comment. I am not trying to harass or scare you so please know that I have good intentions. I noticed that you also deleted my comment on here and said to get off your talk page so this will be my final comment to your page unless you respond with the intent of discussing this with me because I believe that this can be easily resolved with a little communication. And also keep in mind that you should never delete any official notices and just comments and with comments, you should be careful because some users will get upset if you delete their comment. I personally dont care because I know that you do not have bad intentions and I realised that what you deleted was a repeated notice, sorry I accidentally did that. Welcome to Wikipedia! Good Luck! And you can always come to my talk page with any questions xomments or concerns. Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 06:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to really dialog, you should be ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities. You should be prepared to take action to do new things, and you should be prepared to stop doing things even if you think you shouldn't have to.  You may have to stretch out of your comfort zone.  If you want my dialog and support here on Wikipedia, you will have to agree up front to do whatever I say to do, and refrain from doing whatever I say to refrain from doing.  If you don't like the ideas of this or think it's wrong, or simply disagree, then I will not dialog with you or support you, and I probably will share my views with important wikipedia administrators that you should be removed from Wikipedia.  So it's up to you.
 * Should you decide you want what I have to offer and are willing to go to any lengths to get it, then you are ready to take certain steps. At some of these you may balk, you may think that there is an easier, softer way, but there is not.  With all the earnestness at my command I beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start.  When you feel that you are ready to comply let me know.  One way I will know if you are sincere is if I sense you are giving me any form of advice, suggestion, reminder, or simply pointing me to a wikipedia policy, then I will know you are not sincere and the dialog ends along with whatever possibility there is of dialog nor or in the future.  Yes or No?


 * Im not exactly sure what youre saying but people have been criticising my every move, mistake, etc. for the past few days. If you want to provide some constructive criticism, have at it! If you are looking to provide negative criticism, Ill have none of that after yesterday. Im still not sure exactly what you are saying. It seems as if you want something otherwise you will put a bad word in with admins. But what do you want. If you want an apology or something like that, Ill give you one just to make you feel better regardless. I dont need a good word from you to the Admins. And doing so would even make them think more that we were sockpuppets. Again you say "you might think there is an easier softer way but theres not" what is this way? I mean I cant really answer this as I dont literally understand what you are trying to say. Please sign comments too in the future. If you could explain this comment above a little more, id appreciate it. Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 14:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to help you.  I'm not threatening you with anything.  But you need to slow down, because you miss a lot while you are going at your normal pace.   I know you like going at your normal pace, which is faster than many people.   Because of your advanced abilities, what seems "normal pace" for you is actually too fast for your own good.  Here's an example.   I said earlier today the following:  " One way I will know if you are sincere is if I sense you are giving me any form of advice, suggestion, reminder, or simply pointing me to a wikipedia policy".  In your reply to me, you include the following information:  "Please sign comments too in the future".  Do you see how you did exactly what I didn't want you to do?   You gave me a direction, some advice, a reminder to sign my posts in the future.  I had already asked you not to give me advice or suggestions.  I think you did this not out of malice or anger, but out of your going too fast for your own good.  You missed that important point of what I was saying.  One last thing before I explain what I mean by "easier softer way but there is not".  I have looked over a lot of your posts so I could offer to advise you on how to stop all the criticism directed at you, and help you fix your blunders, and also help you feel better and heal the negative feelings you have about this.  In order for you to benefit from my views, though, you have to slow down and listen to me.  If you don't want to, that's OK too.   But I'm not going to share my views with you unless you slow down.  An important first step for you is to stop giving advice to people or in any way telling them what to do.   I know, I know, this is your nice way of saying something helpful, but thats not how it's coming across.  It's coming across as you telling me (and others) what to do, being bossy, in a way.   Are you starting to understand?


 * When communicating with me, and if you want me to keep talking to you, do not tell me what to do, do not suggest what I should do, do not advise me on what to do, do not direct me what to do, do not provide me any wikipedia rules or guidelines. In short, if you want to talk with me, I am the Teacher and you are the Learner.  If you don't like the idea of this, simply stop talking with me and I will not chase you down.  But if you want the benefit of my views then you must accept my terms.  Do you accept my terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Talkback
Don't worry DES (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Improper blocks by Floquenbeam. Thank you. DES (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who's reading this, or whether I am allowed to comment other than to request an unblock. Though I strain your patience, I will say my latest aggressive posting to EOaTW was anger, pure and simple. After last night I was so exhausted, this morning woke up and saw that EOaTW had messaged me, and I lit into him. I agree with BMK] that it's weird and opposite of my presentation last night. But going further, this posting to EoaTW was against the rules. It was a dumb move on my part. What I wanted was to get EOaTW to stop and listen to me, so I inappropriately used tactics I thought he would listen to. He uses categorical thinking and takes things personally (as I have done), and if he said yes to me I was going to tell him to just stop editing for a while and stop bossing people around. Then I was going to advise him to get a mentor as I did. If he didn't listen to me I was just going to ignore him, pure and simple.

I admit that I have engaged in weird and inappropriate behavior since starting here, and I don't blame user:Floquenbeam for blocking me. Because looking at this from the outside, I see and regret the disruptive nature of my short tenure. Even while blocked, I would like to keep my account and look at some things provided to me by User:DESiegel. When I am blocked, can I still communicate with people and make some apologies where I think they are due? I am most concerned about having offended the sensibilities of people here. I value what User:Robert McClenon took the time to say to me in the tea house, but then I disrespected that time he took to coach me by flying off the handle. When I look at my own editing behavior and posts, I also regret my treatment of the Regnerus' article editors. I was a bull in a china shop for no good reason. I did start to make conciliations and apologies to some users on the LGBT parenting talk page. I will forget about it for a while and learn the ropes more before getting into topics where I have a passionate interest likely to compromise my neutrality. Finally I don't know your protocols here, but if someone wants to call me on the phone or find out actual information about me, I will be willing to.

If I don't hear back to the contrary I will wait 6 months and then request to be unblocked. If someone sees fit to unblock me before then, I will promise restraint and better adherence to the rules. I would appreciate staying in touch with you folks from time to time, because in the end, connections with users such as yourself really helped me to get a better view of what Wikipedia is all about. Thanks, Mark Cityside189 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Cityside189 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading more, on the talk page about this,I want to also apologize for inappropriately interacting with user:Roscelese. I tried to apologize to her on her talk page and on the LGBT Parenting talk page, but in all reality apologies don't mean much if my behavior doesn't follow suit. I don't blame user:MrX for his impression, and admit my fault, but please believe me that I am no one that has ever been here before. I do want to stay connected to the community over the nest 6 months, if possible. Thanks for the time you took to read this, I'm sure it's not your favorite activity.Cityside189 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if blocked, you can continue to read pages, and to use the email-this-user feature for those users who have enabled it. You can post here and ping users, unless that privilege is separately rescinded. However, don't over do that. You have my permission to ping me when you wish, other users might feel differently. You might want to check back in a day or two, discussion is still ongoing. DES (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you DES. DES.  I want the committee to know about my first post.  User Floquenbeam (I won't ping her) said it was suspicious.  What happened is that the minute my account came up, a Wikipedia auto-generated message came up to suggest I try editing something.  I saw the article and thought I could contribute something meaningful, so I did.  That edit is here:   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michele_Young-Stone&diff=prev&oldid=675021433.  That was my attempt to get out of the passionate areas of my interests I was doing as an IP user and just do general contributions.  I'm not sure if my edits there were wrong, but they seem to have caused suspicion, so I wanted to answer that concern directly.  I will take your advice and not ping the users (I learned that pinging them is to include the username in brackets so they ate notified that I used their name.  If you think it's important that Floquenbeam see my statement about my first post I will leave that to you to notify her.   Thanks again...Cityside189 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

starting over?
Hello DES, I'm disappointed to see that the sock puppet block will stand. Thank you for your time in all of this. I especially appreciate that at the end, you deferred your own stance in the name of consensus. I will remember that and try to do the same in the future.

I learned a lot from watching this all unfold, mostly about myself. I do think the findings were somewhat reactive, which is understandable because of my astonishingly inappropriate, angry outburst toward EOaTW. Reading it today I am more embarrassed about it than yesterday. If I hadn't done that one thing I think the outcome would have turned out differently.

Well after getting a good night's sleep and thinking this over, I've decided that I want to try and come back to Wikipedia before the 6 months that I wrote about yesterday in my talk page. I'd like to get on with learning and having some fun on the site. I like it because it brings me back to my graduate school days working with others in an academic fashion. I'll focus on the fun stuff and the rewards of learning and contributing, and I'll give up my desire to "change the world as we know it". (I read that in an article here). But, I can't do very much as a blocked user to demonstrate that I have changed in my mindset. I would think that under some other types of blocks or restrictions, I could be evaluated as I went along, so that I could show steady improvement or not. But with a sock puppet block, I'm not able to do very much.

Would it be appropriate of me to request (or even possible) to have my block be converted to a disruptive user block that had conditions on it? Perhaps to use the option on my talk page to request the unblock. In that request I could provide some of my talk page points, volunteer my IP address or other personally identifying information (if they even want that), and to answer/explain my outburst to EOaTW.

If it were granted, then I'd have some ability at least to start re-building and start to demonstrate to the community that I could evolve into a valuable resource. And also as I went along, it would become clearer and clearer to everyone that I'm not that other user EOaTW.

It seems to me that among the greatest concerns if I am unblocked is that I might do future damage to the users of Wikipedia. I reference the following note: "If you do unblock, be prepared to apologize to the people who are going to further waste their time with this person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)". It's hard to hear that, but I take it pretty seriously and I would like to address that by changing and starting over.

If Admins wanted, I could also offer follow the template suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2nd_chance.

So while I know I am writing way too much right now for general purposes, I'm trying to take the time and care to show that (1)., I am not the sock puppet of EOaTW nor have I ever been on Wikipedia before (except as the IP I mentioned), and 2. that I'd like another chance to get this all behind me. In the end if it doesn't work out for me, I guess I'll just move on. After all, it's not the end of the world for me or Wikipedia if there's one less editor-in-training. I guess in the end I just want to rise to this and overcome it like I do with other challenges in my real life outside Wikipedia.

Whew, thanks for reading to the end.. what do you think? Knowing you're busy, I won't expect a reply right away, so if you want to reply in a detailed way but don't have the time, could let me know when you might have the time to look at this (i.e. in a few days, weeks, or next month)?

Thanks again. Cityside189 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Cityside189, sorry for the delay in responding. I was going to tell you that you could request an unblock at any time, but that I couldn't appeal you block on your behalf. I was then going to tell you more about how block appeals work. However it seems that lower on this page the blocking admin (User:Floquenbeam) has offered to unblock you if you agree not to interact with User:Roscelese. That decision is yours to make, but Wikipedia is large and there ought to be plenty of room to edit without interacting with any one user. If you want accept those conditions, you should respond saying so in the section below, the one wher the offer was made, and you should ping Floquenbeam. I advise that you only accept if you seriously intend to comply with the restriction. If you think the restriction is unfair, or that you won't be able to comply, say so honestly and give whatever other reasons you may have for unblocking, if you choose to. But don't agree and then go back on your agreement. That would be taken very badly indeed, and as strong evidence that those who wanted to block in the first place were correct.  Feel free to ping me again here or to post on my talk page when/if you are unblocked. DES (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks DES. Yes, I see the wisdom of your views.  See my comments below, and I have lots more questions for you, as well.  However I don't want to use up all your energy all at once so I will ask around about different things as I go.   I think I should get some thoughts and questions down specifically about sock puppet things while it is fresh in my mind.  If unblocked I'll use my sandbox... I'll keep you posted...  Cityside189 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Hi, I am a blocked user here on Wikipedia, trying to stay active and build my competency. I thought it would be OK to use my talk page to ask a question. I learned about the "help me" function on a help page and I am trying it out here. I have an idea, but don't know if it's a good one. I write long messages, so I apologize for rambling on so much, but here's my idea and discussion. I'll also try out some editing tools as well and try to organize my question into a mini-article.

Background: I've noticed that some articles on Wikipedia have higher than average edits by newer, less competent users. I've seen that the seasoned editors watching those articles spend a lot of time reverting incompetent edits, explaining Wikipedia policies and procedures, and also protecting content. A good example of this is the recent activity on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Studying the interactions, I see that the seasoned editors are spending a lot of time maintaining the page and reverting edits, and they are also taking a lot of time helping newcomers understand the ropes. My own experience is at talk:LGBT parenting and talk:Mark Regnerus.

The main point: What about locking these pages against editing, with a core group of seasoned editors to monitor the page. Newcomers could still engage in the topic and propose edits, while the seasoned users would ensure consensus and make the edits themselves. The lock could also help automatically prevent the malicious users, which also could save seasoned users more time and headache. A seasoned user with more time (and less headache) would have more time or energy or patience to help the benign but still incompetent newcomer. There could also be a newcomer welcoming committee for that specific article, to welcome them and help them avoid common pitfalls, and prevent them from putting their foot in their mouth too early.

A supplemental point: Finally, because seasoned editors are so busy with fighting vandalism in all it's forms, they have less time and are probably less patient in their approaches sometimes. This might gives the newcomer a false impression that the seasoned users don't like them and don't value their contributions. Sometimes that could be true, but probably it's more frequent that the seasoned users are simply overwhelmed and exhausted and that's why they may seem impatient.

Summary: an Article lock on wikipedia for certain articles already exists, i.e, the featured articles are already locked. Some articles are more likely to attract new users or higher emotional content among existing users. These articles could be candidates for locking as well, to help seasoned and newcomer editors alike.

Well those are my thoughts this morning, thank you for listening and if you have any advice, I would welcome it.

Cityside189 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Response

 * We do lock pages when there's enough problematic activity that having them unlocked does more harm than good (or there's some reason to believe they'll be a vandalism target, as with Featured Articles). However, we err toward the side of having editing open, because an "undo" isn't hard for an editor to do when there is a problem edit, and because new editors may also have something of value to add. A neophyte editor can make a mistake wherever they edit, and if we lock them out of making mistakes and being corrected, they will never learn to be seasoned editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Star trek article
I've been getting into Voyager again. I saw Tsunkatse and remembered that the stunt double for Jeri Ryan is Dana Hee, who has a very good Wikipedia page here. She is not credited in the show's credits, so I am on the trail of finding suitable references for editing her article and also this one: Tsunkatse. If you have any leads, let me know.

In addition, the current write up of this page appears to have a circular reference. The word Tsunkatse is used in the title, but is also used in the first line. I have been trying to find out the meaning of this word, which appears to be a Star Trek writer's invention for that episode. If so, we should edit the body of the paragraph with a descriptor, because as it stands it seems like the word is a known kind of ring match or arena fight. I would propose something like

Unblocking
Since you do a good job of stringing coherent sentences together, and the latest sock of User:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia can't, I'm concerned now that I've misread the situation, and you aren't the same person after all (if you were, I'd expect the latest sock to have learned and act older). I apologize (really); that bizarre off-the-wall demand that he submit to your commands threw me, I've seen games like that played by kids many times before, and the odds of an actual good faith user saying that are really, really small. The problem is (and I'll be honest, even if it looks like I'm a weasel trying to cover my ass) I am still very much convinced you're a returning previously blocked/banned user, based (among other things) on your immediate insertion into conflicts with Roscelese (who has one or more people who essentially make pestering her with sockpuppets a full time job). Just not the same person as TEoatW. So I would love to leave unblocking you to someone else, so I can be Pontius Pilate later and say *I* wasn't the one who unblocked a sock. But according to our weird rules, now that there was consensus on ANI to endorse my blocks, no other admin can really unblock you without being accused of WP:Wheel warring, and if you aren't TEoatW, I don't think there's enough evidence yet to leave you blocked but changing the reason, no matter what my SockMeter(TM) is saying. So I'll unblock you, subject to one condition: a one-way interaction ban with Roscelese. If you give her a very wide berth (no comments, no reverts, no boundary testing), I'll leave you in peace. If not, though, I'll reimpose the indef block.

So, a (real) apology and a (real) threat in the same message. It's a strange morning. If you agree, I'll unblock now. If not, I'll start (yet another : ANI thread to see if any uninvolved admin is willing to unblock without this restriction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, user:Floquenbeam. How much energy do you have to dialog with me?  If you have a lot, I have a lot to say to you and questions I want to ask you.  If you have very little time or energy, I will leave you in peace and appreciate your unblock.  I appreciate your apology but I think your block was justified maybe not for sock puppet but based on my egregious behavior towards EOaTW.  It doesn't matter that he was sinking fast anyway, or that he deserved a tongue lashing, the point in my mind is that I had no business breaking wikipedia rules of civility like that, and you people have enough to do.   I have been crawling through wikipedia a lot lately because it's a fascinating world.  Like Robert McClennon I have experience with the old usenet groups from the late 80's, mine was at SUNY Buffalo.  I was really into it then, and now finally got into Wikipedia the first time last week (I am on vacation from work and had nothing to do once the lawn was mowed).  So out of the blue I decided to dig into Wikipedia, something I've wanted to do for years, and jumped off the deep end in order to allow Wikipedia the benefit of my advanced views Save the World and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  As you see I started getting schooled right away.  Of course once my dander got up, I started down the predictable path you must see all the time.  Creating a username was my way of announcing I'm here to stay and that I have nothing to hide.  Seeing that other people like me have had similar gripes with Roscelese, I realized I was not alone in my perceptions but also saw their mistakes and the various outcomes of crossing people here.  I attempted to come back from the brink with her and did a bad job of it.  I probably was digging myself deeper with each keystroke.  My last edit before getting blocked was here, [|here] and I think it shows my committed direction to change.  But maybe that edit, too was just more attention seeking, I am still trying to figure all this out as I go along.


 * I am not firm on this, but ideally you would permit me an unrestricted block, so that down the line I can have my account in good standing in case I apply for committee membership in years to come. One user proposed in a discussion recently that only editors with completely clean records would be considered, and I don't want to start my Wikipedia career with an official sanction.  However maybe it's not that important and I should jump at your offer, because in the end I am the one that earned the sanction.


 * About individual users: I no longer need to (nor want to) engage with any particular user, except those that make it clear they would like to dialog.  Roscelese has shown me by not replying to me, that she desires no contact with me and I will respect that 100%.  However I want your advance permission to come to your door for advice and direction if I sense I'm not being given a fair shake.  Maybe that's all in my mind, but at this point I've made an ass of myself and I worry that down the line she (or others) will never accept any genuine attempt at collaboration.  I'm not trying to require anything from you, I just want you to know that I will need continued guidance to properly fit in around here and make a positive contribution.


 * After reading this, if you still feel it's appropriate to have the restriction, then I accept the restriction on my account regarding user Roscelese, both in the letter and spirit of it, and I request unblocking. I still have more to ask you but I'm already straining your patience by writing this much...    Thank you....  Cityside189 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Everything you say makes me more convinced. I have little to no patience for a long discussion. I'm unblocking, contingent on you not mentioning or interacting with Roscelese, or reverting her edits, or raising questions about her edits on article talk pages.  Wide berth. It's a very big project, this should not be a problem if things are as you say. You can appeal this restriction at WP:AN, but my experience suggests this is unlikely to be successful sooner than around 6 months from now. If you have specific questions about the interaction ban, ping me, but I'm not interested in discussing the rightness or wrongness of her edits. You need to consider that Somebody Else's Problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. Let me know if there are WP:Autoblocks; but I don't think there are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)