User talk:Grosseteste

August 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is neither a 'sock puppet' or alternate account, this is an account created to act as a primary account. Other accounts have been created on this IP, but are no longer in use as would be supported by the most recent log in dates on those accounts. Deception was not in anyway the intent with the creation of this account. I can understand the concerns surrounding sock puppetry, but am unsure what flagged this account, has not been used to counteract any edit attempts made by other accounts on this IP, Best Regards.

Decline reason:

Socking is only one concern here, but an ordinary admin should not be unblocking those as there is likely information they are not privy to. There is a deeper reason for the block. Also, the edits stopped by the filter log are concerning. As if that wasn't enough, there is the incivilty recounted below that is probably part of the pattern I'm not privy to -- Deepfriedokra 11:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

•  Administrator note Reviewing admins should consider the filter log as well in assessing any requests for unblock. N.J.A. | talk 15:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please list all other accounts you have used.-- Deepfriedokra 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The only one i can recall, is Slade121. There may be one other from several years ago that i no longer remember the user or password for, which is why i used the plural, just incase there was something i was forgetting. However Slade121 will be the only other account logged into on this IP in several years, Best Regards.

Is there any other information which needs to be provided Deepfriedokra? N.J.A. | talk, Best Regards

Deepfriedokra, wow about the incivility displayed here?

• "Rather i have noticed a pattern, in which a limited number of individuals have hoped to sneak their own preferences into the article, often after an agreement had been reached previously to do exactly the opposite"
• "Hoping to seemingly bore their opposition in submission through frequent and persistent reiteration of niche arguments and view points, and often the use of what can be only be described as underhand tactics, for example the banding together and canvassing of likeminded individuals ( -side note- in effect trying to create an anti infobox movement, a bewildering and in truth embarrassing effort."
• "Those who have been the primary instigators of this have in my findings frequently shown themselves up, through an apparent desire to create some sense of ownership over the subjects article and its goings on."
• "An educated and concise response would be appreciated"

This editor is clearly not here to collaborate, rather to stir pots which are notoriously controversial. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Had that been the case i would have edited the article to promote my own beliefs and preferences without consultation, rather than opened a point of discussion on the talk page (which would have been ironic, seeing as that was exactly what i had accused you of). Every point i raised was a legitimate one, including the mentioning of poor spelling, which you may have viewed as an insult, but actually was an important issue relating to the quality of edits being made, Best Regards User:Grosseteste

Is straight talking a bannable offence DeepFriedOkra?, because that is all that that amounts to, despite it perhaps looking as if it had been intended to be rude or uncivil. Especially taking into account the tone of messages and actions i had seen including those undertaken by Cassinato, who has decided to pitch in despite it not being under his purview. I was banned for 'Sockpuppetry' which is evidently not accurate, Best Regards User:Grosseteste

• You received a DS notice which is there to remind people to engage in idiotbox discussions with some civility. You did not do that. Cassianto^Talk 09:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i received that notice subsequent to my raising of the issue, because apparently that amounted to me 'taking an interest in infoboxes' rather than the reality. Which was in effect taking an interest in the supercilious nonsense, as i described it then, which is coming across again now and which at the time was evident in the shutting down of anyone with differing views to your own. Seemingly because you have a vendetta against the use of infoboxes (which is clear from your decision to deride them as idiot boxes, perhaps not the most 'civil' of actions, but again i would ask you to direct me to the parts of my comments which are uncivil) and their use in any context, or perhaps your issues lie in the broadening of the appeal of wikipedia in general, perhaps you could clarify this, Regards User:Grosseteste

There's a difference between plain-speaking and sheer rudeness. Ever read the part about "discuss content and not other editors"? Plainly speaking, that oh-so-sophisticated, browbeating, condescension would have pissed me off if you'd directed it at me. It would not have encouraged me to see your point of view. That you have no problem with creating insults instead of discussing in a collegial manner, and cannot see that it is wrong to do so, is yet another reason to not unblock you.-- Deepfriedokra 11:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There is yes, and i don't feel i crossed that boundary. As i said any mention of spelling was purely in relation to the quality of edits. I hadn't read that part no, but i feel all points i raised referred exclusively to the content of the article in mention. Which had been edited by Cassianto in order to remove an infobox without any discussion or consultation of the readership, which is why i mentioned an attempt to 'create some sense of ownership' he also refers to infoboxes as idiot boxes the implication being there that only idiots need them as the information is plainly visible. Not only is that condescending (something you have just accused me of but which i reject) but plainly untrue as they enable those who want to learn a basic understanding of a subject or lack the time to read an entire article to do so in a timely manner. If anyone was to raise these issues to him he shut them down, telling them things like 'there are thousands of other articles on wikipedia, why focus on this one', rather than actually responding to any queries or issues with his decisions. I fail to see any relevance to the 'oh-so-sophisicated' part, that was not my intention, i was as i said speaking plainly and those were the words that i felt best played out the situation. I am firmly against needless unpleasantries and bullying, which was the foundation of the discussion i raised, and why i started said discussion rather than doing as Cassianto had done and added without consultation. I apologise for any undue and unintended offence and insults were never the impression that i wanted to create, rather i felt i was continuing in the tone that had been set by those involved in the debate surrounding the Ian Fleming article. I have to add that i'm confused by your summarising point, that it is 'another reason' to not unblock me, as i had explained this is not a sock puppet account, thus surely it would be the only reason to not block me, and i was not made aware that talking in such a manner was a reason for an account to be permanently blocked, if i had known perhaps i would have spoken differently, but i feel it is always better to maintain an honest approach. Best Regards User:Grosseteste

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

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

---

Request reason:

reason=Still unsure as to why i am blocked, it seems the ban was cautionary as for some reason this account was flagged for Sockpuppetry, but this is the only account active on this IP address as i am sure would be confirmed by access to information i imagine admins have. It seems the continuation of the ban now seems to be personal inclination due to what was seen to be incivility which was not the intention and for which an apology has been given. My intention has only ever been to contribute (issues arose from a discussion i raised, rather than edit without consultation) and there are several articles which without me will rarely be updated or maintained, Best Regards Grosseteste (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC). (Bump - am unaware if this is under consideration or whether by default it is being ignored, but as previously stated there is no instance of sock-puppetry, and i am still oblivious as to why that was ever an assumption.) Grosseteste (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked to allow you to make positive contributions, though be warned that any incivility and or edits that are disruptive may result in an immediate block without further warning. I will not comment on the socking concern, as clearly I was (and remain) concerned although is a chance of inappropriate use of multiple accounts, I cannot say with absolute certainty this is the case and a checkuser has not looked into this. I will not ask for one to do so as I'd like to see what happens behaviourally, though another user may raise an investigation if they reasonably believe it proper. N.J.A. | talk 14:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to be ignoring the issues raised here about your editing. Any comments on that? N.J.A. | talk 10:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Not intentionally, i thought the issue that raised as the reason for the ban was sockpuppetry, and then following that criticism of the wording/language of the post made on an articles talk page (which was deliberately made prior to any blanket editing). If there are any specific issues, i am perfectly willing to comment on them. Grosseteste (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC).

On looking further i saw something about edits blocked on the filter log, but those appear to be mainly attempted edits to my own talk page and the rest are edits to the talk page of the article in question.