User talk:BoMadsen88

Welcome!

Hi BoMadsen88! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk - Assuming good faith

Hey BoMadsen88. I'm commenting here about this edit [1], specifically where you say: As Mfb says: why would it ever make sense to add such an unusual comment - other than to again disregard Elon wherever possible. First off, it's not exactly what Mfb said, which is problematic. Mfb made an argument from policy [2] Contrast this with your argument, which is to infer bad faith on the part of QRep2020. I would suggest that you read WP:AGF and (like Mfb) make your arguments from policy. Not only will it help your argument, but it will keep you from getting into trouble down the road. Unlike some other social media sites, assumption of good faith on Wikipedia is a rule rather than a guideline, and is interpreted rather strictly. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts on talk pages

Hi there. I've noticed that several of your recent posts on Talk:Elon Musk have remained unsigned. I suggest you read WP:SIGN which explains the process. To sum up, just type "~~~~" at the end of your post and your signature will be added automatically, like so: Rosbif73 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do in the future BoMadsen88 (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi BoMadsen88, after seeing your activties at Elon Musk, I just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia's policy regarding possible conflict of interests. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of it. If it is not applicable to you as an editor then great. Either way, we, hopefully, can channel your enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject into improving the article. Have a nice weekend! ~ HAL333 23:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hal, Please elaborate. Why should there be conflict of interest? BoMadsen88 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- ~ HAL333 20:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming Talk:Elon Musk

You should not be spamming talk pages by copy+pasting the same exact message over and over again, as you did on Talk:Elon Musk in these three instances: [3] [4] [5]. I know you were responding to JShark, but if you noticed, that user was warned by two administrators over the behavior [6] [7]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I did notice that he was given a warning - but that was after I had posted my replies. I just wanted to make sure that it was seen to support Jsharks claims. So it was never my intention to spam anything. And speaking of Jsharks claims, dont you also see that there is something very wrong with the way that the Elon Musk article is managed almost solely by HAL333 - and Qrep2020 who you yourself have doubts about a possible violation of COI? BoMadsen88 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BoMadsen88: Well, I really don't feel like Talk:Elon Musk was the appropriate place to have that discussion. The article talk page is generally for discussing how to build the content of the article, not meta information like the behavior of specific users. You're asking me about whether I see something wrong with the article being "managed" by HAL333 and QRep2020. I don't really have any issue with HAL333's edits... keep in mind that I specifically brought up QRep2020 to the COI noticeboard, not HAL333. I also do not believe the article is being managed in the way you say. You have plenty of options to edit the article via WP:BRD, you're just choosing not to edit the article. On that topic, is there a particular reason you are not editing the article? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that I was able to edit the article? It shows a little blue lock and tells me that the article is protected. So I have always believed that the only way for me to have any influence on the article was by making suggestions on the Talk page. I would absolutely love to be able to contribute. How can i do that? BoMadsen88 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You're right, Elon Musk protected so that only extended confirmed users can edit it. Slipped my mind. That's fair. You should probably find some other articles to contribute to so that you can build a working knowledge of Wikipedia and a reputation. Unfortunately BRD is not going to work for you in this instance. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term, though intermittent, harassment.

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 ~~~~}}. El_C 19:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

BoMadsen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be unbanned immediately. I am sorry that I posted my observation on the wrong page. That will not happen again. However, since my observation has now led to his banning from editing the Elon Musk article because of all the reasons I stated, I do not see why I should remain blocked. I did in no way harass QRep2020, I only pointed out what might be strong COI to help make Wikipedia better and since you yourself agreed with my reasoning I succeeded in that goal. That is exactly what editors on Wikipedia should strive to do, and I was one of only a few editors who pointed it the potential problem out. BoMadsen88 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've converted the sitewide block to a p-block like I did with QRep2020, so that you could participate in the ANI thread. But the fact is that your contributions are far more single purpose than that of your opponent. You are not at parity with them, contribution-wise. Also, you keep mentioning conflict of interest (WP:COI), but that requires proof, or it just becomes an WP:ASPERSION. El_C 21:35, 20 April 2022 (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).

BoMadsen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well. I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore. This also means that I was NOT blocked in the first place because of WP:SPA as you allude to. But just to actually counter that argument you can clearly see that my profile was created long before I posted my observations on the Elon Musk Talk-page, and while I have not made many edits you can also see that I have made edits before to completely unrelated articles in the past. So please stop saying that my contributions are far more SPA than that of QRep2020". That is clearly NOT a "fact". I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too? QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down. I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2022 (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.

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).

BoMadsen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So NinjaRobotPirate has elaborated and said that the reason for his decline of my request was: "It doesn't matter what other people have done when we're discussing your behavior". I AM talking about my own behaviour: of course one has to refer to the actions that has happened, since that is the entire reason for my initial ban. And I had to make it clear to the moderators that the reason for why I was banned is now not valid. As I clearly state: I was banned for "conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020", and that has now been cleared out as not being the case - but before you knew that I obviously had to tell about the situation. The point is: "My behavior" has now been cleared out as not violating any rules. Hence my p-ban should be removed. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem is you don't recognize your faults. You said there is a good chance that he is a short seller in Tesla this sort of speculation is not allowed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2022 (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.

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).

BoMadsen88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How come this is not being reviewed? BoMadsen88 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please be patient. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2022 (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.