User talk:Mborromeo

Hi, Mborromeo,

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gedeon G. Quijano, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use
  block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism
  .
• Cluebot produces very few
  false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here
  , remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning:
  talk) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Gedeon G. Quijano. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Gedeon G. Quijano. AGENT SMITH 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock IP. This is not a vandalism account or any users at this IP.

Decline reason:

You're not fooling anyone. Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock IP. See...http://censorshipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/administrators-at-wikipedia.html (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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 was attempting in good faith to edit Wikipedia. I have unblocked him. Please assist him in any way possible. Fred Talk 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why was Gardeopatra G. Quijano deleted without warning? Should it have been put under deletion discussion? Please see some of the references used,
--http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2003/10/06/life/and.who.s.not.afraid.of.inday.garding..html
--Cebuano_literature--mborromeo

As it says in the deletion log, I didn't delete the article based on sources or lack there of; I deleted it under the speedy deletion criteria known as

verifiability

policy for more information), so any information that is based on personal information which cannot be sourced to sources considered by Wikipedia as "reliable sources" shouldn't be included in the article. Also, as a bit of guidance, biographies should open up with an intro that states: "name of person (born-died) is a (nationality) (profession)" and then explain what they are notable for. They shouldn't open up with "Name of person (followed by not notable and apparently not significant information about their family nick-names and so forth".

Please let me know on my talk page User talk:Sarah#Gardeopatra G. Quijano if you think you can fix the article so it meets Wikipedia's inclusion rules and I will then put it in your userspace for you to work on until it's ready to move back into the encyclopedia. Sarah 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mborromeo

Sarah, Thank you for the reply and your recommendations. Can you please move this into my user area as you suggest and I will update it? Since it is Wikipedia's guidelines for the speedy deletion criteria under A7, wouldn't it be better to move articles in the user's area first rather than rushing to delete it since there are notable references within Wikipedia and news? In my opinion this philosophy makes Wikipedia seem like a Police run Encyclopedia rather than by intellects, and it could possibly promote users to improve articles, bring more articles to Wikipedia, and more important donors to help Wikipedia grow rather giving it a bad reputation.

The English Wikipedia has over 3 million articles, 100,000s editors and just 1500 administrators, and non-compliant biographies and content like that genealogy material and personal knowledge which is simply not suitable for Wikipedia, can not be left sitting around. I don't meant to be rude, but if an article qualifies for speedy deletion, it's really the most non-compliant material so it needs to be deleted until or unless someone takes responsibility for fixing it and bringing it in line with policy.

Secondly, when I deleted the article your accounts were all indefinitely blocked as "vandalism only" and "block-evading sockpuppet" accounts [1] [2]. If you were at the time an editor in good standing, I most likely would have moved the article to your userspace and given you a chance to fix it. But you were an indefinitely blocked user who had been using socks and IPs to evade the block. I had no reason to believe that (a) you were going to be unblocked and (b) if you were unblocked, that you would even return.

Frankly, saying it makes Wikipedia seem like a "Police-run encyclopedia" because an admin followed policy and deleted a very clearly non-compliant article posted by an indefinitely-blocked user seems rather over-the-top and offensive, especially when there are editors and administrators on this site who live in real police-run places. I'm certainly not sorry for speedy deleting the article, but I am sorry that when I did delete it, I didn't get back to leave a message on your talk page explaining why it had been deleted. I had a personal tragedy among my friends which took precedence and I had to leave suddenly and didn't have the opportunity to leave you a message. I will shortly move the article here User talk:Mborromeo/sandbox for you to work on and bring in line with policy. Sarah 05:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored and moved the article which you will find it at the above sandbox link. Please be aware, however, that a previous article by this name was deleted in December, likewise as

CSD#A7 with the deletion comment "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: non-notable school essay". (see the log: [3]) The article was posted by your now-indefinitely blocked prior account Marjoe7 (talk · contribs), however I have not restored those previous edits, rather only the most version of the article I deleted. Sarah 06:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sarah, That is understandably, Wiki administrators must decide on the knowledge set before them. FYI….I wrote Mr. Wales, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., to rectify what I did in trying to redirect the page by blanking the page to redirect, thus causing my account to be blocked. I had already a second account, because I lost original login information due to lack of use. I created a new one, Marjoe7. I used Marjoe7, but later found my account in which I used both Mborromeo and Marjoe7. Due to the blocking of both accounts I created my other account Mqbor. The incident shouldn’t have caused my user name or IP to be banned permanently, as Wiki’s response. I hope all is well with your friend. Thank you for all your help.

Yes, I received the letter you sent to Jimmy Wales. Jimbo does not get involved in internal Wikipedia matters and really has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Nor does the Wikimedia Foundation - the Wikipedia website is run by the community of editors and administrators. So the WMF office staff referred your letter to us as administrators via the unblock mailing list, which is standard procedure as that is the correct venue for reviewing blocks and considering appeals. The blocks on your accounts were within policy and were appropriate under policy. Firstly, you were blanking pages. I understand the pages were pages you posted, but on Wikipedia all pages are owned by the community, not by individual editors and once you post an article or page here you are effectively donating it and thus you lose all control and ownership over it. This means other people have equal rights to edit it, change it, move it, restore it if you blank it, nominate it to be deleted etc. Secondly, when an account is blocked, it is a violation of the

blocking policy to use another account or IP address to attempt to continue editing and people who do this are blocked for extended periods, often indefinitely, until there is a reasonable and genuine undertaking from the user that they will follow policy. This is exactly what happened in your case. On receiving your letter, administrators reviewed the case and felt there was a reasonable case for giving you a second chance. Thus you were unblocked. But that doesn't make the original block wrong on inappropriate - it was in fact correct and you really need to understand and accept this or you're likely to continue having problems here. Sarah 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the comment. From my understanding my account “probably indefinitely blocking her was not exactly appropriate.” [Bass, Cary. Email. http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BxpsnK6E9xKHODRiY2Y0N2MtYTc3My00ZWI1LTk2NTgtYWNmMTE0MmQwZDlk&hl=en] I addressed that in my letter http://censorshipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/administrators-at-wikipedia.html, in which if it was my doing than I should have been blocked, but the issue is permanently blocking someone's IP, which blocks other users that are not involved. That penalty is too harsh, in which would be expected from a country such as China, where they block IPs and content, censorship, and Wikipedia seems to be run as a Police State. This seems to point to legal and ethical issues. When is it okay to permanently block an IP, that could be used in schools or businesses where other users are affected. For that matter, deleting content that hasn’t gone through proper analysis, even though it meets Wiki guidelines for deletion doesn’t give it the right for the more important rule of “Internet Free Speech”. This issue may need to be addressed to the Attorney General’s Office. As a developer and web user, it would seem this is a catch- 22 that users are unnecessarily put in. That is, if a textbox field is required, or cannot be empty or blanked, why not prompt the user that articles cannot be blanked. This is a common practice to websites and applications. It is just my opinion and suggestion.User:Mborromeo

Yes, as I said, I have read your letter - it was sent to the administrators who deal with block reviews. Cary is not in charge of Wikipedia - he is just one administrator and he felt you should be given another chance as a new/inexperienced user, but that does not negate the fact that it is standard operating procedure to block accounts and IP addresses being used to continue editing after an earlier account was blocked. This alone was reason to block your accounts and your IP address and it is a rationale clearly supported by the blocking and sock policies. I'm afraid that you are at the wrong website and are going to find this place nothing but a headache if you expect "free speech" here. Wikipedia is a special-purpose privately-owned website, a workplace with a special purpose to build an encyclopedia about notable and verifiable subjects; there is no free speech here - in fact, we have policies that specifically inhibit free speech. There is also no place for

reliable sources

such as newspapers, journals, etc. Expecting freedom of speech on a privately owned website is like me expecting to come into your workplace or home and start talking about whatever I want - if you don't like what I'm saying or how I'm saying it or if I'm using the workplace for my own purposes and not its intended purpose, you'll show me the door. Likewise, we are here to work on an encyclopedia and we will show users the door if they are not using the website for it's proper purpose or are not complying with the house rules. When they ignore messages and warnings, as you were doing, and continue what they're doing regardless of the warnings and messages, the chances of them being blocked increase significantly. If you're looking for freedom of speech, you'd probably find devoting your time to your blog more rewarding. We routinely block school and business IP addresses when necessary and appropriate under the blocking policy. They are a source of a tremendous volume of vandalism and are frequently blocked to prevent anonymous editing and account creation. Blocking the IP address is also standard when someone is creating sockpuppets to evade the block and in fact, it is an automatic feature in the software that happens when a blocked user attempts to edit anonymously or with another account. As for deletion, we have more than 3 million articles here and thousands of articles submitted daily, expecting us to have deletion deliberations on every article that is obviously non-compliant is absurd and would result in the site coming to a standstill and completely unacceptable - even defamatory - material hanging about on a top 5 website. That's not going to ever be accepted by the community. If you are unable to accept Wikipedia's policies or its administration then you should simply refrain from editing the site. And your repeated comparisons to police states is an hysterical and highly offensive claim to make. An article was appropiately speedy deleted and then restored and userfied on request and a user was blocked for abusive sockpuppetry and page blanking, after continuing with inappropriate behaviour after being warned and asked to stop, but when they appealed they were given a second chance. Anyone is free to leave Wikipedia whenever they wish and they are free to use or not use as they wish. None of these are characteristics of police states. And the comparison is one of the most offensive claims I've seen made about Wikipedia, particularly on a highly multi-cultural website where we have people who do and have lived in true police states. If you want to convince anyone that there is a better way of doing things, you should first show respect for the project and the community by following the rules, not making offensive claims of censorship (deleting material that does not comply with the rules or the purpose of the website is not censorship - again, this is a narrow, specific purpose website, not an article bank or a free speech platform) and police states, participate until you learn how the site works and have some good will here and then make some proposals. Coming here as an outsider, stomping around, insulting the project and community with insults like "censorship" and "police state", creating sockpuppets to evade blocks, then attempting to bypass the community with an appeal to Jimmy is not going to win you any respect here or incline people to pay attention to you. To change a community you need to work from within and show some respect, you can't enforce your will on a community from the outside. Your actions with creating sockpuppets to evade the block, ignoring warnings, trying to enforce your will and take ownership of articles were entirely blockable but you have been given a second chance. I suggest you think about this, accept the block was within policy, and then decide whether Wikipedia is really run like a police state and if so, you should not use it at all, as indeed, no one should, or you should accept that this site has a special purpose and has rules about behaviour and about what content it will host and then get on with showing that you can edit within our policies and guidelines by making constructive and productive edits and showing that the administrator who took a chance on you and decided to give you a second chance did not do so in error.

"This issue may need to be addressed to the Attorney General’s Office." Right. Have you really thought that through? This is not a public space; it's a special purpose website owned by a private organisation. We are legally entitled to create and enforce any policies as we see fit. If you or your developer friend do not like this, you are more than welcome to create your own website where you can accept whatever content you like and allow users to do whatever they want. We will even give you a complete copy of Wikipedia to get you started, but what we won't do is let you or your friend try to coerce us into accepting pages or tolerating behaviours that do not comply with our content policies. I'm really not sure how to make this clear to you because you really don't seem to be grasping it. Wikipedia is a privately owned special purpose website to build an encyclopedia. We only accept articles that comply with certain rules, we are not an article bank, we do not accept articles on any topic. If this is not to you liking you should not be contributing here. Please also be aware that talk about taking action outside Wikipedia, especially as a means to coercing ones own way, particularly in the area of hinting at or threatening

legal action will result in you being immediately and indefinitely blocked. Of course, you're most welcome to pursue legal remedies against Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or individual editors and administrators, but we require that you refrain from making any edits to this site until all legal avenues are exhausted. So please do be careful about the statements you make because you will be blocked if you start going in that direction. I suggest that this discussion conclude now before any further unfortunate and inappropriate or blockable comments are made and that you use your time to get on with showing that your unblock was not a mistake. Sarah 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sarah, I understand your point about following guidelines and following rules. We all live within these compounds. I’m learning Wikipedia guidelines as I go, and since there are no requirements to be 100 percent knowledgeable to all the Wiki guidelines when you join I’ve made some mistakes. I intend to follow these guidelines. I’m just making my point and to give customer feed back to maybe improve Wikipedia’s customer service and policies. I think my point is exactly as what you say, Wiki is private, but being private doesn’t give the right to assume to do anything outside the laws. That is why there is the justice system that interprets laws and guidelines that many private institutions create. From what I take, you’re probably not from the United States, but from what I know companies private or public established in the U.S. that create guidelines and policies are confined to the laws established by Congress, and possibly international laws. As a palpable example, a private institution cannot just establish guidelines that prohibit one particular race from joining their group because of skin color or because of a funny name, not today in the U.S. anyway. I believe my point was misconstrued about free speech and censorship, if an article as you said has reliable sources, which my article had, then it meets minimal requirements for Wikipedia, but may have fallen short of other guidelines. It was removed simply because as you said, I had certain warning signs, a blocked user. Where there was smoke, there must have been fire and not mist or fog. Deleting the contents was a quick judgment, without giving it a second look. I deleted the work that I put in Wikipedia to redirect it to another page, Not To Intentionally Cause Mayhem. In my case, as I mentioned I made a mistake, a stupid one, and was blocked, but the guidelines of Wiki should not immediately give authority to delete content, it should have been moved to the Sandbox regardless of what my presumed outlandish action were. The article I posted did not have any adult or derogatory content. Wikipedia is private as an entity, but seeks public donors. Customer service should be one of it goals. Your suggestion that I should Not be a member of Wikipedia, is not warranted and unjustified, just because I made comments you personally see as wrong. These are opinions and suggestions whether they are wrong or right, and I haven’t made derogatory comments, it is Free Speech. I thought we are both adults and professionals; perhaps you are the one that should not be an administrator for Wikipedia if you cannot handle strong remarks and certainly not speaking in behalf for Wikipedia, because you are not an employee. From what I understand users of Wikipedia should be warned, that comments or suggestions is not accepted, or face of being blocked or work never being accepted.mborromeo