User talk:Chenzw/Reports/Goldenburg111

His edits on simplewiktionary seem to be in good faith. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

And they're getting better. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

I just wish someone could delete this page. --Golden _{burg 111} 20:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

@Chenzw: do you want to blank this or leave it? He is improving and does not want this page here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

I don't think that will happen. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

Well even on SEW, I don't think he wanted to be like he was. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Reply

This is such an embarrassment to me, since I have been trying for millions of years taking action into trying to make people forgive this "sockpuppets" while I am still reminded of such tragedy. I would request that Chenzw delete this page, it is not helping anyone, it is only helping trolls like Chenzw keeping track, wasting time keeping track of me. Who is trying his best to be the best he can. This list, if I may describe with mature text, is: imprudent, trash and junk being saved here at Meta. Isn't the Wikimedia Projects suppose to be a happy place where anyone can edit? I would like to receive a response now. This is only helping users, User:Rschen7754, User:Jasper Deng and others who like to troll. Yes, I know, I have my own report just to keep track. But I will in the future request deletion. This is stupid and idiotic. Rschen is a user who likes to comment rude comments here, and Jasper Deng doesn't know what forgive means. Chenzw is not a good mentor, and can't bring sense into me. This is shame and very emberassing for users trying to fix mistakes such as these. Wiki hat collecting, please, just gibberish. I need them for the right use. Using this report is horrible. It's hard for me to start a new start with a folder like this. --Golden _{burg 111} 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Do we delete w:en:WP:SPI reports on enwiki? --Rs chen 7754 00:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Those are intentional bad faith users intentionally using multiple accounts. I am editing as productively as I can. --Golden _{burg 111} 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

"Those are intentional bad faith users intentionally using multiple accounts." Nope, not all of them. It is possible to disrupt Wikimedia while editing in good faith. --Rs chen 7754 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

I wish I was mentored by an experienced user. I am not really stubborn as it may seem. All I need is a mentor. --Golden _{burg 111} 01:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

I'm only going to say this once.

The reason that you cannot have a "clean start" is because you keep running for tools that require the community's trust. Think of it like someone who runs for mayor and wins, and then we find out that he burned down several houses in another town, and killed people, before he fled the town, assumed a new name, and ran for mayor. It is deceitful and dishonest to try and obscure your past, and withhold things that people who vote for you should know about. That is the reason why this report exists: because you have intentionally tried to deceive many Wikimedia communities in order to gain advanced permissions. That is a very serious problem, as the admin flag in the wrong hands can cause a lot of damage.

If you dig deep enough in my history on en.wikipedia, you'll notice that I was blocked a few times, and sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in 2006 there. I can't just request that the page be deleted, even though I was quite young at the time. I can't say "Oh, but I meant well! Can the case be deleted?" Why? Because even though I meant well, my behavior was still inappropriate. But I did not run away, and I did not try and deceive people by creating another account and starting all over again. Being mature means accepting the consequences for your actions, rather than trying to run away from them.

If you look around enough through my editing history (it's all at Special:CentralAuth/Rschen7754; I have nothing to hide), you will also find that (apart from my en.wikipedia adminship which I already had and somehow managed to keep, despite my being blocked) I did not run for adminship, bureaucrat, CU, OS, or anything like that on any Wikimedia site for several years until 2012, six years later. Part of it was because I needed to mature, but it was mostly because that was how long it took for people to trust me again.

Now, as for you? I think that if you stopped asking for rights, stuck to one account, worked on content, and stayed out of drama, I think things would be better for you. Don't ask for rights; we have plenty of people with rights just about everywhere, to get what needs to be done done. Wait until people ask you to run for stuff; that is how you know that you are ready. I'll be honest; it could be years and a *lot* of work before this happens. It took me about 60,000 edits and 6 years, but I'm glad that I was patient.

As far as a mentorship, I'm generally not patient enough for that sort of thing, but I'm sure there are people who might be interested.

Oh, and one other thing, please don't keep repeating how old you are - it's really not safe to say that on the Internet. --Rs chen 7754 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Ok. +question: What about simple rights like autopatroll or rollback? You didn't mention these rights? --Golden _{burg 111} 02:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Each wiki works a bit differently, but I would do a lot of work (3 months or so) before asking for them. And keep in mind that autopatrolled is for the convenience of administrators, and has little to do with anything else. --Rs chen 7754 02:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

How about Wikipedia for rollback? I have been doing Anti-Vandalism work their for 4 months now, and currently (still counting) have 243 edits. I am planning on requesting rollback privileges their. Will my request be accepted? Since I have been getting into edit conflicts with Twinkle and I need these rights so I can easily rollback edits and go search for more vandal edits instead of the Twinkle tool wasting time. --Golden _{burg 111} 21:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

en.wikipedia is one of the hardest wikis to get any rights on; nowadays, it may be easier to get steward rather than adminship there. --Rs chen 7754 23:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

ok. --Golden _{burg 111} 00:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Can I try? --Golden _{burg 111} 00:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

I don't want to. --Golden _{burg 111} 22:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

• Goldenburg111, I don't forgive sockpuppetry and immaturity for a few good reasons, not the least of which is that both require time to pass by. That you're still itching to grab user rights on Wikimedia wikis justifies the continuing existence of this page (which, by the way, Chenzw cannot delete). Why do I still think you're immature? Because you clearly don't know what trolling is and you still don't get that sockpuppetry is a huge offense that stays on your record permanently. The Simple English Wikipedia banned you for those reasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

@Jasper Deng: you may call me immature all you want. Make sure it does not go above the line of civilty. --Golden _{burg 111} 22:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

In response to your edit summary, you will be forgiven if you continue to edit constructively (and don't focus on obtaining rights like adminship). PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

(comment before edit conflict) ::Jasper, I obviously understand sockpuppetry is a huge offense, and my answer to "that stays on your record permanently", in my opinion, that's a no no. LlamaAI got through it, being sysop on different wikis. Jasper, you have a strict point of view. Not everyone has your same point of view, and yet, I don't care if you call me immature. That's your point of view. But, some people may agree. Rschen might agree, if he would like to say. There are the stricht people and the nice and patient people. Not being rude or anything. --Golden _{burg 111} 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

PIR, yes, I know. And obviously, I have been working on different projects helping out. I feel like different users don't respect me for the number of reasons shown above. But PIR saved me from a block at Simple Wiktionary in July. So, the odds --Golden _{burg 111} 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

Jasper's view is a bit extreme for me. The community will often decide to overlook past offenses, iff (if and only if) the candidate has done a lot of good work, and has not returned to their past behavior. --Rs chen 7754 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

OK Goldenburg let me ask you some questions: Why do you keep asking for advanced tools such as rollback? Look Goldenburg, I know that these advanced tools may seem very neat and all, but they require experience and trust. Some users may have 10,000 edits on the English Wikipedia and may not even have rollback, but that's fine, since rollback is not automatic. I'd much rather write a GA or a FA that appears on the main page than get access to a tool like rollback. I used to have the same issues as you where I got interested in having those types of right and trust me, once the issue stops, it can take a lot of time before you regain trust. Make zero rights requests for at least 3 months, build some content, and stay out of pointless discussions like this one. I hope we can resolve this. Best, Sportsguy17 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

@Sportsguy17: You must be kidding. "Advance Tools" are not rollback rights and patrol, I can get rollback automatically on Wikibooks for working on content without having to request, and also. I have been on Wikipedia for almost 5 months. Rschen stated 3 or so months. I though I would give it a try, but looks like it's an obvious fail. --Golden _{burg 111} 19:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Reply

@Goldenburg111: -- This is the core issue; you do not understand that even "not advanced tools" like patrol and rollbacker require a good amount of trust. Right now, you think that you can get these rights with just a few dozen edits, but you can't. You have asked for rollback now twice, having barely 300 edits and less than half of that 300 is to the mainspace. Because of that and your other disruptive cross-wiki behaviors, Coffee stated in the latest decline of your request that your requests for rollback will not be considered for another year. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make content for the readers, not to obsess over tools like rollback. Once you revert vandalism, have at least a few thousand total edits (having a good percentage to mainspace) edits over a long period, then things like rollback will come with trust, but unfortunately, you are not trusted with these tools. As stated above, having rollback on a small Wiki like that doesn't automatically get you rollback elsewhere. As Rschen said, stop requesting rights for a while, ease on the vandalism reversions, and build some content. Listening to the consistent trend of advice above may allow them to consider an unban from Simple Wikipedia within the next 6-10 months. Please forget about rights and focus on making content for the reader. Sportsguy17 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Reply