User talk:King Bee

Please add your comment in a new section by clicking here. Thanks. –King Bee (T • C)

Starwars1955 et. al.

Hi, I understand your frustration, and I have looked at the reasonably long history of this dispute. Rest assured that despite my posting, I do not "side with" Starwars, who has behaved quite badly in the past. I see him as far more useful as proper logged in co-operative contributor, than as he is now. For certain users in the past this change has proved impossible, of course, but we can hope. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 22:07 10 February 2007 (GMT).

I have no hope for him. He was given n chances, where n is larger than any known prime number. Please excuse my candor, but that is how I feel. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I doubt QueenHMS is a sock of starwars1955, not the same edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt it. Please look at his contributions. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that edit, sock, blocked Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A clarifying question: after full protection is lifted, if we can verify the changes starwars is attempting to add to the article, can a non-banned user do so? I just want to get past this so we can continue with actual improvement of the article rather than bickering about how many passing attempts Favre had. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A non-banned user can do whatever they will to the article (to a certain degree). If you do get verification that the number of attempts that NFL.com has listed is incorrect, then by all means, change it. A banned user has absolutely no rights on Wikipedia; all of their changes can and should be reverted immediately, regardless of their legitimacy. If you get verification and you go ahead and change all the 8,223's in the article to 8,224's, I won't revert your changes calling you a sockpuppet; I'm not insane. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, I just wanted to make sure. I realize that the block/protection measures don't have anything to do directly with the content dispute. I'm attempting to verify as many of the claims the user has made as possible (per the recent conversation on my talk page). I also apologize for continuing to prolong the dispute by responding to the socks' queries on my talk page and elsewhere. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your message on my talkpage

I'm aware it is a sock, but I can't actually find any evidence that his is actually banned, other than the banner on the userpage. I'm going to follow up with Jaranda and long story short, if he isn't banned I will probably start a discussion on banning in the appropriate forum. If he is banned then I will carry out the ban. Right now though, I'm not going to indef the socks unless they actually edit the article... if he isn't banned there really is no justification for indef blocks unless the user is using those socks to continue to disrupt the article.--Isotope23 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds absurd... but yeah, that is pretty much true. An indef block is a block of the "user". The individual using that username is completely free to create a new username and if they went about editing other articles and stayed away from creating disruption at the articles/pages that caused their indef blocked they would be left alone. The only way there new users would also be indefinitely blocked is it they were being used for abusive sockpuppeting; i.e. circumventing their indef block to go back and start engaging in the same behavior they were blocked for. A ban is something completely different. It is a social construct and a ban applies to the individual person, not just the user they created. Banned users are either not allowed to edit certain articles or are disallowed from editing Wikipedia altogether. Bans are serious enough that I want to make absolutely sure this person is banned and the ban was done properly. Unblocking the page just so the individual in question will edit it and earn a block is baiting and it isn't something that is acceptable here. I know you are frustrated, but just WP:CHILL for a bit and this will all get sorted out.--Isotope23 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Again, I sympathize with your situation here; I've spent my fair share of time with tendinitious editors and it is absolutely no fun.--Isotope23 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your a little more than heated about this subject King Bee, your acting sort of mental, you proved you have a foul temper and you broke the 3RR several times to the Brett Favre talk page and main page with no actions being taken against you, the BeverlyHills85 edits are all correct except for the outstanding induiry on the 8,223 or 8,224 attempts, three sources have been emailed and starwars1955 requested to be unblocked but user Yamla reverted that unblock request and fully protected starwars1955 talk page out of pure meanness, starwars1955 has a right to request a unblock, but Yamla actions are uncalled for and maybe illegal, but your obsession is sort of weird, you need to chill out and seriously cool down, or talk to someone about your heated temper, were trying to deal with this in a calm matter, edit somewhere else if you can't handle this, but your repeated breaking of the 3RR and heated actions are going to far. Malibu55 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55