User talk:Chrisjnelson

Leave a new message.

Archives

---

1. October 2006 – November 2006
2. January 2007 – March 2007
3. April 2007
4. May 2007
5. June 2007
6. July 2007
7. August 2007
8. September 2007
9. October 2007
10. November 2007
11. December 2007

Thanks

Thx for the message Chris. I would've stayed on thru that 3-week period that I was autoblocked. Hey, I was exonerated, but I was dying to get back. To help kill the time I lost, I just went elsewhere online (I would've just played games, but my video game system is jacked up now, sort of eliminated the easiest choice). I appreciate the kind words, and, just to let you know, I'm always glad to help you out also, just let me know. And good luck to the Braves and Dolphins. Soxrock 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked

You've been blocked for 3 hours for continued incivility on the Incidents noticeboard. Feel free to return with a cool head after your block expires. Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Again, your comments add fuel to the fire. Calling me a "nazi" isn't going to help your cause at all. You claim that you're not making any personal attacks, and in doing so, make even more. Calling me a "nazi" is yet another attack on me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You totally missed the point. I was simply lying in the edit summary, like Jmfangio does all the time. The "nazi" thing had nothing to do with you.►Chris Nelson 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This was totally unacceptable. Don't ever do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Chris, you've been lucky today: another sysop gave you a three hour block before I returned. So I'll ask you a few questions.

You pledged to avoid all but two football-related articles, and voluntarily offered that this restriction apply only to yourself. I closed a topic ban discussion as a gesture of good faith in response to that pledge, yet you violated the pledge almost immediately. I warned you of the consequences that could follow that decision, yet when another editor petitioned me to intervene you wrote that you expected no consequence for your decision and stated that you didn't think you deserved to be held to your pledge. You also admitted that you were lying in an edit summary tonight, which suggests you lie about other things too.

How does that all square up? I'll tell you what it looks like:

1. You're the primary aggressor.

2. You made the pledge simply to avoid the imminent likelihood of an involuntary topic ban.

3. You never intended to keep that pledge.

4. You aren't going to demonstrate any self-restraint, so external limitations are necessary.

I'm willing to keep an open mind. If these conclusions are mistaken then please demonstrate why. Specific diffs will help because I'm preparing an arbitration statement. I nearly put you on the bench for a week over gross violations of WP:POINT. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you posted another editor's name. Looks like that's already been Oversighted, but be aware that's grounds for an indef block on you. Please do one of the following: either supply an onsite diff where that editor voluntarily disclosed the information himself, or pledge that you won't do that again. Durova^Charge! 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness there, Durova, if you're talking about where he referred to Jmfangio by full name, Jmfangio does have his full name as his signature. Unless there's a different incidence as well, but that was the only one I saw. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it would appear there was. I would definitely be careful of that, you're quite lucky to have only gotten 3 hours given that. Don't ever use someone's real name unless it's their username or they freely disclose it themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I'll address the edit summary issue. "Lie" was a poor choice of words. It was not meant to deceive anyone, although obviously everyone misconstrued its meaning so it was a poor choice on my part. I've recently taken exception to some of Jmfangio's edit summaries when he makes accusations about me violating policy that don't apply. He did that yesterday on Michael Vick, saying I was edit warring. The specifics aren't really important. My point is, my edit summary on my talk page was just a little joke of mine in that it was supposed to make absolutely no sense or have any connection to my actual edit. Obviously, it was a stupid joke, a very unclear one and an offensive one. The "Nazi" aspect had absolutely nothing to do with Ksy92003 - I was making no connection there. So I'm sorry about that whole thing. A very poor decision on my part, but hopefully you'll believe me when I say its meaning was not nearly as severe as people have mistaken it to be.

As for the whole thing about a topic ban, my pledge and all that. Whether you believe me or not, I was being sincere when I first made the pledge and at the time I fully expected to stand by it. I simply broke it because I genuinely enjoy editing related articles and I felt I did a lot of good. I mean I'm not stupid - I knew if I made the edits it would be known and documented. I was always aware of the possibility (or inevitability) of having a topic ban discussion re-opened. It was simply a risk I was willing to take, and still am. I feel I do a lot of good on NFL-related articles and I have a lot to offer. For that reason, I have gone back on my pledge and will not make one again. I suppose if I am banned from the topic (which would pretty much ban me entirely since that's almost all I'm interested in editing) there will be nothing I can do. But I'm willing to defend myself and my place in the NFL community because I feel I do far more good than harm.

So as for your numbered points, which I partially have answered already.

1. . I do not feel is true at all. I feel Jmfangio is the source if the original conflict here. I've made plenty of mistakes but so has he - more than he realizes and more than others realize because I haven't taken the time to collect evidence as he has. There are more lies than truths in his accusations against me.
2. . True, but at the time I intended to stick to it, as explained above.
3. . Not true at all, but obviously I know what it looks like so I don't expect anyone to believe that.
4. . I will not demonstrate "restraint" because, as I said before, I think I'm doing far more good than harm. I feel I am an asset to these articles so if someone feels otherwise, then yes, I suppose external limitations are necessary. It is my hope I'll be able to successfully defend myself.

Finally regarding Ksy92003's name. It truly was a mistake, even the time I, like an idiot, used it again in apologizing. Ksy92003 and I have conversed extensively through email in recent weeks and his real name shows up as the sender, so that's how I knew it. It never even occurred to me that it was something that I should make a point of not posting. I just wrote it subconsciously because that's how I had come to think of him because of the email conversations. Ksy92003 can vouch that we have conversed through email and I do hope you believe me on this. I never meant to cause any hard, it truly was an honest mistake and I'd never do anything like that on purpose.►Chris Nelson 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop using words like "lie" and "Nazi" immediately. There are lots of other issues to be addressed, but that's the first thing. Newyorkbrad 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems there.►Chris Nelson 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the proposed topic ban, but from what I've heard thus far, it really seems like Jmfangio has held true and disengaged from the discussion. It seems that the conflicts between both Jmfangio and you, Chrisjnelson, were instigated by you, especially recently. You admitted that you edited the same articles as him because you were looking at his contributions, so that's clearly proof that you weren't attempting to disengage. By purposely editing the same articles as Jmfangio and remaining connected with him, I'd have to say that proves that you are the primary aggressor, as Durova said. Your edit summary also suggested that you were lying about one thing, and as Durova said, what else could you be lying about? Your edit summaries, as others have pointed out, are also a major problem. Whether you meant them one way or another, it's how they are interpreted, and clearly words such as "Nazi" aren't gonna be interpreted positively. You say that you meant it as a joke, and I fail to see how using that word could possibly be funny in any way at all. It was very offensive to me, as I am of German descent, and I felt quite insulted.

Anyway, Chrisjnelson had instigated an e-mail discussion with me shortly after the time of his block this evening. However, I have told him that I'm not certain that him revealing my name was truly an accident, as he has lied in the past, and he could be lying here also. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong about just about everything. You're totally biased. If I'm blocked/banned at all, and I hope I'm not, it should be for things I'm actually guilty of. This "primary aggressor" stuff is totally wrong. All my edits in recent days have been totally innocent, with no motives and no focus on WHO has been editing them before. I'm just editing them to EDIT, to improve articles. Why isn't Jmfangio an "aggressor" by editing Jonathan Smith (American football) and Michael Vick, since I've edited them before? I'll tell you why - because he's ALLOWED to edit those articles and he's only working to improve them. There's no difference between his actions and mine. Neither of us is trying to provoke the other - we're both working to improve these articles, whether we disagree or not. There is NO hostility behind my editing, I'm tired of being accused otherwise. I have better things to do than systematically REMOVED UNCIVIL WORD with people on the internet.►Chris Nelson 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio edited the Jonathan Smith article well before you did. His first edit to that page (a page move) came on July 27. You didn't edit the article until August 29. Jmfangio has only made one other edit to the article since his first edit, so I haven't any clue as to why you brought up that claim.

As for the Vick article, Vick is the most popular person in the country right now (albeit for all the wrong reasons) so I wouldn't say you can blame a guy for editing the article of the most well-known person in the country.

You also say there is no hostility behind your edits. There seems to be plenty of hostility towards me, at least, as evidence of your inappropriate edit summaries, lying, etc. I haven't seen anything wrong on Juan's part since you both "accepted" the pledge, while you've both gotten into revert wars with him, broken your pledge, used very offensive language, and even revealed my name. I don't know how you can think you're perfectly, 100% innocent. Ksy92003(talk) 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Chris, You made a pledge and then broke it almost immediately. And you don't regret that or acknowledge any basis for the pledge - even though you say you believed it at the time. What exactly did you believe then? Whatever it was, I advise you to explain it to the arbitration committee in fuller detail than here, and to explain to them with diffs why so many people are mistaken when they see problems and come to you with concerns.

Since I wrote the above you edited football templates and articles five more times[1][2][3][4][5] and left this interesting comment for another editor.[6] You also admit to being a single purpose account, which is the kind of statement that tends to get weighed at arbitration. Regarding your pledge to refrain from posting another editor's real name, I take that exactly as seriously as your pledge to avoid the topic of football - which means the next time you cause disruption at football I'll block you for a week and the next time you post another editor's real name I'll indef you. It's as simple as that.

If you want to turn things around, I strongly suggest mentorship and some serious effort at reform. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep mistaking my words, like this "single purpose account" business. I just have a tendency to edit NFL articles, I that's all I was saying and I wasn't aware that's a crime. Stop twisting things around.

I can't say I care if you believe me about the pledge or not. I told you the truth, that I was sincere when I made it and that I broke it for the good of Wikipedia and was willing to risk reviving the discussion of a topic ban. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I simply changed my mind, and considering I was never officially told I had to stick to the pledge I can't say I did anything wrong there.

Now, the name posting thing. It was an honest freaking mistake, and yes, like an idiot, I did it again in my apology. I've come to know him by his first name because of TONS of emails we've had back and forth. Why would I purposely post his name just to get myself into trouble? It's not like there are gang members on Wikipedia looking for clues to the guy's identity. It was an honest mistake, and if you don't want to believe that's your problem and I'm done trying to convince you.

Also, I do NOT need a mentor. I can function here on my own.►Chris Nelson 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this mistaking your words, Chris? I suppose if I am banned from the topic (which would pretty much ban me entirely since that's almost all I'm interested in editing) there will be nothing I can do.[7] What does a reasonable person conclude other than that you are - by your own admission - a single purpose account? And what evidence can you summon in support of the assertion that breaking your word the day after you made it was for the good of Wikipedia? I'll also ask a second time, exactly what was this sincere point of view you had when you first gave your word? What sense did you see in the pledge when you made it, other than the hope that it would delay the involuntary topic ban that would pretty much ban you entirely?

I've communicated with you before and didn't get very far so I'll try a few phrases in your own language (it's tempting to use a bit of dialect I learned in the Navy, but I'll keep things clean). You may have possession of the ball, but you've been losing real estate on every play and penalty flags have been going up all over this field. Now it's fourth down with long yardage so you'd better throw that hail Mary quickly because you're about to get sacked by a girl.

I am willing to hear you out fairly. I expect you to provide diffs and I expect your reasoning to hold together because you are not going to bluff me on a naked bootleg. Own up to your fumbles; I won't hold them against you. Just make a legal play - you are one post away from a turnover. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I am appreciative you unblocked my talk page so I may reply, I must say I find your last comment entirely insulting and condescending. I am not a child, I don't need to be spoken to like I'm brain dead. I believe your behavior in this regard to be totally out of line.

As for this "single-purpose account" nonsense - you are twisting my words and looking for something that is NOT there. This ridiculous behavior leads me to believe you can no longer remain objective when it comes to my situation. I am not a troll and I am not pushing an agenda. All I meant by my original comment is that I am a big football fan and as a result I primarily edit football-related articles. I edit other things, baseball rosters, List of Dawson's Creek episodes, Mark David Chapman. Anything I come across and feel like editing or feel is in need of correcting. But the majority of my edits probably come on NFL-related things. As a result, a topic ban of this, for me, would take away a large part of what I edit and logically it would cause me to not edit as frequently. The implication that I am a single-purpose account is ridiculous, insulting and offensive. You're twisting my words and finding things that aren't there because you want to, and I do not feel this is proper behavior for an admin.►Chris Nelson 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris, if I were biased against you I wouldn't be attempting to engage you in this dialog. I've had a hand in sixteen different arbitration cases, not counting yours, and I've seen where these choices lead: at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education an editor who was an admitted single purpose account disclosed someone else's identity and the Committee gave him an indefinite topic ban; shortly before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal an editor accused me of bias because I asked her to support her assertions with diffs and advised her that circumstances looked unfavorable - another sysop imposed an indefinite block on her before that case even concluded and she's currently under sitebans from both the arbitration committee and the community. The people who accept advice, admit mistakes, and seek mentorship tend to fare a lot better.

If you think my behavior is improper then here's what you can do about it:

• Raise a complaint at WP:ANI when your block expires.
• E-mail the Wikimedia Foundation attention Cary Bass.
• Open a request for comment on me.

I am open to recall and I've pledged to run for reconfirmation as a sysop if five Wikipedians in good standing request it. So far no editor has initiated such a request, nor has any editor proposed a finding against me at arbitration. I put myself on the line because sometimes it earns credibility in discussions such as this one.

Here's what typically happens during arbitration: the evidence phase is the easiest part. Most editors aren't under any particular restriction and the case moves so slowly that it seems like it could last forever. Then the workshop phase opens, the proposals start to accumulate, and signatures gather beneath them. Then the arbitrators work from some of those proposals and the real decision forms. I'm glad I've never been on the wrong side of that because I've watched people react as if it were slow torture. Some of them try a last minute reform, but more often their worst behaviors escalate and they end badly.

It really doesn't matter to me whether the topic at hand is Anthroposophy, Gothic music, Sri Lankan nobility, alternative medicine, Australian archaeology, or American football. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel I was the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology I abhorred. After Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate I awarded a barnstar to an editor against whom I'd given evidence. You aren't likely to find anyone more experienced or fair than this and I'm being candid with you because maybe you'll decide to change your mind while there's time for you to turn around. I am a reasonable person and I am receptive to sound logic and evidence: provide me with some. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for evidence of? You keep asking for evidence and diffs, I don't have anything to show you. What are you talking about?►Chris Nelson 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me evidence that sheds better light on your actions than the surmises I posted at the start of this thread. Was there some specific event that changed your mind about the pledge? When have you offered an olive branch to other editors in this dispute? What onsite promises have you kept? This is an open ended offer to change my mind and improve my opinion. If you could show me, for example, that you've earned a DYK nod or a user award for participation at some topic other than football then I'd definitely agree you aren't a single purpose account. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not addressing the single-purpose account nonsense because it's a ridiculous accusation with nothing to support it. So you can think whatever you want about that. As for my pledge, what is there to prove? I changed my mind, and that's obvious because I started editing NFL-related articles again. I'm not trying to hide anything there and never was. You can believe me when I tell you I was initially sincere when I made the pledge, and that it was only later I just changed my mind, or you can not believe me. I know the truth and that's good enough for me.►Chris Nelson 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a diff of your own admission to support it, as you've already seen. Along with that I would of course provide your rebuttal as well as diffs of other occasions when your story changed: the swift turnaround on your pledge and the recent sequence here at your talk page when you deleted an editor's comment with Nazi in the edit summary - when called on that you said the statement a lie - and when called on that you claimed it was a joke. This establishes a pattern I'd rather not submit formally at arbitration: you do what you want, making up excuses as you go along. With a few more diffs I could also demonstrate that when confronted about your policy violations, you often respond with unsupported allegations of misconduct. Please provide reasons and evidence to reach a more favorable conclusion. If I were biased in any way against you I'd simply submit this evidence to the Committee. The reason I haven't done so is the good faith assumption that additional circumstances shed better light on your conduct. Please provide diffs and reasoning to change my mind, because your aggressive responses so far have tended to confirm the worst of those suspicions. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It wasn't an admission of that, you're twisting my words and finding something that isn't there. Your accusation is ridiculous, I've done nothing wrong in this regard so submit it to whomever you want.
2. Yeah, I made a swift turnaround. I obviously changed my mind. I'm not denying anything so I don't know what you're looking for.
3. The joke WAS that it was a lie. My story never changed on that whole "nazi" thing. It was just supposed to be funny, at least to me, in that it was a lie and did not make sense. I did not call anyone a Nazi and I didn't not compare anything Ksy92003 wrote to anything Nazi-related. That's the misunderstanding. It was a stupid joke, albeit a harmless one if actually understood, but on that obviously wasn't worth the trouble.

I do not wish to converse directly with you anymore. You are wrong about everything and I see there is no convincing you. Do what you want, but I find you rude, condescending, insulting, paranoid and you're finding problems that aren't there. I've made a lot of mistakes here, I'll be the first to admit it. But you're trying to get me for things that don't even exist. For that reason, I want not further direct contact with you. Have a good life.►Chris Nelson 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked

I thought you understood what I meant on my talkpage, what Durova, what Seraphim, and what the previous block meant. I apologize, but you have got to stop this sort of behaviour. It's not helping. Feel free to return in 24 hours with a cool head. Thank you. Maxim_(talk) 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't freaking do anything! You make a PERSONAL ATTACK against me and I get blocked for responding? That's insanity.►Chris Nelson 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you did. Juan called you a troll, not me, and then you respond with this lovely gem. Maxim_(talk) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bam. YOU called me a troll as well. Nice try though.►Chris Nelson 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I forgot about the conversation I had with Ksy, and was under the impression you were referring to my talkpage.. Well, you acted like one yesterday - it's a statement of fact and I was trying to bring to Ksy that he wasn't helping as well. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a statement of fact. It's your OPINION. I've been told TONS of things are personal attacks. I've been told saying I believe someone to be mentally unstable is a personal attack. And I guess it is. Even if it's my opinion based on observing the person's behavior. You cannot say it was not a personal attack. I do not deserve to be blocked for a curse word, which has its own Wikipedia page, especially when I didn't use it to attack someone. You personally attacked me, so I think you should block yourself for a day.►Chris Nelson 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I blocked you for incivility. See, the first time I encountered you a few months back you were uncivil. A bit later, an RfC (incivility). Now arbitration for the same thing. You are repeating the same behaviour that impedes the project's progress, and by blocking I prevent you from doing so. You're not helping; you're doing quite the opposite. Users are sick of your behaviour, and the effect is not much different from simply blanking an article; that has less effect. Your behaviour has spiraled into an Arbcom case, as you're not helping, and it doesn't seem you're trying to stop. It's time you understood that. Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, I can come to Wikipedia, look up bullshit, learn about the word and its meaning, but I can't actually use it on my own? That's pretty illogical. In my opinion your personal attack, based on the definition I read HERE, is bullshit. That's my interpretation. I deserve to be blocked for THAT? That's weak and you know it.►Chris Nelson 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't care about anything else in THIS discussion. I don't care about RFCs, arbcoms, other instances of incivility. This was not incivility. It was a legitimate reply to a personal attack. And SINCE I didn't do anything wrong this time, past occurrences mean nothing and I do not deserve to be blocked.►Chris Nelson 17:32, 31 August 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I consider it wrong that I was blocked by an admin that personally attacked me yesterday. He called me a troll, which I took offense to and still do, and I called his personal attack B.S. (though spelling it out). However, considering the isolated incident began with a personal attack by an admin, I feel this is wrong and a conflict of interests. The evidence is located in the link provided above.

Decline reason:

Your block has been discussed on WP:AN/I, and the general consensus was that the block was warranted and that the duration was, if anything, lenient. I would suggest considering a change of approach. — MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 31 August 2007 (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.

Correction to the above: the AN/I discussion was about your previous 3-hour block, not this one. However, given that the issues raised still seem to be in play, I'm not going to unblock. It's a 24-hour block - I'm going to recommend that you sit it out and take steps to de-escalate conflict when you come back. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, anyone - PLEASE review this again. Maxim just made a post with an edit summary saying "Fucking ridiculous." He blocked ME today for saying the word "bullshit", calling it incivility, in response to a personal attack he made about me. This is 100% unfair, someone has to see that.►Chris Nelson 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, that's maybe the fifth time I've posted something obscene, and it was even directed at anybody, while you're calling people Nazis. However, my post sums up the situation perfectly. For anybody interested, it was in relation to Durin leaving due to legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My past incidents - irrelevant. I had done nothing since returning from my block except the comment I left - so THAT is what I was blocked for. And it was WRONG. I don't care what your reason was for using profanity. My situation was no different. That situation is what "drew" the profanity out of you. Well, your PERSONAL FREAKING ATTACK is what drew the profanity out of me. And my profanity ALSO was not directed at anyone. This is completely ridiculous, you are abusing your power and I do NOT deserve to be blocked right now. The word I got blocked for is the perfect word to describe this current situation. YOU should be reprimanded.►Chris Nelson 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your past incidents are extremely relevant. That's why you're in an ArbCom case, and that's why I'm blocking you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My past incidents are not relevant because that's not what I was blocked for. If I hadn't left the bullshit comment on your page, you wouldn't have just randomly come and blocked me again after I was blocked last night. Therefore it was the "bullshit" comment and you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite when it comes to this sort of "incivility." Fine, leave me blocked for a day. Fortunately I'll be out of town most of it. But just know that you're wrong, and you're behavior is pathetic for an admin. I'll work on my problems, you have some to work on yourself.►Chris Nelson 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivil again. Talkpage protected until your block expires. Maxim_(talk) 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected so that Chris can respond to my questions. Chris, keep it clean. I don't want to extend this block but I will if you step out of bounds. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was being uncivil again? Absolutely ridiculous abuse of power.►Chris Nelson 00:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003

Because you seem to be misunderstanding my deleting of your comments, I will clarify my reasons. It has nothing to do with not wanting Maxim or anyone else to read anything - I don't care what you to say to anyone else. But I personally do not want you to speak to me again, in part because I feel you have a personal problem with me and in part because I'm a little worried about the indirect threats you made to Jmfangio in email with me. I do not wish to converse with anyone that has express homicidal urges. That is all.►Chris Nelson 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hoag

That's interesting. We'll have to see what happens tomorrow. Pats1 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yo man can you get on AIM?►Chris Nelson 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations

I recently noticed this and I am appalled that someone would think this is me. I am willing to discuss this with anyone. Is there not a way to tell where the IP was located and to look at my IP, proving it's not me? I realize I am on the fast track to being blocked and I still wish this doesn't happen. It is not in my character to do something as pathetic as vandalize or create sockpuppets, and I plan on doing everything I can to avoid digger myself into a deeper hole.►Chris Nelson 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is a "checkuser"?►Chris Nelson 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a checkuser is exactly what you describe. A small handful of users (including the arbitrators) can run a checkuser to see what IP addresses a registered username has edited from, and if other accounts have edited from the same IP. If those weren't you, you've got nothing to worry about, checkuser will show no relation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay, good. I think it's obvious that the one user name, the one similar to Jmfangio, is definitely related. I suspect two possibilities. 1) Someone acting in support of me, although I have no knowledge of such a thing and would never enlist someone to do something like that. Or, 2) someone that is against me and is purposely doing things like that to make it look like me and get me into more trouble.

I hate to ask this, but there is one thing I think should be made sure of. While I don't believe it to be true, it is possible someone like Jmfangio or Ksy92003 is doing it to make it look like me and make me look bad. For that reason, I am wondering if there is any way to see if there is a connection between either of their IPs. If either of you guys are reading this, please know that I do not believe what I just suggested is true. But I would completely understand if this vandal is doing this to hurt me and I wouldn't blame you for thinking that. So please don't blame me for thinking of this possibility, I just want to be sure. Obviously, if neither of you is connected as I suspect, you'd have nothing to worry about in regards to having it checked. I just don't know who would be doing it in support of me which makes me think it's quite the opposite. I'm not saying it's you - just that I think it might be someone doing it to make me look bad.

Anyway, thanks for the info, Seraphimblade, and I hope this checkuser thing can take place ASAP.►Chris Nelson 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the accounts were socks of someone else, yes, checkuser would show that as well. If you do want to speed the process, you might want to consider making a comment under the section for parties' comments that you do not object to the checkuser being done. Editors' IP information is given protection by the privacy policy, but you can choose in this specific case to waive that protection if you wish to do so. (Your IP would still not be disclosed publicly, of course, just looked at by the checkuser who looks at the case to determine what's going on.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I'm blocked for about another day. Is there any way someone can be directed here and see that I have no objection? I'm going out of town for the day, so between that and the block I probably won't be around until early Sunday morning to respond to anything. I'd like to have that stuff all cleared up by then. If this is possible, I'd just like to say right now that I have NO problem with anyone looking at my IP information and am willing to do whatever it takes to speed up the process and show that I am in no way connected to this vandal.►Chris Nelson 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)