User talk:ChristianandJericho

I am currently: Offline.

Welcome, seriously.

I wasn't joking at all. It's good to see a rebel with a brain. Not that you'd be much of a rebel at all, just doing the right thing your own way. Unusual, eccentric even. But not wrong. Like I said we all make mistakes, your doing what you believe is right, and you'll be more and more of a success and leave your critics behind, you are happy to learn, admit when your wrong, be civilized, people can't justifiably ask for more than that. Penyulap _talk 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi ChristianandJericho, thanks for the thankyou, (it was me who did the g for a d when I was logged out accidentally, it does that sometimes). I see SudoGhost is being friendly. I reckon thats cool, he's a top bloke. I'm not just saying that because he awarded me a barnstar, well, thats not all of the reason, lol. He's good. Anyhow, while I always think it's good to stick to your guns and be defiant with idiots you don't like, I always try to follow my friends advice, as part of being their friend. That's cool too. Personally I think you got a good deal with his offer. I've been adopted by a nice bloke, but he's not SudoGhost :) ...well my mentor is cool too. I think everyone needs a mentor, like in star wars. No matter how experienced I get I'll always need a mentor. Sooner or later I should be able to adopt someone too. I look forward to helping out. Penyulap _talk 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey, ChristianandJericho. I see that you're looking for an experienced editor to adopt you, and I'd be more than happy to do so! Just let me know if that sounds alright to you. Swarm ^{u / t} 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

As per this comment, I've set up a subpage here that includes some temporary guidelines that I would ask you to agree to beforehand, so that we can work through each of the concerns addressed at the AN/I discussion one by one. Please check out User:SudoGhost/Mentor and let me know. Thank you. - SudoGhost 06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope the mentoring is helpful. You have, unfortunately, had a bit of a rough time so far on Wikipedia, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get past it all and have a better time in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've set up a talk page here specifically for discussing the mentorship, please visit that talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. SudoGhost has let me know that they will not be able to continue mentoring you (they're planning to take a wikibreak), and they've asked me to take over. So if that sounds fine to you, we can finally move forward. :) Swarm ^{u / t} 15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And I'll continue to watchlist this page, if it is OK. There may be a need for writing advice. Or my adminly powers may be handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Porn

Hey, ChristianandJericho. While we will get the issue sorted out, for now, please remove the WikiProject Porn userbox from your userpage, and while you're at it, remove the "doesn't give a fuck about your opinion" userbox as well (in accordance with the guidelines you accepted). Swarm ^{u / t} 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

C&J, I've removed the PP infobox from your user page and also taken your name off the list of editors at the project page, because any editor claiming to be both 13 years old and an editor of pornography topic areas is disruptive to the project, whether or not such edits are being (or should be, or can be) made. There are other things that need to be settled as to your edits here, but either way, please do not put back the infobox (or anything like it) and don't re-add your name to the project list. If you do, they'll only be removed again and you'll most likely be blocked for at least a week, maybe two. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't like to butt in here, but do you seriously think you're going to get anything productive out of threatening him for wanting to contribute on porn articles?--Deely1 19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not what happened. To learn what did happen, you might read my post (above) again, carefully. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm reading it...--Deely1 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One can also read more of my thoughts on this here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChristianandJericho. You have new messages at User talk:Swarm/Mentor.
Message added 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ^{u / t} 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I should not be blocked as I AM in inactive member, also I have made over 900 contributions to wikipedia, I ask that the blocking admin not review my case by another admin instead ChristianandJericho 23:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:14, 21 September 2011 (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.

blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely owing to disruption, along with your behaviour[1][2] after agreeing to these editing restrictions. You can work with your mentor towards getting unblocked, or post an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that older editors have to agree with a indef block? --ChristianandJericho 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Any administrator can give an indef block, even administrators that are younger than you (there are a few...) Although I guess you meant other editors. The block gets reviewed by a different administrator, but it doesn't have to be agreed by one in advance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

C&J, no one is arguing that the rules say you're not allowed to add yourself as a member of the porn WikiProject, nor is anyone saying that the rules say you're not allowed to edit related articles. (Some people are saying that this is perhaps legally complicated, but that's neither here nor there unless the Foundation comes down with a decree on the matter.) What is a problem is that so many people are bothered by you adding yourself to this project and stating that you plan on editing related articles. Regardless of whether or not it's allowed, the simple fact that so many people take issue with it is a very good reason not to do it. You editing in these areas and leaving yourself as a member of the porn WikiProject would generate far too much drama and general disruption of the project, and if you are not willing to simply not edit in this area, then we're forced to block you to prevent that disruption. Especially given that you had agreed, through your mentor, to remove yourself from the list of members of WikiProject Porn, and remove some unnecessarily crude userboxes from your userpage, which you did not do. All we really want to do, C&J, is avoid disruption, and if you agree to leave the WikiProject and userboxes alone, that'll work as well as a block. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with this block. While it's true that he agreed to those editing restrictions, I don't think it was fair to demand those restrictions. There may or may not be a legal issue here, but as was said, unless the foundation wants to step in to clarify, there is no policy I can think of that restricts his editing porn related pages, nor from joining the project. That people may not want it is irrelevant unless he is editing disruptively. So long as he is competently contributing, he should have access to all the pages on the Wiki that anyone else would. If anything this kind of treatment is going to destroy the relationship with a potentially good editor who is already enthusiastic at such a young age. Yes he needs a mentor, and yes that IDGAF box comes off in a bad way (although I don't think the editor means any offense, remember to AGF), but the block is too much IMHO. Sorry if I'm missing something here, but I don't get how this restriction is justified. N^oformation ^Talk 03:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider it disruptive intentions for someone to declare they are 13 and part of a Porn Wikiproject? I can't fathom a reason for these actions other than to get attention.--v/r - TP 03:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If the editing is disruptive then we can certainly block for that, but I don't find that stating the facts that one is of a certain age and that one intends to edit any project on Wikipedia disruptive. If we had rules in place that prohibited it then yes, attempting to bypass those rules would be disruptive. Now, my understanding was not that the user went to the project and announced that he was 13, but it said he was 13 on his user page and so people tied it together. If he purposely went to the wikiporn project and announced he was 13, then perhaps that is a little immature. But how much utter crap do we deal with on AN/I from people who don't give two shits about the project? At least this user is interested and in the future may develop into a really great editor. N^oformation ^Talk 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who are being mentored are very often placed under restrictions, either by the community or by their mentor, which are much more restrictive than we would place on a regular editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Those restrictions usually aren't arbitrary. If this user had vandalized or otherwise disrupted porn pages then this would make sense. We don't do restrictions for the sake of restrictions. N^oformation ^Talk 05:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If we ignore the porn issue for now, whatever you may think of the box it appears you agree it may be intepreted the wrong way. Considering this, it was entirely resonably for people to ask him to remove the box while under mentorship largely arising because people found plenty of his non porn related edits disruptive, and this isn't an arbitary restriction. If despite that, he felt this restriction was unfair, there was no reason why he couldn't have attempted to discuss it. However instead he agreed to it but then proceeded to revert an attempt to remove the box despite his said agreement to the restriction. And he's still shown no sign he understands or agrees he shouldn't have tried to keep the box if he agreed to remove it as part of restrictions on him.It appears he's now working out a new agreement that allows him to have a box which was what should have been done in the first place but that isn't the fault of others.Edit: Actually it looks like an agreement was reached on the DGAF box before the block (but only after earlier agreeing to the restrictions). The problem remains CJ didn't adhere to the new agreement either. It's true that GG could have put the DGAF box allowed by the new agreement, but I'm not sure if they noticed the new agreement as it was in the talk page and I can't really fault them for that. And it was ultimately CJ's responsibility to ensure they went along with their agreements and in particularly going clear cut against them by reverting the removal of the box that wasn't allowed in either agreement clearly wasn't on. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When I said older editors, I meant more experienced, also check the unblock request below --ChristianandJericho 10:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

To Swarm

Please help me get unblocked, I am watching your contributions waiting for you to look at my talk page --ChristianandJericho 00:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree to completely abandon WikiProject Pornography for the duration of our mentorship. The community does not feel it's appropriate for you to participate in that area. Do not add your name to the list, do not add a userbox, do not edit anywhere in that subject area, do not even mention it from here on out. This is a very light restriction and there's millions of other things you could do, and enjoy, on Wikipedia.
• Agree to one of the plans I've laid out at User talk:Swarm/Mentor to prove that you can be a constructive editor. Focus on completing it, and don't work in any other area without asking me first.
• Understand that this is your last chance. If you violate the above agreements, or the restrictions you've already agreed to, you will be reblocked.

Sign your name below if you agree, and indicate which plan you'll choose. Swarm ^{u / t} 00:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand and agree to the above conditions:--ChristianandJericho 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Choice of mentorship plan: Okay, here's what I'll do, I'll follow all of the rule but you have to put me on the inactive side of WP:Porn because the matter is being discussed and I have to stop editing there FOR THE TIME BEING --ChristianandJericho 10:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Deal I'll stay away for the duration of our mentorship --ChristianandJericho 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock (2)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have understood what I did wrong, if you look above you will see the agreement I have made --ChristianandJericho 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have understood what I did wrong, if you look above you will see the agreement I have made --[[User:ChristianandJericho|Christian]][[User talk:ChristianandJericho|and]][[Special:Contributions/ChristianandJericho|Jericho]] 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have understood what I did wrong, if you look above you will see the agreement I have made --[[User:ChristianandJericho|Christian]][[User talk:ChristianandJericho|and]][[Special:Contributions/ChristianandJericho|Jericho]] 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have understood what I did wrong, if you look above you will see the agreement I have made --[[User:ChristianandJericho|Christian]][[User talk:ChristianandJericho|and]][[Special:Contributions/ChristianandJericho|Jericho]] 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

CandJ, where it says "Choice of mentorship plan" it means you need to state which one of the three options you choose, not just say "I agree". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As Demiurge1000 states, if you chose which mentorship plan you want to take, I'd support an unblock - with the proviso that I will be watching you carefully, and could well summarily re-block you. I have great faith in Swarm - and indeed in the "adoption school" he mentions (I think it's the one I wrote!) and as long as you accept that you should consult with your mentor before taking actions, then I see no reason you should stay blocked. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for supporting the unblock, by the way, how's ArcAngel's nomination for adminship going? --ChristianandJericho 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered which mentorship plan you'd like - it'd be a good idea to focus on your own situation. Since you ask though, I've found a lacking in content contributions by ArcAngel, and hopefully he and I will collaborate on an article. I've given him a suggestion already. I'm sure he'll make a great admin, but these things do take time. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "mentorship plan" mean, if you mean what will I do, I will contribute better and be more civil --ChristianandJericho 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)