User talk:ChristianandJericho

I am currently: Offline (until Feb. 26, 2011)

Users Addressed above: Swarm Worm SudoGhost ArcAngel Demiurge Colofac Floquenbeam Starship.paint Deely

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)

As far as I can see, both boxes remain on the user page. What is that about, exactly? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Only the one, the DGAF box, is still there, C&J has been very keen about keeping that and Swarm, as C&J's mentor, has allowed it. So, while the WPP box is gone, C&J still at least gets to have the word fuck on their userpage. Now that C&J has been unblocked into snug mentorship, I guess it's time to sit back around the crackling campfire and sing Kumbaya. Fye, I forgot to bring my trusty Hohner. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I meant his age box. Users generally discouraged him having that box because of prejudice due to age, but I guess he can keep it if he wants. Also, I brought the marshmallows. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 18:09, 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)

Ummm, why am I still blocked? --ChristianandJericho 13:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock (2)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)

Accept reason:

As you have accepted the reason for your block and undertaken not to do carry on with this behaviour, but instead focus on your mentorship from Swarm, I am going to unblock you. Remember that you have agreed to not edit outside of the plan (in this case the adoption school) without discussing it with your mentor first. Ensure that you prove that you can be a productive editor before you start working in other areas - otherwise you are likely to be blocked again. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Also, I will consult with my mentor before doing anything major --ChristianandJericho 13:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Swarm specifically asked you which one of the mentorship plans you would agree to on User talk:Swarm/Mentor. For clarity I've added them below.

Mentorship plans

1. Graduate from "adoption school". This will consist of 8 lessons that cover the basics of Wikipedia. You'll then show that you understand the topic by taking a short quiz.
2. Write five DYKs.
3. Focus on constructive article work until you have 1,000 edits in the article namespace.

Basically, it's an agreement that you will consider yourself mentored whilst aiming to complete one of these plans. I personally recommend the adoption school, since I've done so much work on it ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree on the first one --ChristianandJericho 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

115.74.25.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ChristianandJericho". The reason given for ChristianandJericho's block is: "Disruptive editing".

• Blocking administrator: Gwen Gale (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: think I've sorted that. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it has turned out well. Keep in mind that your contributions are undoubtedly being watched by several editors, so stick with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, ChristianandJericho, you can start the adoption school tomorrow (I will give you the link). You're obviously allowed to work on articles directly, but don't participate in other areas without letting me know first (for example, deletion discussions). Swarm ^{u / t} 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Like this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WWE Championship and WWE Champion

Hi CandJ. Just a note that WWE Champion redirects to WWE Championship. So, if WWE Championship is already wikilinked in the first half of a sentence, then WWE Champion doesn't need wikilinking in the second half of the sentence. This is because WP:REPEATLINK says that we should, "in general, link only the first occurrence of an item".

This goes for all other situations too. For example, if a wrestler's name is already wikilinked once in an article, we don't need to wikilink it again later in the same article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Please explain how you were aware so quickly that your school IP had been reported to AIV. This is important; please do not edit anywhere else until you have answered this question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I watchlist WP:AIV --ChristianandJericho 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And you have your school's IP(s) memorized? N^oformation ^Talk 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your school's IP address would not have shown up on your watchlist; it isn't in the edit summary. Would you like to be honest, or would you like me to block you indefinitely? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I check AIV every single day I'm serious, check the warnings I have given to random IPS --ChristianandJericho 03:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that IP is your school. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I promise you it is my school, I will log in at home later and edit on this page to show you --Christianand

Jericho 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is your school, you just happened to see your school's IP address at AIV? Which you have memorized? At age 13? Do you really expect us to believe that? Swarm ^{u / t} 03:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, logging on from another IP "at home" won't prove a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a picture of the school's computer and the lab and show you? --ChristianandJericho 03:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't. Won't prove that's the IP of your school. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I find it unlikely that he would have his "school's" current IP address (which evidently changes all the time) memorized. I have a harder time believing that he looked at AIV for no reason (without going there to report anyone) less than 1 minute after his IP was reported, when there is nothing in the edit summary that would have led him to think his IP had just been reported. C&J, last chance to tell the truth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ChristianandJericho, I'm not as nice as Floquenbeam here and I've just blocked you indefinitely. You're obviously not mature enough to edit here without making useless excuses and wasting others' time. I don't think it's fair to treat children any differently than adults on Wikipedia because Wikipedia isn't designed for children—so if you want to edit this site again, it will be a few years in the future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I support this block. Sorry for wasting people's time on the previous unblock discussion. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologize. They were treated perfectly fair to the end, and the unblock was the right thing to do at the time. Swarm ^{u / t} 05:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I also fully support the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you something, what if it is true? what if I was patrolling AIV at the time? What advice would you give to me if I am 100% innocent? --ChristianandJericho 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how you would know it was your school's IP. Either way, while it is certainly possible that you are innocent here, the evidence is stacked highly against you and you know what they say about ducks N^oformation ^Talk 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew it was my school's IP because it said THIS IS A SCHOOL IP , which I wrote awhile ago --ChristianandJericho 09:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)C&J, when an editor who is on his last chance (ie, you have a history), asks us to believe massive coincidences (you were in exactly the right place, that you looked at a random set of numbers and realised they matched a certain other random set of numbers and then wrote a reply - all in under a minute) - I'd be willing to take the risk that you are innocent. Editing wikipedia is not a right, you'd already had more chances than many think you deserve. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BUT what if it's true? What advice would YOU give to me if i was innocent? What would you tell me to do? --ChristianandJericho 09:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All the time, I look at IP addresses' talk page to see if they've been given enough warnings --ChristianandJericho 09:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's true, I expect you're going to have to take your lumps. Leave wikipedia for a few months, don't sock and consider coming back under the WP:STANDARDOFFER. I don't have a better suggestion. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave Wikipedia, hopefully somebody will believe me --ChristianandJericho 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Can any user please Archive some comments to my second archive? Thanks --ChristianandJericho 09:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've set it to archive at 1 day... that should remove plenty of things quickly enough. Remember six months only starts once you stop editing, including here. And that includes other accounts, IP addresses, IP addresses that you think no-one will notice, editing by friends on your behalf, editing by unexpected accident... etc ... etc... etc... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me just make a few more dedications to the top of this page --ChristianandJericho 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions?

What are your suggestions on what a user should do if they are blocked indef for the same thing as me and the user who was blocked is innocent? --ChristianandJericho 09:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stay away from Wikipedia an get over it. Playing the victim makes you look bad. You have a real life, so live it. Wikipedia is rarely healthy for children. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Will check this page everyday and post unblock request in 6 months --ChristianandJericho 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than checking the page every day, I suggest you instead tick "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" under "My Preferences". That way you will still be notified if there's anything happening, but you will not find yourself in perpetual re-living of the same situation. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Did that day 1 of my editing --ChristianandJericho 14:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well it's time for you to actually leave as you have said you intend to do so the clock can start. Replying here isn't helping.--v/r - TP 15:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying that you want to check your talk page every day shows that you have some sort of problematic addiction or connection to Wikipedia and that unblocking you would not really be a good idea. IMO, the best solution is for you to grow older. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just my talk page is on my "list of tabs" I open on my homepage. --ChristianandJericho 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (LAST COMMENT)

I'd suggest removing it or, alternatively, just quit replying.--v/r - TP 16:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)