::::::My comment below about "other editors" is, in my humble opinion, quite justified. The guy is slagging me off everywhere he can, yet no administrative action is taken. This seems like extreme hypocrisy to me. My comment was polite, it wasn't a personal attack. I am unable to create a report at AN/I so I do so at the only place I can. Is that not justifiable use of my talk page? If it was just one or two insults I'd let it slide but the obvious hatred of me that he's posting is well over the top. Or am I just supposed to sit back and take it like a good little blocked user? This is not a good way of keeping my regard of the rules and administration at a high enough level to keep me on the right side of the 'law'. If admins are ignoring NPA etc then why should I bother with playing fair and keeping to the rules? No bugger else seems to be doing it. Is there a codicil to [[WP:NPA]] that says anyone can say what they like about any blocked user? --'''[[User:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">Web</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">H</font>[[User Talk:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::My comment below about "other editors" is, in my humble opinion, quite justified. The guy is slagging me off everywhere he can, yet no administrative action is taken. This seems like extreme hypocrisy to me. My comment was polite, it wasn't a personal attack. I am unable to create a report at AN/I so I do so at the only place I can. Is that not justifiable use of my talk page? If it was just one or two insults I'd let it slide but the obvious hatred of me that he's posting is well over the top. Or am I just supposed to sit back and take it like a good little blocked user? This is not a good way of keeping my regard of the rules and administration at a high enough level to keep me on the right side of the 'law'. If admins are ignoring NPA etc then why should I bother with playing fair and keeping to the rules? No bugger else seems to be doing it. Is there a codicil to [[WP:NPA]] that says anyone can say what they like about any blocked user? --'''[[User:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">Web</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">H</font>[[User Talk:WebHamster|<font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::As a indefinitely blocked user whose block was well supported by the community, this talkpage is only for you to request unblocking, it's not a chat page or a forum for your thoughts. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The protocol, as you well know, is that administrators by and large are only concerned about what unpopular editors like you and me say. Others can say whatever they like about us with impunity. Check out the recent contributions by [[User:MONGO]] or [[User:Lecen]] about me, for instance. Having said that, sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and it might be prudent to wind your neck in a bit where MarcusBritish is concerned. I have no more time for him than you do, but still. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The protocol, as you well know, is that administrators by and large are only concerned about what unpopular editors like you and me say. Others can say whatever they like about us with impunity. Check out the recent contributions by [[User:MONGO]] or [[User:Lecen]] about me, for instance. Having said that, sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and it might be prudent to wind your neck in a bit where MarcusBritish is concerned. I have no more time for him than you do, but still. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note that if you leave a message here then I'll reply here. Likewise if I leave a message on your talk page please reply there as I'll be watching your page. Thanks.
Unblocked
Done Welcome back. FWIW, I knew TPO was you as soon as I poked through your contributions following that non-free image kerfuffle, but, meh, what's the point of blocking someone who's mostly editing productively? You'll need to make a request at WP:USURP if you want Fred The Oyster back, but it's a bit of an unusual case ... but worth a try. Black Kite (t) 09:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you very much. I didn't try very hard at all to hide the fact, and if you notice I've never actually denied it, even when accused of it. It isn't in my nature to be deceitful, I'm too upfront and direct about things. As such I'm always uncomfortable working as a sock. The only reason I sock is to be productive, even after my 'mouth' gets me into trouble. It's never been my intention to be deliberately disruptive, unfortunately 'dramah' seems to follow me, not to mention several detractors. Anyway, that's in the past as far as I'm concerned that's in the past.
I just went to WP:Usurp and tried to put in a request but unfortunately my IP is autoblocked on the TPO account (see I'm not even munging my IP!). But thinking about it, I may as well just use WebHamster. On commons I don't hide the fact I'm both even if neither account is blocked. So to save everyone's time and energy I may as well just stay with WH. Cheers, I'm very much obliged for you sorting out like this BK. --WebHamster 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sussed you out when you started reverting vandalism on Floyd articles :) Parrotof Doom 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously missed something here. Last night WH was being villified as a sockpuppet and blocks were flying around like confetti. Yet today he's welcomed back? Nice to see you back (officially) anyway WH. MalleusFatuorum 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even I knew from the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens days, some folk are very slow on the uptake. And like MF says that is one incredible reversal but nice to see you've removed the false moustache and dark glasses.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And sad to say I'm one of those who is slow on the uptake, as it really never occurred to me; I had to be told only a few days ago (not by WebHamster) that he and TPO were likely the same editor. I don't consider myself dumb though, just that my mind is on higher things. :lol: MalleusFatuorum 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he stuck a copyedit tag on an article I'd copyedited a few days back! I can spot a sock quite easily on stuff I've worked on. As WH said he didn't make it so hard and others only think they do.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you very much guys, it's nice to be back under 'my' own 'name' again. And yes I didn't make it difficult to spot, after all I was creating images on commons as FtO then immediately adding them to en as TPO, then even announcing the fact at the Illustration Workshop. Then I deliberately gave details of my strokes on commons and here. I even deliberately mentioned commons as a non sequiter during a discussion to see if Off2riorob would catch the bait. He did, but I'm betting he thinks it was his detective skills. But enough of that, I promised to watch my civility. I'm just amazed I got two years out of it. The other socks were throwaways so I could have a little nameplay fun whilst I was waiting for the pasta to boil. What they don't realise though is that I can use up to 3 different IP addresses (2 of which are dynamic and change regularly) simultaneously if I so desired so could easily nobble their sock detectors if I so wished. I chose not to. Strangely enough though I've missed the nomme de plume. And alas I didn't barter my soul, though to be frank, I don't think I have one. All I'm interested in these days is doing the illustrations, I find it very therapeutic, especially the relatively easy ones. That and the fact my word and spelling skills have gone down the shitter. In any case I have either Photoshop or Illustrator open anyway for my work so it's just easy for me to knock off some the easy WP ones whilst I'm taking a break from the more difficult client paid ones. --WebHamster 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Mid you though, I still can't edit due to the autoblock. though I don't know if I still have to have a salutary block for the activities of the last few days. Anyway, I do intend to keep my promises. In fact, I can't remember when the last time I deliberately broke a promise was. Ah well. --WebHamster 13:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try posting an unblock request template asking them to "finish the job". That might work faster than waiting for an admin to happen to see your talk page. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea that man, cheers. --WebHamster 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unblocked as WebHamster per the discussion on User talk:The Pink Oboe, unfortunately the autoblock from the other accounts has remained on so although I'm unblocked I still can't edit. Cheers.
Accept reason:
Autoblock should be lifted now, unless I forgot how to do so, hopefully not. SnowolfHow can I help? 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Snowolf, but unfortunately it's still on, most probably because of the block on User:The Pink Oboe. I don't know if autoblock was switched on for:
Sorry for the extras, but last night I didn't think I would be doing this today, sorry. --WebHamster 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I lifted the Pink Oboe autoblock, try it now. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alas I'm afraid not...
"Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "The Pink Oboe". The reason given for The Pink Oboe's block is: "Disruptive editing: Continuation of prior activities, inappr
This block has been set to expire: 14:51, 18 November 2011." --WebHamster 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, it all works fine now. Could I ask for one more little favour though? Due to vandalism in my 'absence' my user page was protected, so could you please unprotect it so I can do some tidying. Muchos thanks. --WebHamster 15:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Unprotected. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Nev, should we ever meet in person that's a pint (or the equivalent thereof) I owe you. --WebHamster 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked again?
Get your house in order lads, ffs. Parrotof Doom 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For information, Orangemike (talk·contribs) has raised his reblocking for discussion here at ANI. No doubt someone will copy over to that discussion anything that WebHamster says here. BencherliteTalk 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, it was worth a try. Sigh. Black Kite (t) 19:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for all, OrangeMike has decided to neatly intersect "blocked user" and "wheel war" into the same thread, thus ensuring maximum input from the ANI drama whores. Brilliant. "You've pissed me off - I'll see you desysopped" is the love theme of the day apparently. You have got to admire it when the admins start bullying each other though (all those cries of admin abuse down the years!). Popcorn please. Pedro : Chat 20:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Black Kite, apparently we're a bunch of pussies ("naive/soft admins"). I'm waiting for the claim that you have received favors from one of the Wikipedian sex workers. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting to see which admin will issue a warning to Off2riorob for this comment. I won't hold my breath. Parrotof Doom 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm clearly invooolved. And yeah, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it's impossible for both of you to think there might be a middle ground? Well I just asked Rob to think about his phrasing. Obviously this was too low brow a potential solution for you guys to work out? Pedro : Chat 21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you should have asked Rob to refactor. Clearly you felt there was an issue with doing that (I don't know why, a past disagreement or something? I honestly don't know). Pedro : Chat 22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would refactoring make, which I note that Rob has not done anyway? He's made his position very clear, and evidently feels that civility is for others, not for him. MalleusFatuorum 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he has now had a warning, with my "admin hat" on (stupid self righteous arsehole phrase that it is, I admit). Still at least POD can stop moaning. Pedro : Chat 22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in conversing with Off2robrio, not after comments like this. Parrotof Doom 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the people you hate POD.... You bitch and moan right above that "I won't hold my breath" about a warning, and yet when what you want actually happens you deflect the conversation to "I have no interest". I'll tell you straight who the dickhead is around here - me - for trying to mediate a lost cause. You however need to reflect on your stance. Pedro : Chat 22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that PoD is simply explaining why he didn't request that Rob's comments were refactored. As for myself I don't think I've ever asked for comments to be refactored; it's alien to my nature. You can't take away what's already been said. MalleusFatuorum 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
POD clearly asked above "I'm waiting to see which admin will issue a warning to Off2riorob for this comment, I won't hold my breath.". He has now been warned. So 1) POD's little fantasy bad admin clique is wrong and 2) I responded "he has now had a warning" to which I get "I have no interest in conversing". So either POD cares or does not. I really couldn't give a fuck. The bald fact of that matter is POD's assumptions were wrong, and frankly when he was called on it he seems to have deflected the point. If POD would now like to step up and say "yeah, okay Pedro, he did get a warning, maybe not all the admins are one sided" he's very welcome. Perhaps I won't hold my breath for that .............Pedro : Chat 22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether he does or not, despite what you may believe I do recognise that there are honest and decent admins around, and on a good day I may even be persuaded that they're in the majority. I think it would be a better place here if editors could forget (not forgive, only God can do that) and move on after one of the seemingly endless spats that waste so much time here. Once again, speaking only for myself, with very few exceptions all I remember about an editor is that I recognise the name, but rarely why I remember it. A bit like recognising a face and not being able to put a name to it. MalleusFatuorum 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no god, and frankly the mantle of godhead is silly, and offensive to me as an atheist. It's god not God. Luckily I'm not that fussed :)Pedro : Chat 23:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned God as a sop to the Americans. I'm an antitheist myself, which means that not only do I not believe in God, I find the whole idea of God to be ridiculous. MalleusFatuorum 23:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's appropriate to thank you for warning him so I'll not. Perhaps you could also warn User:MarcusBritish for making disparaging personal remarks about my manhood (or lack of it) and motives, on the same ANI thread. These people think I'm offended by such nonsense but actually I'm quite pleased to see it, as it reinforces my view that "civility" is completely misunderstood by most people. If you really want to know what offends me, it's comments like this. It's pointed barbs like that, or perhaps this, comments that imply that I'm dishonest or simply thick, that get my goat. But that editor didn't use any rude words, so none of the drama mongers at ANI would ever be interested. Parrotof Doom 23:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less if it is appropriate (though probably not!) but I'm afraid I can only offer a cop out of going to bed as it's quarter past 11. However I'm likely in your camp on pointed barbs. I will look at it tomorrow if we haven't all been blocked. Pedro : Chat 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well sleep on this Pedro - I've seen you post many times only Malleus's page (and others), and never thought poorly of you. If that's worth anything, perhaps you'll have a nicer kip. Parrotof Doom 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I for one appreciate your warning, and I think you're a straight shooter. And I could have asked Rob to refactor too--it's just that the thought of that is already too much for me, he rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, I got carried away by my cynicism: thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued by the concept that I should be de-sysopped for WP:AGF of a user. Oh hang on, I've just noticed who posted that. Heh. Black Kite (t) 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
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).
So let's get this straight people, including the slavish zealots amongst you, I have been a productive editor for 8 years (regardless of being a sock{, yet you want to nail me to the cross for a cumulative four days of 'bad' behaviour? Yes I was a sock, yes I admitted it, and yes I threw them away. For the non-logic thinking admins amongst you, why would a very computer literate editor create socks after a block but during an SPI check and on the sma IP when it was have been piss easy for me to change my IP? On top of that I am not coming back as a 'normal' editor I'd be coming back as an editor with so many restrictions it's unreal. Additionally, the rules apply about socks apply to socks created to be disruptive. No-one can say with hand on heart that I created FtO or TPO to be disruptive. I've never vandalised anything, I've never created dramah (although admittedly much has been created around me). Now given that they weren't created to be disruptive or vandalise etc what's your best guess as to why I did it? Now again, why am I to be reblocked when the unblocking admins broke no rules, yet the reblocking admin does so by wheel-warring to get his, at the time, unilaterla way? If his wheel warring unilateral way hadn't existed then yet more dramah at ANI wouldn't have existed (do you guys do this to give yourselves purpose or something?) and I would be free to be productive again. Also during my out of prison time, did I fight with anyone, take on Jimbo, do anything that could be remotely considered disruptive, damn I didn't even spell anything wrong. Something else I'd like to strongly object to which was mentioned at an ANI (and I really do wish the lynchmob could actually read} I did NOT blame Torettes for my behaviour, in fact I actively denied it. I have NOT blamed my strokes for my behaviour, I actively denied it. The only thing I blamed my strokes for was an inability to spell and type correctly. I did mention my Asperger's and how and why I do certain things. I did not blame my conditions on anything I've been accused of.
Decline reason:
I am sorry to report that I have closed the ANI discussion and declined the unblock. My reasons for the close may be reviewed here. A substantial majority of the community opposed the unblock due to continued sockpuppetry and incivility. The result from the ANI discussion may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, if you wish to do so, please see WP:BASC for details on how to do this. Sjakkalle(Check!) 21:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
As I have repeatedly pointed out I don't get other people to fight my battles, that includes Arbcom. Now I tried to do it your way with the severest restriction I have ever seen on an editor, yet you still wouldn't go for it. That is the only way it would prevent me from socking, it's the only it would prevent anyone from socking. This is not a tacit threat that I will sock again. As I've said earlier AFAIAC when a person is blocked, especially in this way, the 'contract' I had originally with Wikipedia is ended. That said I will do whatever I feel will be best for me, not what's best for the project, the project had that chance and gave me a great big "fuck you" in return. --WebHamster 21:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not allowed to use socks to evade a block, end of story. This is a pretty bright-line rule. → ROUX₪ 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your way then, but just out of interest, has the definition of indefinite been transmogrified into permanent? Now a piece of logic I don't understand is if blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive (and this is starting to look punitive, WP:Quack and all that) and you just 'know' I'm going to sock again if the block is retained. Then that just demonstrates that it isn't preventative at all, it's punitive. Whereas if I'm unblocked yet kept to a very tight set of limitations which means I don't sock, then doesn't that mean that the unblock is the correct preventative measure to prevent me from socking again? Likewise, the tight restrictions preventing me from going to areas where I'm likely to lose my rag and go into melt down are also preventative, and considering that I volunteered for them they are not punitive. On the other hand am I right in presuming that the word has come back that certain high-level money managers wouldn't like to see WH back in the project? Yes I know that sounds a little paranoid, yet it's not that far from the realms of possibility. --WebHamster 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS WebHamster has never been a sock, and has never been used to evade anything, just thought I'd throw that in there. --WebHamster 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blah blah, wikilawyer. Socking to get around a block is forbidden, yes or no? → ROUX₪ 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Now the problem we have here is a failure to communicate, or at least in this instance is the failure to understand that to be a good wikilawyere one must actually know the 'laws' one is using. So to give a direct answer to your question. No, socking to get around a block is NOT forbidden. "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account." and "The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." (my emphasis). There is nothing there that specifies evading a block is "forbidden". Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts the policy page where you'll see that evading a block isn't mentioned. And WP:BLOCK/WP:EVADE uses enough 'may" mentions to show that something as absolute as "forbidden" was never either the requirement or the aim. All my accounts were created for me to make legitimate, non-controversial and non-disruptive edits. All of which (apart from the last 4 which were just for lulz but didn't evade anything) were created before I was indeffed. So does that answer your question satisfactorily? --WebHamster 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. You were blocked from editing, yes or no? That means you are not permitted to edit, yes or no? Stop wikilawyering and answer the questions. → ROUX₪ 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts are blocked, people are not. Parrotof Doom 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly backwards. Accounts are blocked, the person behind them is the one explicitly forbidden from editing. → ROUX₪ 22:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please back that up. At them moment I don't feel like taking anything you are saying on faith. --WebHamster 22:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't. I've never had an account in my own name. --WebHamster 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Your account was blocked, which means you were forbidden from editing. So, again: You were blocked from editing, yes or no? That means you are not permitted to edit, yes or no? → ROUX₪ 22:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've already had your answer Roux, so time to step away and do something useful instead of poking here. It might be instructive for you to look at the history of User:Law, aka User:the Undertow. MalleusFatuorum 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And that user was tacitly supported by ARBCOM members. So the hypocrisy of our SOCK guidelines and policies is paid lip service at best. Pedro : Chat 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My account was blocked. as I am permitted to have more than one account ergo it's the account rather than the person which gets blocked as MF said above. You ask me to give straight answers, so I give you straight answers yet you just throw "wikilawyering" accusations at me when I have the temerity to explain why I've given the straight answer I just gave. --WebHamster 22:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're only allowed to have multiple accounts for certain purposes. One of the forbidden purposes:
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. (Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny may also be considered a breach of this policy.)
Since you were repeatedly blocked for incivility, personal attacks etc, and then came back only to be blocked within a few months for the same thing twice without people realising who you were, I think it's fair to say you violated this part. I wouldn't read too much into the Law/Undertow situation, if anything that showed many people don't consider it acceptable even when you behave fairly well, and has almost definitely reduced people's willing to accept such a situation anyway.
Despite all the above and my disagreement with you in the NFCC-GL/W AN/I thing, I actually supported the unblock but having read your actual unblock request I think this was a mistake, not that I thought you had much chance from my read of the existing discussion anyway. And meh, as I said there I suggest it's your choice whether you want to come back now and risk getting blocked fairly fast because you can't stick to the requirements or leave for a long while without socking, and coming back (with this or some other openly disclosed account) when you're more sure you can stick to the requirements (and people may be slightly more tolerant for minor infractions).
A few months? It was more than 2 years! As for the "requirements", not only are they voluntary but they were my idea and I fully intend to stick to them, or in fact any other restrictions applied to me. Lokk all I want to do is supply illustrations and images to the project and do edits to necessary pages to include them. I don't wish to be able to create any new articles or templates or whatever. All I want is to be left alone to do these things, is that too much to ask? Why the hell do you think I create these socks? It isn't to vandalise or disrupt. As for my civility "problems", I never ever throw the first punch. It is always because of someone else's reaction to me or to something I've done. I don't make a complaint, I react back in such a way that I hope the other person backs done from their attack. I never, ever attack first, ever. Look, I've been a productive editor far longer than most of you who are deciding my 'fate', yet you want to pillory me for reacting to other people's perceived attacks on me? Eight years of being a productive editor and you lot want to throw that away for a few minor infractions? Sheesh. --WebHamster 07:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favorite edit summary, possibly ever, though it's probably not technically what they are meant for. That being said, this wacky argument of "an account is blocked, not a person" - come off it. Doctalk 07:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's face it I have nothing to lose, and I'm certainly not about to lose my sense of humour about this, the, what I perceive to be, lynch mob know they want to block me and they 'know' that I'm going to sock again, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. Anybody would think this is real world justice, real world infractions and a real world murder. --WebHamster 07:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, I'm neutral on your case as far as unblocking. Torn, really: I don't like socking one bit, but your candor and sense of humor (pardon the American spelling) intrigues me. Best of luck to you. Doctalk 08:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the whole point with coming back as WH on an extremely short leash, in fact shorter than any I've seen before, a name that is known so that should I doing anything wrong then I'd be back in the slammer soonest. As for my candour (UK spelling) well I don't see any point in making promises I won't keep just to assuage the judges. I've always told things as they are, not as people want them to be. And in this case the best way of making sure I don't sock (and I am NOT saying I would) is to let me use WH on the shortest leash possible. It's a very simple answer, based on the fact that the leash is based on what I want to do, not on what I'm forced to do. I don't look for arguments, I don't look for trouble. I have a cheeky and dark sense of humour that gets me into trouble and an attitude that I fight my own battles. If you minimise the amount of interaction I have with other users, especially ones I don't know then it also minimises the amount of trouble I'll get into. The breaking the proviso I originally had at the top of the page was so that I can visit pages of users I consider to be friends. If that's not allowed then so be it. --WebHamster 08:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me but this reads like a threat, you do not say you won't sock either. Thus you are saying that if you are not unblocked you may create a sock. As to a short leash, what would you consider appropriate? We can start with a 1RR restiction on all pages, in fact 1 edit a day might be a good start.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people would stop reading things into what I've written that were never meant, especially using emotive words like "threat". For the record I've made no such "threat". If you wish to see the very short leash already proposed, it's on the now locked User talk:The Pink Oboe#Mongo's assertions at ANI and a request. 1RR would be a bit of a waste of time as part of the requirements would be non-controversial, image related edits. But if you wish to add that to the list I'm fine with it. --WebHamster 12:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you you will not , under any circumstances, create and use sock accounts?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, for those naysayers who believe I can't change, why not have a look at the history of WH and Fred the Oyster (The account I am currently using) over at commons. I'm left to get on with doing all the things I've mentioned here and I've been in no trouble at all. received no blocks. Let me do the work I want to do and I have no reason to sock, then everyone wins. What is so hard about that notion to understand? --WebHamster 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pink Oboe Talk Page Blocked
That's a great idea Fram. People were asking questions of me on that page, so now how am I supposed to answer them when WH can only respond on this page? Are you trying to cut off any logic suggestions coming from me or something? Have I been disruptive on that page or something? Have I used the page for subterfuge? Everyone on that page knows who I am so it makes no sense to me why you would block my access to it. --WebHamster 08:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to various AN/I comments about me
Why is User:T. Canens bringing User:Noloop into the discussion? Is he suggesting the Noloops is a sock of mine? If he is I can say quite categorically No, it isn't a sock of mine. --WebHamster 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Double standards of User:MONGO who consistently berates Malleus about civility, yet describes me as an "obnoxious troll" on Jehochman's talk page yet nothing is said or done about it. Yet I get blocked for calling someone a "money manager". Double standards or what? --WebHamster 09:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Bushranger "The thing is, I think, that there are more problems here than just the socking". What is he alluding to? Clarity is required for dumping that bombshell without explaining it. --WebHamster 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very short leash proposed for my return
It seems some people haven't actually seen the proposed short leash listed in detail, so I thought this might help:
Editing limited to adding to, or the changing of, articles related to images/illustrations I have created or processed on commons.(Other than if I see any obvious vandalism in other articles).
No editing in Wikipedia space.
Editing and fulfilling requests in the Image Workshops is an exception to the above.
No editing in Template space.
No editing in User space. (Though I request that this be relaxed to join in non-controversial conversations on friend's pages, and obviously on the talk pages of admins who are my 'probation officers').
No creation of new articles or templates.
1RR limitation as suggested above.
All requirements have no time limit and are in force until consensus decides otherwise.
A promise to abide by Sock policy whilst this limitation is in force.
Any other reasonable suggestions? --WebHamster 13:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An agreemetn to abide by Sock policy in all circumstances, the sock rules are not negotiable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above are the cards on the table that I will positively, absolutely keep to. --WebHamster 14:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So cheeky! Dictating your own terms and everything. You gotta abide the sock policy all the time, not just while the limitation is in force. Doctalk 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Dictating"? So you missed the "proposed" in the section header did you? --WebHamster 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without an agreement to abide by wikipdieas rule without conditions its hard to belive you will abide by any agreement that is a gentlemans agreemtn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Agreemtn that if you breach any of the above even once you will be IP blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered below. A block ends any agreements for anyone. You can't expect someone to receive a fuck you from the admins and then simultaneously agree to their demands. So long as I am a legitimate editor I will keep to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the above restrictions. if I am blocked then you have no right to expect me to stick to anything that isn't to my/the volunteer's benefit. --WebHamster 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the proposal that if you breach any of the above you will be IP blocked to prevent the creation of socks? Do you agree to this as an additional condition?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to it. But for transparency, I don't edit with a single IP, the one I'm on now is static, the others aren't. --WebHamster 15:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a lot of point then as you can evade any block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I could have not told you. There are 6 (I think) other IPs which aren't blockable (too much collateral damage) because they belong to a commercial VPN system --WebHamster 16:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A qurstion for the admins, is this proposal practiable? Also is thre any way to prevent this user from creating socks (givej they have dynamic IP's)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a checkuser, so the possibility exists that I'm wrong, but no, I don't think this is practicable. As WH says, he's not on a static IP most of the time, which means the only way to "IP block" him would involve vast swathes of other innocent users also being locked out. We try not to do that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So (on effect) if Weby decided to disrupt wikipeida to 'teach us a leason' theres actualy sod all we can do about it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had two years to do that had I wanted to, except for the fact that I'm not vindictive, I'm not the immature person you all seem to think I am and as 8 years of work can attest I do try my best to make this place better. This is partially why I think the place is going downhill, and not because of vandalism or any obvious reasons, but because of the, for example, ever increasingly complex bureaucracy and the over-emphasis of trivial things like civility when onerous and objectionable things like RfA, AN/I, racism, separatism, sectarianism are all allowed to thrive. Sorry if that was a bit soapboxish but contrary to what people here think I do care about the project. So one thing I can promise without fear of me breaking it is that I would never attempt to trash this place. You can take that to the bank. --WebHamster 19:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a lot of problems. However much more important you or I may think other problems are, civility will always be taken seriously. Creating good content and treating people with dignity and respect are not mutually exclusive. You've had ample time to demonstrate that you will never accept that, and so there is no reason to unblock you. causa sui (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed the bit above where I stated I never throw the first punch. If someone attacks me or is uncivil to me then I reciprocate, harder. If people are civil to me then I'm civil in return. So yes I do accept that. What I don't accept is that I have to get someone else to fight my battles for me. --WebHamster 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original terms of my indef
If anyone would like to peruse the block log for WH, you will see that the terms for dropping the block is that I behave like an adult. So I take it no-one believes making a proposal like the above, partially designed to prevent me getting into trouble, is adult-like behaviour? --WebHamster 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, as your reponse to a simple proposal was not to respond to it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now if that isn't a misunderstanding of "proposal" I don't know what is. It was a dictate. If I wanted to come back as WH then I had to behave as an adult. I now want to behave as an "adult", that's my response, Or are you now confusing "indefinite" with "infinite"? --WebHamster 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if you would accept the condition that you will agree to not create socks if your propisals are not accepted, you have not reponded. And no its not ma dicate, its the rules of wikipdia, you are not allowed to create socks. Your 'prosal' is that you are unblocked in exchange for agreeing to not do someting that is aginst the rules. So the simple question is, do you agree to abide by the rules of wikipdia regardless of any unblock rulin g?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I, or anyone else, is blocked then as far I am concerned that is a 'contract' ender and I/we are no longer under the auspices of the admins, i.e. I'm then on my own dime and what I do or don't do is nobody's business but mine. --WebHamster 14:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that is at the very least an implied threat that if you are not re-instated you will sock. So no you are not agreeing to be an adult, you are making childish threats. I think that its now clear (at least to me) that anrange block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course entitled to think as you like, bad faith and all. But it is not a threat, not in the slightest. It's a statement of fact. A block is a "fuck you" from Wikipedia for the good work I've done. It means 'you' no longer have the right to dictate what I do or what I don't do. As it happens I haven't decided what I should do and I don't go round making promises willy nilly even if you might. If I was definitely going to sock I would say so. Haven't you noticed why I get into trouble? It's because I'm up front with people and I certainly don't make bald-faced lies. --WebHamster 14:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I belive the last ban you got was for socking, so its not bad faith to assume you create sock accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is bad faith to assume that I'm making threats. --WebHamster 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will nt reponed any more o this partucalr point as I do not wish to be accused of harrisment by admins.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I won't respond to this point as I don't wish to be threatened by bad typing/spelling. --WebHamster 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did respond. Also its hard to belive you intend to act as an adult when you resort to playground jibes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So did you. I'm not unblocked. I'll behave like an adult when I'm unblocked. --WebHamster 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, after this, you will never be unblocked. causa sui (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly after being blocked and unblocked then blocked again when the first unblock was righteous why should I care what you think? No-one gives a shit about how I think or feel. --WebHamster 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven and Doc, what sanctimonious baiting. You prance around here sniding and sneering, pretending to speak for all of us. You don't. The two of you have managed to create a grand total of six articles (a fifth of what WH left us), and here you are acting like you're in charge of the joint. It is entirely possible that WH did things that the community can not forgive (I can't and don't speak for the community, and don't agree with it, but the dude abides), but pissing vinegar all over this talk page has certainly made it more difficult for him. Congratulations, and shame on you. And causa sui, I usually see eye to eye with you, but if you can't see what these two have accomplished here you need a new prescription. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW he signed his own death warrant well before any of this trolling took place. If you think there are other civility issues that need to be dealt with I'll be happy to take a look at them - really. causa sui (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So asking form a straight answer from some one who claims to be honest is baiting? Indeed I stated I would drop the subject after it became obvious that Webby would not give a straight answer (well he did, did he not admitting he would not obey the rules if blocked). Also it does not matter how many articles someone has created, that is not how we judge behaviour. Yet again (how often have we seen this?) Webby is being portrayed as the injured party, yes something does need looking into, the Webby clique.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poking at an indef blocked user is baiting. Continuing to churn WebHamster's talk page is rude. User_talk:Drmies is the appropriate place to ask your question. Gerardw (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I'd like to thank the editor's and admins who did their best to defend me, I'm very grateful. Should I have been unblocked I can guarantee that your faith in me would not have been unjustified, it's just a shame that others didn't give me any trust. What they don't seem to realise is that editors like me, ie ones who are blocked yet still want to make the project what it is, who only sock because events have got away from them and ended up blocked but aren't truly disruptive. I only sock because I'm not allowed to do legitimate edits, ergo if I'm allowed then I have no reason to sock. I have only ever socked when I was blocked. I've never used multiple accounts when WH was allowed to edit.
It makes no sense to me to block someone like me who does not sock to be disruptive. It just means that I will continue to sock under the radar. So rather than have me under the microscope as WH where I wouldn't have the chance to be 'disruptive' you prefer me to do as I like unobserved, and unmonitored. This to me makes it look strongly like this block is punitive because it certainly isn't preventative. --WebHamster 07:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, incidentally, Slatersteven and Doc, I did consider your comments here to be trolling, Drmies is totally correct. As non-admins you had no reason to come here other than to poke the entertainment with a stick. Now that I don't have to play nice feel free to jam your interfering comments up each other's digestive tracts. "Pompous ass" is indeed an accurate, yet restrained description of you Doc, as you continue to go from page to page attention seeking like a little two-year old. Anybody would think you'd been labelled as a sex offender. Get over it and go do something useful instead, at least Slatersteven, and his dodgy typing/spelling has left it as is and mooched off somewhere else. Cheers Drmies, as you've said elsewhere we haven't seen eye-to-eye in the past but I'me grateful for your support, and your honesty. --WebHamster 07:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WebHamster: I've turned off your talk page/email access as some of your recent comments have been inappropriate. I have no objection at all if another admin reviews and decides to restore your access. In the event that no one does this, you can appeal your block by emailing unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Roger Daviestalk 14:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WebHamster. I've turned your talk page access back on, because I am (and Black Kite is) not at all convinced that you used it inappropriately: appealing for a block to be lifted, and arguing against those who would refuse this, seem precisely what your talk page access is for.
I do understand that you showed your impatience and called somebody a pompous ass (or called somebodies pompous asses). Now, I have observed at least one person behaving on this page like an ass, and I have observed much pomposity, so an appellation "pompous ass" might conceivably be accurate. However, accuracy of description doesn't imply justification.
Yes, I read what you have written at the top. Yes, I have come here to lecture you. I don't think I'm patronizing you, trolling, or otherwise fucking you about -- but I would say that, wouldn't I? It's for you to judge whether I'm doing any of these things. Anyway, as one adult calmly addressing another (or claiming to do so), I hope to elicit a thoughtful response from you. But if the response is instead uncivil, that'll be no skin off my nose.
I have not carefully read most of what's on this talk page. However, I've read enough to know that some of the people who want your block continued seem reasonable people. Strong advice: ignore the others. Try hard to "AGF", difficult though this may be; if you can't "AGF", remain silent.
I have good memories of working with you to improve articles (two or more years ago, I suppose), and hope to see you back doing more of what you're good at. Let's work toward this goal. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kind sir. It's been a while since last we worked together, and I don't recall you being an admin then. It's just as well you are though or I would still be gagged.
It is my intention to treat like with like. If people are polite to me then I will be polite to them, likewise if I make the first move it will be a polite one. Though if someone comes here to poke the bear then they will find that it wakes up very easily.
Whilst I can still talk here I'd like to clear something up. Here, AN/I and various other places my case has popped up, the accusation has done the rounds that the reason I won't promise to not sock in the future even whilst blocked is because I fully intend to. This is totally wrong. If I was the nefarious character people seem to think I am ("belligerent dick" was another good one) I could've quite easily lied through my teeth and said what I know people wanted to hear. I don't do that. I only make a promise if I know 100% that I can keep. The reason I don't know 100% is because I get frustrated at not being able to correct articles using images I've created on Commons, so I may be tempted if my frustration level rises too high.
There were also concerns that my civility would remain constantly borderline. Well the whole point of the proposed restrictions was that they would prevent me coming into contact with other editors, or at least minimise it. Accordingly the chances of me going off on one are that much lower. As I've said repeatedly, I never, ever 'throw the first stone'.
I still wish to be unblocked, complete with the proposed restrictions, but I have no idea what it will take. At the moment this is not an indef, it's a permanent ban only sneakily done without the arbitration committee being involved.
Any suggestions? --WebHamster 14:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blocked on commons? Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, both accounts are active. I currently edit under Fred the Oyster. The WebHamster account is dormant and unused in a long while. I've made no secret of the fact that both accounts are me. --WebHamster 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked for suggestions, mine would be to work on managing your frustration, until you are able to handle it well enough that you can say for sure that you won't do things like socking or being disruptive. If at some point you return to this page and are able to say "I've grown a little and learned to restrain myself from just doing what I want no matter what," then you'll probably have a much better chance of being unblocked after a community discussion. The way back is definitely not to let yourself get so frustrated that you sock (or think you might), or get so mad that you use this talk page as a soapbox to talk about other editors rather than your own situation while you're blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "I've grown a little"? Isn't that a tad patronising? I'm a 52-yearold autistic, not a teenager being prepared for life on his own. "Learning to handle my frustration" is also a bit on the patronising side to. Courtesy of my Asperger's my impulse control is less than perfect and I really don't think that if I haven't sorted it by my age that it's going to be sorted at all. The problem is that I genuinely do feel justified in socking. I don't do it for lulz, I don't do it for vandalism, I don't do it to be disruptive. Every sock I've used has been a positive and productive editor. In 8 years here I've never vandalised a single article, every article I've ever touched has always been improved in some small way. Then every so often I get sucked into some 'event' which results in my block. I then just start again, I don't see it as breaking the rules. As my editing has a generally net positive effect on the project I choose to invoke Ignore All Rules. --WebHamster 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd sugest you make the image edits there and then post an "Edit request" here on your talk page. Gerardw (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try that, though whether or not the request gets answered is another matter. --WebHamster 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like to me that if you continue to comment about other editors, as you did below, there's a possibility you'll lose talk page access again. So you have a choice to make as to what is more important to you. Gerardw (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment below about "other editors" is, in my humble opinion, quite justified. The guy is slagging me off everywhere he can, yet no administrative action is taken. This seems like extreme hypocrisy to me. My comment was polite, it wasn't a personal attack. I am unable to create a report at AN/I so I do so at the only place I can. Is that not justifiable use of my talk page? If it was just one or two insults I'd let it slide but the obvious hatred of me that he's posting is well over the top. Or am I just supposed to sit back and take it like a good little blocked user? This is not a good way of keeping my regard of the rules and administration at a high enough level to keep me on the right side of the 'law'. If admins are ignoring NPA etc then why should I bother with playing fair and keeping to the rules? No bugger else seems to be doing it. Is there a codicil to WP:NPA that says anyone can say what they like about any blocked user? --WebHamster 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a indefinitely blocked user whose block was well supported by the community, this talkpage is only for you to request unblocking, it's not a chat page or a forum for your thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The protocol, as you well know, is that administrators by and large are only concerned about what unpopular editors like you and me say. Others can say whatever they like about us with impunity. Check out the recent contributions by User:MONGO or User:Lecen about me, for instance. Having said that, sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and it might be prudent to wind your neck in a bit where MarcusBritish is concerned. I have no more time for him than you do, but still. MalleusFatuorum 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MarcusBritish
Who is this guy? I don't know him from Adam. As far as I'm aware I've never worked with him in any of my alter-egos. I've never spoken to him, I've never sworn at him. Yet this guy, who also says he doesn't know me, then goes on to give a psychological breakdown of what I will and won't do, who I'll fuck over given the chance, blah, blah blah.
Is it now okay to repeatedly make personal attacks and jibes about a user who is blocked?
I really don't know what I've done to deserve the vitriol and hyperbole this guy is spreading about me all over talk space. I get blocked for calling Jimbo a money manager and a programmer, yet MB seems free to say what he likes about someone he himself says he doesn't know. Is this institutional hypocrisy or merely his own? Paragraphs of ire spew forth from him about my lack of civility and use of the profane, yet simultaneously launching personal attacks which would have me blocked, banned and in a Siberian gulag.
Is someone going to have a quiet word with this guy to get him to shut it? --WebHamster 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
