User talk:Spidey665

Final warning

Hi. I'm not going to place an official warning template here, but I will make one final appeal to your better judgement. You have not taken your previous block on board, and you continue to demonstrate a clear lack of maturity for collaborating on Wikipedia. Other admins have been very generous with you, so please understand that this has gone far enough, and if you don't calm down, you will be blocked indefinitely. Try do do some useful work here and understand that this is not FaceBook, a blog, or a forum, as I have told you before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username warning

As I suppose you're unaware, Mahboob is a relatively common Urdu given name. So you've informed this user that his likely actual name is obscene. Please be more careful in the future. --Danger (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin observations

Please don't place your observations inside someone's unblock request as you did here. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you'd bothered to check that IP's contributions, you'd see that they are clearly not the disruptive user that caused the range to be blocked. —DoRD (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for lacking competence

Based on your editing patterns that continued in the last day, I have found no option but to block you for lacking the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Your actions in disputes with other users, inappropriate user name warnings, and inappropriate "non-admin observations" that have been pointed out on your talk page show this clearly. Your further edits in your own user space and others' shows you have not taken our warnings to focus solely on improving the project to heart. I highly suggest taking time away from Wikipedia to mature and then maybe coming back once you fully understand Wikipedia policies and how you can best contribute. I think that if you are to be unblocked, a mentorship program needs to be put in place...I will not agree to an unblock unless one is instituted (of course, other admins can certainly disagree and unblock, but I think it would be unwise to unblock without one in place). As always, you can request unblock through {{unblock|your reason here}}. Please take the words of everyone who's warned you to heart. only (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Only's block rationale. I will also be adjusting this talk page format for better readability. Please do not blank or archive this page, block notices must remain visible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do! It'll make blue on blue so much easier to read! Also, if you can, can you find a way to shift whatever is hiding in the top left corner below the Wikipedia logo? only (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had just decorated my talk page to go with my signature. Spidey665 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and commented out the header - the most expedient method I could think of. —DoRD (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on taking a break anyways. Can I come back in two weeks? I need mentorship anyways. Spidey665 10:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Spidey665 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Truly enough, mentorship is required. I will never make a sock puppet, and I was going to take a two week wikibreak anyways. If so, please shorten my block to two weeks. Spidey665 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The odds of this problem resolving itself in two weeks seem slim. A better solution would be to come back when you feel you understand the problem and have matured enoungh to make a convincing request. Setting an automatic date for that does not appear to be a good idea. Kuru (talk) 13:48, 11 October 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.

Please remove this awful format from your talk page, Because you completely fail to accept advice and learn from the many warnings you have been given, I do not consider you to have the required level of maturity to be trusted to anything at all on Wikipedia. I further do not believe that any amount of mentoring will elevate your maturity to the right level. We can certainly, and willingly, show you how to use Wikipedia, but it is not our job to make you grow up, behave like a mature individual, and accept responsibility for what you do here. Sorry, but do come back in a couple of year when you are older. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I describe this block for being made because of Spidey being "enthusiastic, but too enthusiastic" to clean up the spam and vandalism from Wikipedia. This is a mistake commonly made by many. I was blocked on another wiki for a month for "trolling" myself because I wanted to make that wiki clear of the rude comments which are prevalent there – but I was doing it in an immature manner, just like Spidey did a little here – cussing, screaming in all caps, etc. I decided never to go back to that wiki until I was clear of the policies. Spidey may have to wait for a few years in order for Only to unblock him – but only time will tell. If he matures quickly enough, he may be released within next month. There is a 13-year-old trusted rollbacker and file mover who edits here – who edits with maturity, and many of us appreciate his work here.

I too made mistakes here, such as reporting a user named "Cockapoo207" because of his username "because of cock and poo" but I didn't realize what a cockapoo is. Every once in a while, I accidently press the trigger on huggle on edits that are not vandalism because of being too hasty - I am too trying to clear up my mistakes, which we all make. Life is a theatre of learning.

I endorse the block request be declined. --

Bryce Wilson | talk

12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I had a bad experience with wikis before I joined Wikipedia, because on a website called Wikia, I have been treated harshly by a person called daNASCAT, a staff member of wikia! He globally blocked me because I wanted daNASCAT to unblock B.wilson (then known as Bryce53) on Wikia. I currently have a lack of competence because daNASCAT does not know what harrassment is! I imagine he is a two year old. Spidey665 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other people (Wikipedia members or not) while blocked is certainly not going to win you any favors here. your talk page is not the place to complain about what you believe to be harsh treatment on another website. If you continue to use it for this reason, your page will be locked. only (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite doing it for that reason. Besides, you made a deal about solid mentorship. Let's start. I understand the situation. Spidey665 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made no deal. I said that if someone ever considers unblocking you, they should make sure a mentorship is in place before they unblock you. You have made no indication that you understand the situation. Please take some time away from Wikipedia for the time being. You are not going to be blocked anytime in the next month, that's for sure. only (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, the IP was blocked for a week. Spidey665 23:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? only (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey, you still do not appear to understand that the problem is maturity, as your arguments here clearly continue to demonstrate. Wikipedia is not Wikia, FaceBook, or a blog, and although we welcome younger editors, they need to demonstrate an adult level of collaboration and competence. Maturity is not something that can be gained in a day, and this block is here to stay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the problem was competence. I have put a block notice on the top of this talk page. Spidey665 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right - a lack competence is often a clear sign of lack of of maturity, and I remain fully convinced that you have not understood these issues and are not at all ready to work on Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Spidey665 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to come back to Wikipedia, simply because I can edit more and possibly help contribute to the encyclopedia. I also know what is vandalism and what is not. I also realized that IPs are not all bad. If you could unblock me, that'd be great, please and thanks. Spidey665 5:19 am, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the block reasons or agreed to mentorship. A lack of competence is often a clear sign of lack of maturity. We can show you how to use Wikipedia, be we cannot teach you to adopt an adult level of responsibility for what you do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 20 October 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.

I had never asked for you to teach me to be mature, I would rather like to read more policies, guidelines and essays that could teach me how to use Wikipedia. Normally, I am mature, but I am just enthusiastic about getting in to bigger sites such as this. I would like another chance. Spidey665 22:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user called "Fuckperry" and it is a violation of WP:UN. Please block him. Spidey665 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Spidey665 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to come back to Wikipedia, as some false information I have seen on stubs. I will edit with maturity, competence and thoughtfulness. As I was not being thoughtful of what I have done, thinking of my so-called "anti-vandalism" edits, some were not vandalism. Just this one chance, please? Thanks. And I will agree to mentorship. Spidey665 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you're continuing to evade your block by editing without logging in: no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:03, 12 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.

I won't evade anymore, there were simply some things I had to fix on pages. Spidey665 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name hide

Delete my userpage, subpages, hide them, and hide all of my contributions so I can fuck off and make Kudpung happy. Spidey665 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Rappy4178 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete your userpage and subpages, however don't think I can hide your contributions. Am fairly certain the only way to do that would be via the RevDel feature that we have and I can't do it that way as it would be abuse of the system. Do you definitely want your userpage and subpages deleted? I think I found them all, would just rather be 100% certain before I go and delete them.--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I'm sorry, but I feel maltreated by Kudpung and I thought he was being rude. Spidey665 00:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit you are the nicest sysop on Wikipedia, 5 albert square. You deserve an award. Spidey665 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you Spidey, I dunno if I can delete your user page, didn't realise it had that notice on it before, but I'll delete your subpages--5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got all your subpages, you might wanna check though just in case :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell Kudpung that he was being rude to me. Thanks! Spidey665 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey, I genuinely don't think Kudpung was rude to you, I think he was just very blunt, partly because of the amount of unblock requests you made and partly because he had to keep repeating himself. I will however, make him aware of what you've said.--5 albert square (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will mentor the user if he wishes. →Σ τ c. 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed the situation (requested off-wiki), and I've got to say that if this is what passes for arrogance and incivility, yet the section titled "RE: Kudpung" does not, I don't see the value in unblocking. You'll find that many people here (myself included) have a very direct style of speaking, because anything less has a way of getting misunderstood in type; if you can't react to that without blowing up and tossing around accusations of bad faith, you won't get very far if you're unblocked. I really think you should listen to what Kudpung has told you above; to convince us of your maturity, your best bet will probably be to come back and request a mentor in several months. If you keep up the rapid-fire unblock requests, your talkpage will probably be locked by an admin less charitable than Kudpung. And lest you think this is just a bunch of adults ganging up on you, I can assure you that I'm 21, so I'm not too much older than you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the words "but it looks if you can't read either" were insulting to Spidey - in all honesty, if someone told me that - even myself. It may have not been the nicest thing to say. But per you, blowing up and tossing around accusations of bad faith won't get Spidey very far, if he gets unblocked. It is also a possibility that his temper is uncontrollably ill or possibly short - like myself. I think age does not relate to maturity at all. There can be a 13 year old who may behave maturely, but even older people can behave worse. Similar to what we all learned in biology: "correlation doesn't equal causation". --

Bryce Wilson | talk

09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Σ

Σ, please do so. Spidey665 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Spidey665 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A mentorship has officially been put in place with Sigma and I. We have reviewed all the rules and I have found thirteen examples of vandalism on Wikipedia with my mentor. We have also spoken about templates, what is not vandalism. May I please be unblocked? Spidey665 04:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've spent quite a while pondering over this, and had an IRC conversation with Σ to help clarify the situation. Unfortunately, at this point in time, I am not persuaded that your judgement is sufficiently up to the standards expected of a wikipedia editor. I do not doubt your intentions, nor Σ's, but I am perturbed by the over-reaction to comments on this talk page, which could have been nicer but were certainly mild compared to what you will have to face as a vandal fighter. I'd suggest at this point in time that either Σ starts mentorship on this page, or that you prove that you can edit productively on another one of the WMF projects. I am willing to revist this in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:03, 16 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.

Probably not needed, but this is a confirmation edit. →Σ τ c. 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been agreed (over IRC) that Spidey665 will not edit a talk page unless he can show that the message is relevant to Wikipedia. →Σ τ c. 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A ban on user talk pages would work. Spidey665 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be impractical - how would we communicate? Anyway, you'll be visiting these pages for a while after your unblock.

Note to admin: I have created this, which should remind Spidey not to edit user talk pages like he did before. An admin can place importScript("User:Σ/Testing facility/Talkreminder.js"); in his common.js. →Σ τ c. 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mentorship may be a good idea - and I think it will benefit how Spidey will use Wikipedia. I hope Spidey's mainspace edit count will be increased after he is unblocked, and that socializing of his will only be done on Facebook. --

Bryce Wilson | talk

10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I'm having a quick look at this and will be offering some advice to Sigma on his talk page. I'm generally very much in favour of mentoring, and depending on Sigma's reaction, I will be willing to unblock - however Spidey, it would be a conditional unblock, which would involve Spidey scaling back on working in areas where his judgement is currently in question. I'll elaborate more soon. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user, the mentor and the sysop are in agreement. Spidey665 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC discussions have no authority whatsoever, and there is no such thing as an 'official' mentorship programme. I maintain my position that the real issue is one of maturity that cannot be resolved through mentoring, and while I appreciate all the efforts and the demonstrations of tolerance that are being made by the community, it would be inappropriate to interpret those words as being clearly in favour of an unblock just yet - as he has still not addressed the reasons for the blocks (incompetence and use of the encyclopedia as a social network) and numerous declined unblock requests (deleted). .A period of mentoring may be able to convince Spidey that Wikipedia is neither a web forum nor a social networking site. However, words such as kids, children, teenagers, young people are a matter of semantics, and carry no abuse whatsoever where I come from. While the suggestion of agreement to only make postings on talk pages that are strictly relevant is a noble one, his comments should also be phrased in the manner of a civil adult, and his language on this talk page and his comments about others give me pause. I believe he needs far more time for reflection on his proclivities, and I would suggest that mentorship takes place on pages he has legal access to while blocked, and I'm one sysop who is saying: I do not support unblocking at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Please do not refactor my comments to turn them into uncivil statements that I have not made - what you have done is yet another reason not to unblock you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Worm and Σ are amongst the best mentors around, with regret I have to say I also Oppose the unblocking of Spidey665 at this time. His tone does not appear to have changed and he has shown no understanding of what he was doing wrong - I would like to see some evidence of understanding and addressing of the points made by Kudpung, above, before an unblock is considered. Is it possible for some sort of mentorship programme to take place here on his Talk page while he is blocked? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Boing! said Zebedee. I advocate the idea of a mentorship programme taking place here or via IRC if it is possible. --Bryce Wilson | talk 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Keep me in the loop, I'd be willing to unblock if improvement can be shown. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - He may improve - and I really hope so. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 11:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

This is vandalism. Revert it. Spidey665 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sysops: Inappropriate user name here. Spidey665 23:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you don't get to instruct people to make Wikipedia changes while you are blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Willy bum bum" is a blatant violation of the username policy :P --

Bryce Wilson | talk

10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

I've revoked your Talk page access as you were continuing to accuse other people of personal attacks - the inability to distinguish between forthright talking and personal attack is one of the issues you need to address before you edit any further here. If you wish to make any further requests for unblock, you will now need to email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've received your email apology for your latest action, and I can understand that you might have found some of the comments hurtful. However (and I honestly don't mean this as any kind of "you're just a kid" putdown), that is part of the whole "maturity" thing. We need to be able to talk to and listen to each other here, and be able to be frank and honest with each other - and we need to be open to constructive feedback.

Anyway, here's a suggestion... You're young and there's a whole world out there that you will barely have had time to explore yet. So spend a week completely away from Wikipedia - don't even point your browser this way - and after that I'll restore your Talk page access in case you wish to pursue longer term mentoring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think the words "Poor Spidey" were rather insulting, am I wrong in that? --

Bryce Wilson | talk

12:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was not constructive, and it could simply have been removed - but it was not that one that led to Talk page access being suspended. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The user who said "Poor Spidey" has major conflicts with the targeted user and even myself. --

Bryce Wilson | talk

15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for leaving it a bit longer than I intended, but I have restored Talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are one of the best admins here, Boing!. As opposed to a certain group of admins, you answer what people say, and understand those words to heart. Although you may disagree with certain users, even administrators, you are great and deserve to be a bureaucrat. Spidey665 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that was nice of you :-) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey, please be careful what you say, your talk page access has not been restored to enable you to continue to rant about admins. Anyone reviewing your situation will appreciate that they have only be doing their job in the best interests of of the Wikipedia and yourself. Such comments only serve to reinforce the issues of your maturity which is why you have been blocked in the first place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad, but did I say who was in that group of administrators? The answer to that question is: no. Spidey665 14:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey, you're missing the point - talk page use when blocked is limited and ranting is something that is likely to get it revoked again. I'm sure that's something you don't want. Kudpung is absolutely correct in his comment and I think you should think carefully about why you just reacted like that. Kudpung, can I suggest you de-watchlist this page as your very presence does appear to be aggrevating Spidey - he clearly has difficulty even assuming good faith of your comments. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand what he says. Spidey665 14:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung

No, I am beginning to realize he are here to educate me. Although he is a bit blunt, he is a great sysop. Spidey665 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for Kudpung!

	The Special Barnstar
	Kudpung, I owe you a barnstar for being a great educator. I should have listened to what you said, but I was to stupid to listen. I'm very sorry. Spidey665 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great - what you need to do know is to address the block reasons so something great can happen to your account :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is genuine (and I'm willing to believe it is), you're on the right track. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shea!

The siver lining

I can be a dark and stormy admin sometimes, but let me tell you something: You're in the best of hands here, because by pure coincidence the bunch of admins that have been watching over you are the best of friends and we have one thing in common: We're devoted to helping younger editors :)

BTW: many happy returns for your 18th! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 30 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).

Spidey665 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that I have learned my lesson (especially from Kudpung, Σ, Boing!, Worm and Bryce) while being blocked. I think that blocking me for my immaturity, utter stupidity and lack of competence at that time was the best option ever. As being eighteen years of age now, I am beginning to realize that I am not a child, and that my immature days are over. Thank you for listening to my words. Spidey665 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I hate to sound legalistic, but I'm going to use jurisprudence from WP:OFFER. As part of the Standard Offer, we advise editors to go away from English Wikipedia for a minimum of 6 months and go and be productive on another Wikimedia project before coming back and requesting unblock. You were only recently blocked on English Wikipedia. You were just blocked on Simple Wikipedia for competence issues. On the latter alone, you would fail the spirit of WP:OFFER. I will, however, re-extend the concept of WP:OFFER to you now - do not edit Wikipedia (even anonymously) for a minimum of 6 months. Find another Wikimedia project to work on, and be a productive editor there. Come back, prove that you were productive, and request unblock then. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 2 December 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.

Well, I'm not entirely convinced that people suddenly mature overnight at the exact moment they reach 18 ;-) But knowing you're 18 and supposed to act in a more adult manner helps, and I could support an unblock conditional on Spidey seeking mentorship and only editing under his mentor's guidance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Boing! said Zebedee. I also think ensuring User:Only supports the idea before any action is taken should be done. We could unblock and see if there is any improvement in competency. In my opinion, there was only one simple reason why Spidey was blocked: Being too enthusiastic. He was excited to be an editor here, but rushed through the process, and clearly did not show much understanding of WP policies. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed above, but maybe we can discuss some more, what do you think? Spidey665 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Replying to you, Bryce, I think maybe we can easily use voting for an unblock, similar to RfAs. Spidey665 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I JUST blocked Spidey on Simple Wikipedia not even two weeks ago for continuing to lack competence, there is absolutely no way I support any attempt to unblock here. only (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was being such an idiot, you don't even have to forgive me. Spidey665 22:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ashamed of yourself - mistakes like this are commonly made - the point is to learn from them. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been monitoring this incident for some time and I thought I'd put some feedback in. Here's the thing about WP:OFFER. It assumes that there's going to be another WMF project you'll like. Eg: I would probably only like working at wiktionary or commons if I was forced to switch. In the same way Spidey may not like working at other WMF projects. My only concern is the Simple English Wikpedia incident. After Only gave you a message about the on strike rule, the first thing i wold have done would be to ask him about the policies of the wiki. If spidey can control themself then I'd be happy for them to be unblocked but if they were blocked again I probably wouldn't support their unblock request. --Kangaroo powah 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thing

In your own words, please explain what Wikipedia is. →Σ τ c. 03:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a wiki encyclopedia, which combines a wiki and an encyclopedia, so it is basically an encyclopedia published by people all over the world. Spidey665 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, now can you describe the five pillars and two or three other important policies of your choice? →Σ τ c. 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

heres the deal if you want to be unblocked then you must behave and remember wikipedia is not like wikia and also please read the rules before you make a unblock request im just saying i am sorry for what happened to you --AwesomeSponge (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. if you want unblocked then you may have to make an unblock request first if they denied the request then thats ok try again next time[reply]

AwesomeSponge

Whoa.... how did this happen? In all honesty, I am not AwesomeSponge. I need help from a CU or admin to prove that I'm not him. I will even prove I'm not him, since I have CU access on my own wiki, where AwesomeSponge is. Spidey665 21:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]