User talk:WebHamster/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

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)

---

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Blah blah, wikilawyer. Socking to get around a block is forbidden, yes or no? → ROUX ₪ 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Accounts are blocked, people are not. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

No I wasn't. I've never had an account in my own name. --WebHamster 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Fatuorum

22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Doc talk 07:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Doc talk 08:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So you you will not , under any circumstances, create and use sock accounts?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

An agreemetn to abide by Sock policy in all circumstances, the sock rules are not negotiable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The above are the cards on the table that I will positively, absolutely keep to. --WebHamster 14:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Doc talk 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dictating"? So you missed the "proposed" in the section header did you? --WebHamster 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not really a lot of point then as you can evade any block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

no, as your reponse to a simple proposal was not to respond to it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But it is bad faith to assume that I'm making threats. --WebHamster 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So did you. I'm not unblocked. I'll behave like an adult when I'm unblocked. --WebHamster 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, after this, you will never be unblocked. causa sui (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

Poking at an indef blocked user is baiting. Continuing to churn WebHamster's talk page is rude.

talk

) 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Nope, not me -138.253.48.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) --WebHamster 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Davies ^talk 14:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Are you blocked on commons?

talk

) 15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

Then I'd sugest you make the image edits there and then post an "Edit request" here on your talk page.

talk

) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly try that, though whether or not the request gets answered is another matter. --WebHamster 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

talk

) 16:10, 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? --WebHamster

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.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which policy are you quoting from?

Fatuorum

16:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The blocking one, the talkpage one - standard practice.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not been using this page as a chat forum. I have been using it as a means to put forward points that are pertinent to my unblocking. Also to report a series of attacks of a very personal nature. One other thing this page is, is that it's a no-go zone for Off2riorob. You only come here to poke me and irritate me. Please leave and don't come back. Thank you. --WebHamster 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no matter Rob, it looks like you won't be here for at least a

couple of days anyway. --WebHamster

02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamster, removing miscellaneous bric-a-brac from the top of this page was a good move. ¶ If you are or anybody is interested, I've been an admin for ages. (I wouldn't have become one during the last few years, because I wouldn't have had the necessary unblemished record and I certainly would have exhausted my limited reserves of earnestness before answering all the questions. I'd probably instead reply "Damned if I know", "I'd let some other admin handle that", "Why do you ask?", etc.) ¶ Gerardw (a new name to me, as it happens) seems a level-headed chap; I like his advice above. And immediately above, Malleus too has good advice about head-winding. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Neck winding, not head winding; I have had no experience of head winding, but it sounds painful.

Fatuorum

00:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Yes of course. (I'd been wondering. It did sound a bit like thumb hanging. Eww!) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I never was any good at winding necks or heads in, it's that impulse control thing again. It's the lack of filter between brain and mouth that does it every time. This is why I prefer to be left alone to work, rather than being forcibly dragged into areas of "collegial atmosphere". Give me Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign and a Pink Floyd disc in the CD player and I'm happy. Bring people into the equation and things go down hill rapidly. --WebHamster 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, apologies for my failing memory, which perhaps mistakenly tells me that you and I were long involved in a rather dreary business involving some English town, a very dreary-sounding shopping mall built within it, and a humdrum roundabout, with much bad feeling all around but no more evident from you than from anybody else and little or none between you and me. So I think you're underrating your "people skills". (Although another logical possibility is that I'm not actually a person. After all, I've been memorably identified as a lower life form -- see, but do not be even slightly inspired by, the stuff near the top of my user page.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion regarding the image editing was based on the fact you're not blocked at commons, where image work is done. You are blocked here, where textual work is done. Accordingly, I am concerned that if you make edit requests for text changes such requests could be interpreted as violating the intent or spirit of the block. I'm only pointing this out because I would regret it if my suggestion lead to you losing talk page access.

I'm afraid you have me confused, any changes whatsoever, even if image related, involves changes of text. My requests,all bar one, have been to swap image links which is exactly what I said I wanted to do, which was also part of the restrictions I suggested. Do you wish me to stop these edit requests? If it makes any sense, these were the types of edits I would be pretty much restricted to should I be unblocked. This is why I referred to the restrictions as being very restricted. These are the only type of edits I wish to do on WP. This is why I had problems understanding why the block wasn't rescinded and why everyone was harping on about me continuing my incivility. As you can see my options for that would be severely limited. --WebHamster 12:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the one edit request regarding Template:The Shadows.

talk

) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was a sort of exception. As it was a template that is used by quite a few articles and that the vandalism was done a few days ago without being seemingly noticed I thought it was worthy of a mention. Unless of course you'd like me to ignore vandalism under those circumstances. Or that you prefer I come in as an IP to correct it myself. I thought the method I chose was the best alternative, although I realise that you may disagree. --WebHamster 14:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply/advice

Having reviewed the discussion above and the ANI and your comments on this page, I'll make the following suggestions. These are only my opinions.

• You have no right to edit Wikipedia and there is no "contract." This is not personal, it applies to me and every other editor (not employed by WMF).
• The consensus is you've not followed the current norms of Wikipedia and therefore ended up blocked. Whether you agree with those norms or not is irrelevant.
• Consistent with the above,
  • complaints about other editors, regardless of how justified they are, will only reduce the probability of an eventual unblock.
  • the "net positive" argument is unlikely to be successful, will likely be interpreted as a continued lack of understanding or agreement with the Wikipedia norms, and also reduce unblock probability.
• I think your best option is
  WP:STANDARDOFFER
  with the full six months. Acceptance of standard offer would allow you to continue to do image work and textual work. I am not sufficiently familiar with the process to know what the chances it would be successful are.
• Any discussion of unblocking could provoke inappropriate posts here on your talk page. An intemperate reaction to such posts, regardless of how out of line they are, is likely to reinforcement the perception that you are unable to maintain self-discipline and jeopardize you chances of getting unblocked.
  • Does this mean you might have to take unwarranted abuse? Yes. Metaphorically speaking, you're in a deep hole, and you're going to have to choose what's most important to you, reaching long term goal of editing again, or the short term satifisfaction of a 'snappy comeback.'
    talk
    ) 18:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

He does indeed write odd stuff (and in bulk, too). If you're wondering what some of it means, I too have wondered; but now I rarely bother to try to make sense of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, somebody has now had a quiet word. It hasn't yet had the hoped-for effect, but let's (i) see what happens and (ii) not discuss the matter on this talk page of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, even I don't feel it is necessary to comment here any further. --WebHamster 06:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone please add File:The Commision for Racial Equality logo (UK).svg into the Commission for Racial Equality article please? --WebHamster 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.
    Fatuorum
    02:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Ta muchly young man. --WebHamster 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone please swap File:2MBSSI.gif to File:2MBSSI.svg at Brigade insignia of the United States Army#Medical brigades. Cheers.--WebHamster 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not an image related edit, but an IP User:86.24.152.140 deliberately changed a name to an incorrect one on Template:The Shadows. --WebHamster 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, but Jeez, why can't you just be unblocked and do it yourself?
    Fatuorum
    02:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both, it looks like this plan of Gerardw's is off to a good start. --WebHamster 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please swap
  34th Tank Division with File:8th mechanized corps.svg. Ta muchly. --WebHamster
  09:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Did that :-)J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Ta chuck. --WebHamster 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please swap File:5 dots tattoo.GIF on Five dots tattoo with File:5 dots tattoo.svg. --WebHamster 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please swap File:44MCSSI.gif to File:44MCSSI.svg at Brigade insignia of the United States Army#Medical brigades. Thanks
  • Done.
    Fatuorum
    19:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please add File:Nachtjagdgruppe 10 emblem.svg to Nachtjagdgruppe 10. Cheers. --WebHamster 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You're a very demanding taskmaster. ;-)
    Fatuorum
    01:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I try :) --WebHamster 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• An image swap please. In the article Galvanometer there's a png diagram at the top, File:Galvanometer scheme.png. Could it please be swapped for File:Galvanometer scheme.svg. Ta muchly. --WebHamster 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Slow buggers round here! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could some please swap File:Geschwaderwappen Schnellkampfgeschwader 210.jpg with File:Geschwaderwappen Schnellkampfgeschwader 210.svg on both Zerstörergeschwader 1 and Schnellkampfgeschwader 210. I thang yew. --WebHamster 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.
    Fatuorum
    00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Another swapsie please. Article: 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States), image change from jpg version to svg version: File:11 ADA Bde DUI.svg. As ever, thanks to all the peeps who are helping me out with these image swaps. --WebHamster 13:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.
    Nev1 (talk
    ) 13:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• And another one please. Please swap File:36 Inf Rgt DUI.gif to File:36 Inf Rgt DUI.svg on Distinctive unit insignia#Infantry Units and 36th Infantry Regiment (United States). Cheers. --WebHamster 17:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• One more before I open my book and have an early night for once. Please swap File:116CavBdeSSI.jpg with File:116CavBdeSSI.svg in Idaho Army National Guard and 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team. Thanks ever so. --WebHamster 22:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done.
  Nev1 (talk
  ) 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone go to
  Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#New puzzle piece icon and report the request as {{done}}, the resulting file being File:Shiny puzzle piece.svg. Many thanks. --WebHamster
  23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. With pleasure. (Actually, with mystification. How are such things made? Why do people want them? Oh well, as long as people do want them....) -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What is it with people? Any time a self-professed sock puppet shows up on Malleus' talk page it gets added to my SPI page. WTF? No, I'm not The Automatic Editor (talk · contribs). For a starter I'm in my 50s not my 40s and secondly I support MF's use of profane language. I certainly wouldn't show up on his page as a sock giving him a hard time about it. And thirdly I'm intent on getting my account back, which is why I intend to be sock puppet free for at least 6 months. There are times I've been tempted when I've seen bad edits or vandalism, but I didn't and I won't. So, please Nobody Ent (Gerardw) will you stop getting excited about nailing me to the wall. I haven't done anything wrong, so reel your dick back in and try to imagine that there are a lot more puppet masters out there in the world other than me. --WebHamster 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, what's all this? The self-advertised automaton (of whom I hadn't previously heard) is now in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MalikPeters, MalikPeters also being somebody of whom I hadn't heard, but (without looking at MF's page, let alone into the histories, etc etc) I can't see any allegation of a connection to you. That aside, don't forget that this here user talk page of yours is no doubt being watched assiduously by (a) people who will solemnly claim that other people will be traumatized by mentions of their dicks, and (b) people who will indignantly claim that a promise not to do X for a time-span of at least Y is a declaration of willingness to do X after Y. So grind your teeth a bit or do whatever's necessary to remain po-faced. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Malik Peters is itself a self-professed sockpuppet account, which also isn't me. I had spotted the Malik Peters link, but what pissed me off is that it went to my SPI page first, as can be seen at the link at the top of this section. As for winding one's penis in, well that's only aimed at one person, but having never seen said penis I cannot vouch for how aesthetically pleasing people may find it. Anyway, I thought it made a change from winding one's neck in, as in the case of the average penis it is actually capable of expanding and contracting considerable, unlike the average neck.

As for after the 6 months, well that is in the future so no-one can tell what I am going to do. I may not even live that long if these strokes keep happening. In any case I don't do po, let alone po-faced. I make a lousy poker player due to an abysmal impulse control. I realise that this makes it easy to game me, but those are the problems of life. There's always going to be someone here who is intent on cutting my legs from underneath me, but what the hell, at least I'll be able to point them out as I shout "Timberrrrrrrrrrr". Oh, and cheers mate for sorting out the Illustration Workshop thing. --WebHamster 01:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I guessed. I was mistaken, not malicious. I had every confidence that the SPI specialists would and could correctly assess the situation, as they have

Nobody Ent (Gerardw)

17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Malicious? Mistaken? Why should the two be mutually exclusive? You seem determined to catch me out doing something I said I wouldn't. Now if that isn't bad faith I don't know what is, so why should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith with regard to your accusation? I don't know if you above comment was meant to be an apology or not, if it was it's piss-poor, if it wasn't then it didn't clear up why you thought it was me in the first place? When have I ever done anything but support MF? That on its own should have been a big clue. --WebHamster 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes it alright then? You really need to be more careful when making such accusations. Nice apology, I don't think.

I really dropped in to say Merry Christmas WebHamster, Have a good one.J3Mrs (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you young lady, may I wish the same to you and yours and carrying on into the New Year too. --WebHamster 20:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, I hope you get your block lifted eventually, you do some awesome work and it would be great to have you around the graphics lab again! Cheers,

 ✉

12:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate, both sentiments are very much appreciated, and I hope you and yours get the Christmas and New Year you deserve. Cheers. --WebHamster 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi:

Nobody Ent (Gerardw)

04:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, merry Christmas. =) ♠

(talk)

19:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for it being Boxing Day before replying but a combination of being unwell and doing a head down category sorting session on Commons kept me away from en. so I didn't see your very kind salutations.

Firstly Malleus, yes I did see your message, many thanks for the well wishes and indeed for remembering that I exist :) A very splendiferously rambunctious Christmas and new Year to you and yours mate. Given all the work you've been doing here of late you need the rest, just think of your block as the week's leave the boss has forced on your because you're a workaholic. Then when you come back you'll be all refreshed and ready to go. Of all the people I know on WP you are by far the person most required on the project, both for content and to make sure the bent bastards don't take over the place.

To all the other people who have supported me, especially (in no particular order) PoD, Hoary, Nev1, Drmies, Black Kite, J3Mrs, Kiefer, Fallschirmjäger, PMC, Kintetsubuffalo, Fry and all the good folks at the Illustration Workshop I'd like to wish a very Merry Christmas (none of that Happy Holidays bollocks) and a Happy New Year. If I've forgotten anyone I apologise, I'm lousy at remembering names but with my recent little CVAs it's even worse.

That's enough of the frippery, back to work you wastrels, back to work! --WebHamster 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hope this beer finds you well, and vice versa of course. It's no abbey beer--the shipping is prohibitive. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you kind sir, I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it but I will accept it regardless. Unfortunately in real life I don't drink but I'm quite partial to a virtual brew! --WebHamster 22:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I had no idea. How about this: I'll pour you one and then I'll drink it in your honor, while you chew on a wooden stick (as the Dutch say). Hope y'all aren't freezing your bollocks off over there on that cold island. Say hi to MF when you see him next... Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus - gb.wikipedia.org

I wonder how blocked users like us could setup a new gb.wikipedia.org and if we did, does it have to maintain those bloody stupid shangri-la-like 5 Pillars? --WebHamster 00:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The notion of an exclusively British Wikipedia, uncontaminated by Americanisms, seems so grotesque to me as to be funny. I'd wildly guess that it would appear to a small minority of loopy Brits, and also to (genuine and fake [trolling]) anglophiles from elsewhere. Now, a WP free of sillinesses that are more prevalent in the US than elsewhere would of course be welcome, but this gb:WP would foster sillinesses that are more prevalent in Britain than elsewhere. As for the bloody stupid shangri-la-like 5 Pillars, they don't seem bloodily stupid to me. They are a bit odd, though: for one thing (or two things), they include a conspicuous statement that WP is neither a newspaper nor a dictionary, whereas there's tremendous stress on the news (see the top right of the top page), and it's a verbose dictionary for "amusing" or "interesting" words and phrases ("fuck", "kuwabara kuwabara", etc). If you'd like a wiki in which Brits with bees in their bonnets about America can unashamedly ignore what they regard as prudery, then you're in luck: the Wikipedia software is freely available (from Wikimedia) and you even have the whole of Wikipedia, yours for the forking and improving (as long as you keep to the copyleft provisos). There are even utilities (SCOWL?) that will help convert ghastly, barbaric, ignorant US spelling ("jail", etc) to decent, sensible English spelling ("gaol", etc). -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much the spelling and language differences per se, more along the lines of having the hippy-like approach of trying to bring the world together under a brotherhood of civility, forbearing and the out and out fantasy that everyone will agree on what civility is without actually defining it. I'm just sick to death of the poisonous bollocks that now underpins en.wiki. Personally I'd like to start it again, having learnt the mistakes that have already been made (eg like giving Jimbo any power whatsoever) and where content is king. Where valued contributors are treated differently which then becomes a carrot that dangles in front of any editor's face. People respond to rewards, not silly fucking civility rules. Frankly I don't care how many thin-skinned inept editors are frightened off. It wouldn't be there for their benefit. There would only be one pillar which is that accurate, well-written content is the ultimate goal. There may be a couple of buttresses so as to prevent total anarchy, but a little chaos isn't always a bad thing. But yes I would forgive any breaches of so-called civility if that editor was matching the formidable output, the helpfulness and the straightt-talking and commonsense of Malleus. American's would even be welcome :) if they kept the content is king mantra and not the "have a nice day" and smile ethos. --WebHamster 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's starting to make sense. But why this obsession with civility? It, or its absence, rarely impinges on my consciousness, though I do remember complaining a month or two back about what one user was calling one or more others. (He was welcome to call me anything. I put the sillier stuff on my user page so we can all laugh at it.) Why should I want to call anyone a dickhead (or whatever)? But if I did, and if somebody (even the dickhead) complained, I could easily wangle out of it without compromising my principles. The complaint (or even the wangle) might be bollocks, but it wouldn't poison me. As for scaring away thin-skinned inept editors, most editors, regardless of skin, start off inept; I hope that they stick around long enough to become ept. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar attitude to you when it comes to incivility aimed at myself, but from what I've seen more editor's time is lost under the vagaries of breech of civility than anything else, and as all of us are volunteers our time is precious as is the work that could have been done instead of worrying about someone's offence at being called something. Not only that the civility 'subsystem' has now been gamed on a regular basis to mean that if I disagree with you then I'm being uncivil. If you take 'civility' out of the equation then look how much work could be done. And in my view the pruning of thin-skinned whiners can only be a good thing. --WebHamster 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over for some time, and it sounds unfamiliar. Very little of my time is wasted over this or similar. The huge waste of time is any involvement with questions of nationality, ethnicity, or (worst of all) "race". Consider the talk page for C S Lewis and its history, which shows wrangling over "British" versus "Irish" (etc) that (for the most part) is civil but nevertheless prolix and exhausting. Perhaps a year ago, I made the mistake of volunteering to help there, but I got very bored very quickly. ¶ Secondly, there's the problem of people who want to put forward alternative (and stupid) accounts for the sake of "neutrality" or "balance", because after all these alternative accounts have been published in "reliable sources" -- but the sources (newspapers, etc) cease to be reliable when they give column inches to people who lack even an elementary understanding of the matter at hand and are merely spouting their ignorance or prejudices. ¶ When I get into an argument with a blockheaded adversary, I'm (usually) careful to attack what's written and not the writer. In most situations, this is very easy, because writing is not speaking, and I can write, preview, read, think, edit, and only then post. ¶ Where it breaks down is during a fast-moving argument. Of course haste or exhaustion makes it easy to write something like "That's complete bollocks" or "You really are full of shit, aren't you?" or worse. The secret here, I've found, is to avoid such arguments. Let the adversary have (the illusion of) the last word. When they're probably in bed, respond, coolly -- or hope that somebody else will have done so. Or if it's a matter of vandalism or stupidity, post a simple, dispassionate notification of it at WP:AN/I or wherever and let somebody else walk in and, if necessary, brandish or swing a truncheon. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Casual observations.

• I wonder why "cunt" is deemed by some to be a sexist slur, yet talking bollocks isn't? --WebHamster 13:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder too. Well, one factor is that "cunt" (like "dick", but unlike "bollocks") can be used to mean a person. I mean, both "He's a silly bollock" and "They're silly bollocks" are impossible, at least in my idiolect. The other is that, to me at least, there's something funny about the very sound of "bollock(s)"; I can hardly imagine that people could be offended by the word. ¶ Certain "bad language" has a minor linguistics interest. Many linguistics students will know of a famous, insightful, and pseudonymous paper (actually by James D. McCawley, and mentioned in the article by him) on utterances such as "fuck you". And surely many of us have gone through a phase of chuckling over Maledicta. But then most of us move on. -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What prompted my observation was a recent comment left at Mal's ArbCom cluster-fuck ""Cunt", in the way that MF used it, is a particularly vile term, that's not just offensive in itself, but also has as its basis a rather negative view of women; that referring to someone as a female body part is an insult." Now I don't know about you, but when I drop a C-Bomb, the last thing I'm thinking about is a pudendum (shaved or otherwise). So where this accusation of misogyny comes from I don't know. As you said above, the same thing isn't thought of when referring to someone as a dick. I tend to use profanity in a way that's analogous to a highlighter pen, ie to highlight the word or thought that comes immediately after it e.g. "don't you fucking dare...". I have to admit though that I rarely use cunt as I just find it to be an ugly word for some reason. So I save it for people I really don't like :). Referring back to the section above, it's people having strange (to my eyes and ideals) ways of thinking, like the above quote, that would become inconsequential in the utopia that could be gb.wp :) --WebHamster 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read that this is being said about what you charmingly term "C-bombing". Here's a page that shows how the term is used within Britain about men. But clearly it's in a kind of English that MF doesn't use ... so hmm, how about Mr Smoketoomuch's self-critical comment within this? -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

... or the one time prevalence of

Fatuorum

12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hello WebHamster. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Meta talk page. Barras ^talk 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki meetup

You said some time ago that you'd like to meet up for a beer sometime with some of the other Manchester editors. Any chance of you making it to the next meetup in Manchester on Feb 25th? Richerman (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

fyi

[1]

Nobody Ent

23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of

Burnin' Vermin

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Burnin' Vermin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnin' Vermin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stowonthewolder (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of

Band of Gerbils

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Band of Gerbils is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Band of Gerbils until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stowonthewolder (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Burnin Vermin (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Band of Gerbils (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rodents Rock The Reich (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mad Bad Dangerous (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Route 666 (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hendrix Memorial Concerts (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pet Sounds (hamsters album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Condensed Hamsters (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:They Live By Night (hamsters album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Open All Hours (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Electric Hamsterland (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hamster Jam (album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Hamsters (black album).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:To Infirmity and Beyond (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Verminator (dvd).jpg)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote,

reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Pet Sounds: 10 Years of Rodent Rock" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot

22:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote,

reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Route 666 (The Hamsters album)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot

22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Appendix function diagram.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mr Carline & Mr Walling.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lonnie Mack-Live-Attack of the Killer V.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lonnie Mack-Strike Like Lightning.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Belle Vue Zoological Gardens

This is a note to let the main editors of

Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions

. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens was a large zoo, amusement park, exhibition hall complex and speedway stadium in Belle Vue, Manchester, England, opened in 1836. The brainchild of John Jennison, the park was intended to entertain the genteel middle classes, with formal gardens and dancing on open-air platforms during the summer, but they soon became one of the most popular attractions in Northern England. Jennison set out a small amusements area in Belle Vue during the 1870s, which was expanded in the early 20th century to become what was advertised as the "showground of the world". Popular rides included the 60 mph (97 km/h) Bobs roller coaster and the Scenic Railway. Grand firework displays were given from 1852 and there was an annual Christmas circus from 1922. The Kings Hall, opened in 1910, housed the Hallé Orchestra for several years and hosted concerts by artists such as Jimi Hendrix, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Leonard Cohen, Johnny Cash and Led Zeppelin. At its peak Belle Vue occupied 165 acres (0.67 km²) and attracted more than two million visitors a year. The zoo closed in September 1977 after its owners decided they could no longer afford annual losses of £100,000. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at

talk

) 23:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Manchester music
Thank you, user just saying NO to political correctness, for your contributions to quality articles on Manchester and music, such as Belle Vue Zoological Gardens and Affinity, for updating lists of musicians and fighting vandalism, for free speech and "If you take 'civility' out of the equation then look how much work could be done." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 874 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)