User talk:Dodgechris/archive

Welcome!

Hello, I am known Gears of War, I am a part of Wikipedia and I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia, here is some stuff you should know and some links to follow.

Shortcuts

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:

	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

	Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.

	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,908,957 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

	Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Gears Of War

Ted Paige

Please read article's history and AfD discussion to understand why your edit has been reverted. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind actually discussing merging the GA Ned Flanders? Consider this a formal warning. Alientraveller (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodgechris for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Frickative 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PAWSFORSPORT2000, is NOT one of my socks, we have simular interests, as she is my sister in real life. Dodgechris (UTC)

July 2008

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Homer Simpson page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Homer Simpson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hello. I know we've had editing disputes between us, but I hope we can put them behind us for the sake of improving the encyclopedia? As a highly active editor in this area, I would really appreciate your opinion and comments here :) Thanks, Frickative 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a dab for a redirect page

Hey. I noticed you made the Lauren Wilson page into a disambiguation page for Lauren Wilson (figure skater) and Lauren Wilson (Coronation Street). However, Lauren Wilson (Coronation Street) is a redirect to List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters and isn't an article by itself. Would you mind if I moved the Lauren Wilson (figure skater) article back and created a hatnote at the top of the page, linking to the list of Coronation Street characters? Or had you planned to expand the Lauren Wilson (Coronation Street) article? Kolindigo (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind, no. Dodgechris (UTC)

Previewing edits

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Frickative 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mason (Silent Hill character)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harry Mason (Silent Hill character), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Harry Mason. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Doreenfenwick.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Doreenfenwick.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frickative

I strongly suggest that you remove the sockpuppet allegation from Frickative's userpage, and cease this sort of disruptive editing, because if you continue down this line, you will just get yourself blocked indefinitely. That will be a shame, because you do appear to do some good editing here; however, it is obvious that User:Frickative2 is a sockpuppet of you, or someone you know, and that you (or they) signed up under that username just so you could retaliate against her accusations of sockpuppetry against you. Apart from the fact that no one in their right mind is going to announce that they are a sockpuppet on their userpage, you tagged Frickative as a sockpuppet before Frickative2 had even made a single edit to the main space, so how would you even know the account existed, unless you made it? I suggest you retract all these accusations and just drop this vendetta, stick to one account, and work towards achieving the things you want on wikipedia in an appropriate way. You know that they can check if the accounts are all owned by you, don't you? It will lead to you being blocked if you dont stop.GG ^Moan 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clarissa Mason.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Clarissa Mason.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Frickative 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk: Ryan Conner, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Jpoelma13 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation street minor characters

Just wondering why you have created a new page for new character Jimmy Dockerson‎, as opposed to using the minor characters article? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrie

Hey, just wondering if you are trying to keep or delete coronation street character articles?Raintheone (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My block

I would really appreciate it if you unblock my account -- i have no intensions of making any unconstructive edits, i hope you understand -- Dodgechris

Please unblock me, i will never do any vandalism or sockpuppetry, i promise! -- Dodgechris

You have asked something limited to administrators, sorry you have to stay blocked -- King Sausauges (talk) (contributions) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me though, ill never ever do vandalism, and ill always stick to one account, i promise, pinky swear? -- Dodgechris

I have been keeping and eye on you and you have been tampering and making a mess of Coronation Street articles, and blanking some pages when they have notability. You are pretty knew and can do lots of things on Wikipedia that members who have been on here quite some time with lots of wiki know how can do. That's just my take on it.Raintheone (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Raintheone, do you think you can get someone to unblock me? -- Dodgechris (talk)

Read Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. You can appeal. It involves adding a template on your talk page giving your request for unblocking, though you may not be successful. IIRC, there is usually steps posted about how to do this on your talk page when you're blocked, but for some reason this wasnt done for you. Possibly because you had numerous sockpuppets are were blatently using them to cause problems despite being warned, and you are still using them even after your block, even to corrpesond with yourself, as you did above with "King Sausauges". I did try to warn you that this would happen. Do you think your tactics are original? They've been blocking sockpuppets and vandals here for a long time and they know every trick in the book.

You seem to do some decent edits, and though a lot of your editing has caused problems, I do believe that you have good intentions on the whole. I have seen people given a second chance after an indefinite block. However, you have been evading your block. You have not admitted or taken responsibility for what you did, or apologised to the users you were maliciously targeting either. Start there. Promise to only use one account from now on, and stick to your promise. If you have a problem with an editor, talk it through, dont use sockpuppets to harass them. And before you make major edits, discuss them, and if consensus isnt in your favour, move on.GG ^Moan 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confession

I admit that this is my origanal account, shortly after joining, i created the User:Chris the master account, having not much knowledge on the encyclopedia rules, i had no idea what sockpuppetry was. When a User tagged my sockpuppets User page, i immediately guessed what a sockpuppet was, but i still went on and created another new account, User:Killerboyratz, i then went back to using my origonal account, by took it upon myself to create the User:Frickative2, to imitate the User:Frickative, who tagged my socks previously on my other 2 accounts, so i did this for revenge. I then went to my younger sisters account User:PAWSFORSPORT2000 and my mates account User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit, whom let me know their passwords, when those 2 accounts were blocked, i created an account again, User:King Sausauges, and used Killerboyratz account to harrass Frickative and Charlottiepants, her friend, both Killerboyratz and King Sausauges who were later blocked. If i get to be unblocked, i will sincerely apoligise to Frickative and Charlottiepants make constructive edits full time and stick to one account. I will contribute to help people learn about a content page(s) -- Dodgechris (UTC)

If i am unblocked i will follow the basic rules such as being bold, i will update pages reguarly, i will be civil to other Users, i won't harrass/attack them, include summaries in most of my edits, i will be faithful to other editors, when discussing i will include a signiature and i will preview my changes when i am unsure what work i have added - Dodgechris (UTC)

May i be unblocked now - i have familarized myself with basic rules as you can see above, i have also nominated an article to improve, Kirk Sutherland - Dodgechris (UTC)

You must make the improvements to the article here on your talk page before being unblocked. Tiptoety

^talk 03:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and cleaned the small article at the bottom of this page, it was previously an article in need of updating and has been nominated for deletion -- Dodgechris

So, now i have improved the article here on my talk page, and familiarized myself with basic rules can you contact the administrator again? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Now that i have now improved the article here and familiarized myself of basic rules, can you contact the administrator again? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Note to eventual reviewing admin: The user User:Vintage-master has been indef blocked as an obvious sock of this user. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will i ever be able to edit on the encyclopedia other than using socks, now that i am blocked? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

By having waited until you were unblocked. Circumventing your block by using sockpuppets, an activity you knew was forbidden, displays your unwillingness to follow the minimal rules of conduct demanded of Wikipedia editors. — Coren ^(talk) 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still, the administrator won't unblock me, if i was unblocked in the first place, i would have followed the rules -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Will i ever be unblocked, if you think i may beable to be unblocked, i would be appreciative if you contacted the administrator again? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

You havent done yourself any favours by continuing to use sockpuppets. My advice is to keep working on that article. Try finding sources. See if you can find some out of universe perspective to include like stuff on casting, comments from the actor, some development.GG ^Moan 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[6]GG ^Moan 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, if you look below you will see how i have used your sources you shown me as references, and included a reference about he actor, thanks for the help on advising me on what to do and helping me with references, i really appreciate your help -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Hm, it does look like you have made some improvements to the article, but I would still like to see more. I want you to really show me you are dedicated to improving the project and are not just jerking my chain (so to speak). Tiptoety ^talk 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do more to the article later this morning; i have to go to sleep now -- Dodgechris (UTC)

DodgeChris, start by doing a reception section for Kurt. The character has won awards for comedy hasnt he? I think there was some mentioned in the sources above. So that could be mentioned in reception. Any commentary from reporters in the press about the character would also work - so if they praise him, or criticise him. See if you can find an interview with the actor where he discusses Kurt. Maybe on the official website? Things like that a great for improving soap articles.GG ^Moan 23:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, references moved to added info, link to official website, and a growing amount of information on the article, good enough? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Please can you contact the administrator now, i have tryed very hard, do you think so? -- Dodgechris (UTC)

The admin is probably not online. He/she will have your page on their watchlist, so dont worry you wont be forgotten. I think you've made improvements, but you could make more. Look in some of those sources for things to include in reception. In the first one, Zoe Street Howe describes Kurt as a "much loved character". You can add something like that to reception by saying "Zoe Street Howe, reporter of The Sun newspaper, has described Kurt as a "much-loved character".

Also this source [7] talks about how the actor quit to star in a carry on film, and then begged Corrie producers to take him back when he felt the film would flopped, which they did. That kind of thing can go under a section called "casting".

Also, youve put that Kurt is expecting his first child this year under "portrayer", but the source says it's the actor who is expecting his first child, not Kurt, and that isnt particularly relevant to that article. I'm not trying to be bossy, so ignore my advice if you like, really i'm only trying to help you out :) GG ^Moan 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, a casting section, with a relevant sentenced information, and the "Portrayer" section changed to a "Actor" section; if i am unblocked, i will thank you properly for your help, i appreciate it grandly, theres not many User who would help a former sockpuppeteer get unblocked -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Hi Dodgechris, I feel that at this time it would be appropriate for you to be unblocked, though you must understand that I am pouring out a great deal of trust and with that comes great responsibility on your part. Any disruption or further abusive socks will result in you being right back to being blocked with no second chance. I am going to contact the blocking administrator for you again, but please do not misplace my trust. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have been unblocked. Happy editing. Tiptoety ^talk 16:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But for some reason i am blocked again, but not indefinately -- Dodgechris (UTC)

Are you just a vandal?

I reverted this edit of yours because it had the appearance of some random blanking. I see that you have been doing much of the same elsewhere, and I now realize that it might be explainable. Is there any reason that you should not be blocked, or are you in fact engaging in constructive edits? Unschool (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any vandalism, i just agreed with discussions on that article, Hilda and Elsie appear to have been extremely popular characters -- Dodgechris

Okay, look, if you're going to be a serious editor and be respected as one, a very helpful first step would be begin using edit summaries consistently. You know how to do it, but as this page shows, you use them perhaps half the time. Edit summaries which actually report what and/or why you're performing an edit, will go a long way toward establishing that you are to be taken seriously. Now I don't know enough about this Coronation Street to judge your work, but you've been blocked before, so if you don't want that to happen permanently (which can certainly happen, eventually), then take the time to learn responsible behaviours. Good luck to you. Unschool (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrie

Hey, I am really confused about your intensions to this soaps. After spending time looking at your edits, I am starting to think you are trying to help the articles. So I am suggesting we work together to improve the articles? Raintheone (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but i would prefer it if you leave messages on my talk page rather than in my archives, that way i recieve the message immediately, Thank You --Dodgechris (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Why are you removing the in-universe templates from articles clearly written from an in-universe perspective? Frickative 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because i have been re writing them. I also realised that you undid ALL of my changes on the Nick Neeson article that improved the article, you did not just replace the tag.

But the articles are still just re-iterating the various plots and storylines, which is in-universe. If you want an example of what an article written from a real-world perspective should look like, I'm currently re-writing Maria Connor in my sandbox. Obviously it's far from finished, but it should do as an example. You need to discuss the character's real world impact - things like how they're received, how various storylines were developed and all that sort of off-screen stuff to stop them being in-universe. And apologies on the Nick Neeson revert, that was accidental. If you haven't already reverted back I'll do it now. Frickative 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK ill remember that, maybe i was a bit too confident, PS i already reverted you on Nick Neeson, Thanks. I might start experimenting in my sandbox.

Awesome, sorry again ^_^ It's actually really easy to improve most articles as long as they're fairly major or long running characters. If there was one in particular you wanted to work on in your sandbox, what I tend to do is go round the major news sites (with soaps like Coronation Street there's never much on the broadsheets like The Times - though sometimes The Independant has useful stuff, and generally The Guardian is quite good - but the main ones that are often handy are The Sun, The Mirror, maybe also The Metro and often Digital Spy). If you search the sites for the particular character you want to work on, then touch wood what you'll often find is interviews with the actor, or quotes and comments from the show's producers on how a particular storyline was put together and what it was intended to convey - that sort of thing. I tend to compile a pretty big document of all those quotes and relevent bits, and then once it's all gathered together, it's just a matter of actually writing it out as prose. Like I said, it's fairly easy for the major characters, the only down side is it can be a bit time consuming! Frickative 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Finlay Bryant.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Finlay Bryant.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Page

This articles fails notability. It contains no real world information, the character has a short appearance, it is mainly a plot summary-storyline, it's merge has discussed and agreed, all information it's contained in List of reccuring characters. Please don't keep reverting the redirect. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hiya Dodge, I noticed you made a disambiguation page for Ken Barlow, moving the coronation street character to a disambiguation name. Usually, when there are only two instances of the name in use, it is acceptable merely to have a disambiguation in italics at the top of the page. The Non disambiguation page typically goes to the page with the greatest notability. In this instance, even though the basketball player is a real person over a fictional character, the character is by far the best known of the two worldwide, and will typically be the topic people will expect to find when searching for "Ken Barlow". So I think he should have kept the page in this instance.GG ^Moan 14:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is not the most important thing in the world, if someone searches Ken Barlow, they will come up with a disambiguation and wil choose either the Corrie character or the basketball player --Dodgechris talk 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's completely unnecessary, and have you been to all the pages that link to Ken Barlow and changed all the links to the disamguation pages? Because now they dont link to the page they originally linked to.[8] You mess up quite a lot when you change a page name like that. GG ^Moan 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked once again for abusing multiple accounts and this time there will be no second chance. I am very displeased to see that my good faith was so blatantly abused. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't understand why some has been convicted a sock of me, its not fair! Now i can't ever edit. I will be amused if you can give me proof. I have clearly been wrongly accused, i read WP:SOCK and it says that is you are wrongly accused, make good edits, but how? if i am blocked, i am concerned that someone has framed me on purpose. Please unblock me, pretty please pretty please pretty pretty pretty please! Please unblock me a beggedy beggedy beg a beggedy beggedy beg a beggedy beggedy beggedy beggedy beggedy beggedy beg! Just answer this question will you: Will iver get unblocked? This vandalism edit, by the wrong accused sock of me [9] is the same as this [10] and this [11] by the accounts Dumdum118 and Dumdum119 which is swear on my life are NOT my socks, but i think the three are all the same person using them and it's not me, and for some reason i was wrongly accused.

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).

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

Request reason:

i was complete, wrongly accused

Decline reason:

See WP:GAB. — Sandstein 07:01, 7 August 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i was wrongly accused of sock puppetry, although i have had sock puppets in the past but i was given a second chance, but now someone has wrongly accused me of sock puppetry, so i have been prevented from editing due to a false report

Decline reason:

It's clear that you have continued to engage in sockpuppetry, so the block stands. _Gb^T/c 11:50, 7 August 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i promise i won't use socks again

Decline reason:

So now you're more or less admitting that you did? In other words, you lied to us. You have completely forfeited all good faith; more simply, we don't believe you anymore and we'd be fools to ever start doing so again. This was your last request; the page will be protected from now on. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that my actions back in 2008 were wrong and I have changed and grown up a lot in the 3 years that have passed. If I am unblocked I will never behave in that way again or repeat those actions. I will accept any restrictions and/or mentoring that are required if I am to be unblocked. Recently, I created another account (User:Wuzzupbob), not to evade my block, but to apologise to the users that I caused harassment to and to look for a way forward. Since I have re-gained access to this talkpage through use of the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, I am able to submit this unblock request.

The pages User talk:Demiurge1000 and User talk:Tiptoety may currently provide useful sources of information about my situation. Thanks. Dodgechris (talk) 5:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I see no reason to unblock you when you're socking right now. TN X Man 13:11, 19 July 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 think you've been given way too many chances. You abused socks, got blocked, promised never to do it again, then you did it again, then you did it again. You made a previous admin look like a fool for trusting you and I don't see any reason why you wouldn't do it again. N^oformation ^Talk 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But take into account the time that has passed. Three years. I remember three years I was like a giant git (sometimes I still exhibit that behavior); people can mature very much in three years. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sigma - three years have passed, and that's a lot of time to grow. However, I also agree with Noformation - the chronic abuse of trust is a bit of a moodkiller. I'm perched on the edge for this one. m.o.p 08:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Sigma, I just don't know if there's any way for him to show he's changed and I'd hate to see someone else with egg on their face. N^oformation ^Talk 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He can't be worse than Tasco or Grawp, can he? --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, after 3 years, I'd be minded to give another chance. (I know it's not a lot to go on, but the approach here and at WP:ANI does seem rather more mature than in the past - and if you look at Wuzzupbob's interactions in the short spell the account was in use, it looks like a very different approach now) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that I have matured a lot in 3 years. I think I am ready for a positive approach to editing Wikipedia and making constructive contributions. Dodgechris (talk) 10:27, 19 July 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).

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

Request reason:

The account SpideyFan09 is one of my old accounts which never got blocked. I only recently edited there to blank my user/talk page and to take my name off WikiProjects, because I was fully intent on getting my main account (this one) unblocked so that I can edit clean. Dodgechris (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After being blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you continued to create them for years after this account was closed; right up until now. I see no reason to trust that you've changed. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 19 July 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.

Right, I am not going to create another unblock request because I know otherwise my talk page will be protected again. I did not continue to create new accounts to evade my block until now - User:SpideyFan09 was created in November 2008 (my last block evading month), and I was never noticed as a sockpuppet with that account, probably since I did not edit things which I did in the past. I continued editing with that account until around December 2009 and after that point I rarely edited at all (pretty much only minor errors on articles:typos and stuff). Therefore, I only really evaded my block until December 2009. Recently I used User:Wuzzupbob to apologise for my harassment in 2008 and to try and appeal my block (by getting my talk page on this account unprotected). Dodgechris (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely frustrating for me. Dodgechris (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's this kind of clueless comment that's frustrating for us. You were evading your block with the Sprideyfan09 account as late as March 2011. You were making mainspace edits with Wuzzupbob as late as July 16, 2011. "I really only evaded my block until December 2009" is complete nonsense. What's not clear here? You may not create new accounts to evade your block - period. You can wait six months and try WP:OFFER, but at this point you don't seem to be a very honest person. Kuru (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made about 3 mainspace edits with Wuzzupbob before User:Demiurge1000 told me it was a bad idea to edit with any account until this block is revised. From that point I didn't make any more mainspace edits. And what makes you think I don't appear to be an honest person? There has been no Checkuser confirmation for SpideyFan09 so I could have potentially denied that accusation, but I didn't. Dodgechris (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the fact that a checkuser declined your unblock request, called you out, and then blocked the sock account was the reason you decided to "be honest". As you get older, I hope you'll understand the difference. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpideyFan09 and Wuzzupbob

I've offered this editor a little advice by email over the last few days, but have mostly been focused on other things.

Regarding SpideyFan09, Dodgechris emailed this to me at Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 12:23PM (pasted with permission); Ok I remember another sock account now and I am going to be completely honest with you -- SpideyFan09. I made this account in November 2008 and made edits to things which weren't related to what those who were following my case edited. Therefore I was not noticed but I rarely edited after December 2009. I made occasional edits after that in 2010 and up till March 2011. I have now blanked my userpage and talk on that account now.

(I had asked on July 16 if there might perhaps be another sock active since 2008, since, let's just say, my spidey sense was tingling...)

So there did not seem an intention (this week...) to keep SpideyFan09 a secret. That email was sent before Tnxman307 checkusered the account - and since this page was protected, there was no sensible forum for me to mention it in.

Wuzzupbob's first two edits [12] [13] were to seek out, and apologise to, the editors that Dodgechris had previously had disputes with. So clearly there was no intention to keep Wuzzupbob a secret - quite the opposite. In fact, if I hadn't seen one of those two edits, we probably wouldn't even be here.

The logic behind SpideyFan09 supposedly "only really evading the block until December 2009" is apparently that SpideyFan09 edited very rarely (really only a handful of edits) after December 2009. That's an understandable viewpoint, but it's not hugely dissimilar to a serial shoplifter saying they only very rarely stole after a certain date... the whole point (as Kuru said) is that if you're blocked then you're not supposed to edit at all.

Dodgechris, the big problem here is that your actions lead people to think that you might not be able to avoid sockpuppeting. As I said to you by email, you thought 21:51, 18 July 2011 28bytes (talk | contribs) blocked Wuzzupbob (talk | contribs) ... (please only edit from the User:Dodgechris account.) somehow didn't apply just because you felt like doing a couple of tweaks in project space regarding another account. (You might want to explain the purpose of those tweaks and why you felt they were so urgently necessary?) You have issues with patience, leading you to just not being able to resist doing things. You are aware of those issues and you are honest about them, but can you actually, really control them?

The unblock decision is made on the basis of preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. Based on the way you behave even this week (never mind in December 2009 or whatever), anyone making that decision would be likely to think that, if you later happened to get a trivial block for edit warring or whatever, you would not be able to resist sockpuppeting again. And therefore more disruption.

Is that view wrong, and if so, why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the way I have interpreted what you are saying.

You are pretty much saying that the only way I can prove that I am able to resist sockpuppetry again is by going by WP:OFFER, and pretty much not evading my block for a period of six months.

While it is true that I am somewhat impatient, I only edited with Wuzzupbob because I saw no other way of appealing my block, or, to be precise, being able to appeal my block (talk page protection).

With the Spideyfan09 account, I pretty much, as I've said a few times recently, only rarely edited after December 2009. So lets say from December 2009 until say March 2011, I made these rare edits and didn't really think about the fact that I was blocked indefinately in 2008 or that I was at that moment evading my block. It wasn't until these last few days that I really thought about what had happened and made apologies/whatever. I hope you get what I'm saying? Dodgechris (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utter crap! The guide to appealing blocks, which s clearly linked to in this page has a clear statement - basically in the lead - that says where to e-mail your unblock requests. Creating a separate userid to do so shows you didn't read and/or didn't care. Logging into SpideyFan while you knew it was evading the block again shows no recognition of why you were blocked in the first place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It appears it was "didn't read", rather than didn't care, as Dodgechris emailed me at Mon, Jul 18, 2011 7:34PM, saying What is the e-mail address I need to request unblock by e-mail. I think this is the patience issue again.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's understandable; and I do have considerable sympathy for the fact that you could have just carried on editing with the Spideyfan09 account, but instead you wanted to apologise to people that the Dodgechris account had caused problems for.

However, that still leaves the problem that even after Wuzzupbob was blocked (and therefore "within the last few days") you couldn't resist making a couple of project space tweaks regarding SpideyFan09. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I missed that part, sorry -_- I got rid of myself from those participant lists because I didn't plan to edit with SpideyFan09 ever again. Dodgechris (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but do you understand that you should not have made those edits while you were still blocked? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly understand now. Dodgechris (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all this discussion, where do I go from here? Dodgechris (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you just wait, unless someone asks you a question or there is something here that you feel you must reply to. Your other option is to appeal to arbcom (which I'm sure you now understand you don't need yet another account to do), but I don't think that's appropriate while there's still discussion ongoing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say just wait, do you mean wait around six months as per WP:OFFER? Dodgechris (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean around six days, or whenever the currently ongoing discussion at ANI gets archived or closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will keep an eye on that thread. So when that ongoing discussion gets archived or closed should I submit another unblock request here? Dodgechris (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the discussion at ANI concludes that an unblock is not justified, then there's no purpose in submitting another unblock request here unless it contains significant new information. So your options then would be WP:OFFER, or appeal to arbcom. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dodgechris

Unblocked

It is fairly clear that the community supports you being unblocked, this was my gut response the other day too - so I have now unblocked you. Please note; my condition of unblocking you is that you are limited to using this single account. It seems to me you have learned not to disrupt Wikipedia and are able to now make a positive contribution - I hope you won't abuse the trust that a number of users, myself included, are putting into you here :) I also custion you to take your time in rejoining the community; exercising as much patience and common sense as possible both in interacting with other editors and in making edits to pages. At the very least have a good read through the current polices and procedures. I will try to check in on you from time to time and make sure you are doing ok. Welcome back to Wikipedia. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unable to edit since my IP address has been rangeblocked for using my User:SpideyFan09 account recently (non-block evasion). Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of what I am being shown:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Tnxman307 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "SpideyFan09". The reason given for SpideyFan09's block is: "Block evasion". This block has been set to expire: 21:45, 21 July 2011.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this account for autoblocks but forgot about that one :) Lifted; try again. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]