Jump to content

User talk:Instaurare/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Instaurare/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian Cooley

Hi, I deleted your Brian Cooley article because

  1. it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Although it gave two refs, one was his own, and the other his employer’s website.
  2. This article was the subject of an AfD here and the decision was delete. It’s not clear why he is more notable in July than he was then.
  3. If you look at the deletion log below, it’s been tagged by at least three editors and deleted by three different admins.
  4. If other editors have articles, perhaps they should go too
  5. deletion log

16:17, 25 June 2007 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Brian Cooley" (content was: '{db-bio}}{hangon}}Brian Cooley is an American website editor. He is currently the editor-at-large for technology site CNET.com. He h...') (Restore)

11:19, 29 April 2007 Sam Blacketer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Brian Cooley" (G4.) (Restore)

08:07, 3 January 2007 Quarl (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Brian Cooley" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Cooley: result was: Delete.) (Restore)

Hope this helps, Jimfbleak. Talk to me.05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Need for Speed: ProStreet

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Need for Speed: ProStreet. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. --MrStalker talk 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Cooley

OK, in fairness, I've tagged Veronica Belmont for deletion. If it survives, I'll review Brian's article. If it's chopped, I'll move on to the other editors - needs to be consistent, either they are all notable, or none is. Jimfbleak 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Veronica Belmont has been to AfD, and the vote was to keep. Brian's article in an earlier version also went to AfD, and the vote was to delete. I think if you look at Veronica's article, it's much fuller and much better referenced. Your two refs were not from independent sources, and therefore do not assert notability. If you want to have another go, use the Belmont article as your model, and add lots of independent references. Jimfbleak 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be over-prescriptive, but something like mentions in reputable media (on-line versions of national newspapers/magazines, TV/radio station or network websites other than the network directly concerned). Jimfbleak 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 3 Weapons list

Weapon lists and other lists of items are considered to be indiscriminate, trivial information — and often considered to belong in specialised game guides or web sites rather than on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA and the guidelines on WP:VG/GL reinforce the consistent actions of editors removing such lists. A recent discussion on WT:VG#Lists_of_cars also refers to the same topic. A weapons list is not helpful unless the reader has already played the game, and Wikipedia aims to provide articles to the general reader - not the gamer. At best, a weapon list is a collection of wikilinks that add nothing to the article. At worst, it turns into a full-blown strategy guide. Weapon lists on Call of Duty 3 and other game articles have been removed many times in the past, and often they are re-added without a clear purpose. There are other Wikis for that information (e.g. Encyclopedia Gamia, GamerWiki, StrategyWiki). --Scottie_theNerd 03:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is interesting does not mean it belongs on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say that no interesting things belongs on wikipedia. I said not ALL interesting things belong on wikipedia. There's a difference. DurinsBane87 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ford article doesn't have a list of cars. DurinsBane87 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean. You basically said that it should have the weapon list like Ford has a car list. But Ford doesn't have a car list. So I don't know what you're point was supposed to be. DurinsBane87 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your arguments on the relevant article talk pages instead of engaging in continual reverts. Lists have been frowned upon and removed for months; there's nothing to achieve by adding them back in without forwarding any reason for doing so. See WP:INTERESTING. --Scottie_theNerd 03:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean other people will, nor does it influence whether or not something belongs on Wikipedia. "Interesting" is not a criteria for Wikipedia articles and article content. What matters is its notability and verifiability, as well as the scope of information - guidelines of which can be found on WP:VG/GL. If you wish to argue this further, I suggest you raise it at WT:VG, where you will receive opinions from more video game article editors. I am merely telling you what the consensus is; if you insist on retorting with subjective arguments, I will simply direct you to where the consensus comes from. --Scottie_theNerd 06:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed verifiable, but how is it notable? What sources do you have that support your claim that every single weapon in Call of Duty 3 is worth mentioning? How does a full list of weapons benefit the article? You are blurring the line between what's important for the game and what's important for the article. A list of weapons is valuable to players. It is trivia to general readers. It is not essential information; it adds nothing to the article; all it does is add a sense of completeness that belongs on GamerWiki or GameFAQs rather than Wikipedia. As I said, I am telling what the consensus is and the reasons for it. If you wish to challenge it, do so on WP:VG rather than my talk page. --Scottie_theNerd 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be his opinion, but it's also the consensus. And the consensus DOES rule wikipedia. DurinsBane87 03:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obama political positions

Lifenews.com is a pro-life opinion news organ. As such, it cannot be considered a reliable source for neutral reporting, particularly with the higher standards expected for BLP-related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The human experience.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The human experience.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

You left this message on my talk page. Are you referring to an edit from way back at the beginning of March? In any event, my personal opinion of abortion rights has nothing to do with my approach to editing Wikipedia. I do not let my political and social views color my editing processes, and I adhere to the neutral point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Scjessey, you will be blocked from editing. Do not rollback or revert my talk page. It is an act of vandalism. Scjessey (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Reverting a month and a half of discussion to restore one paragraph from you is seriously uncool.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that it may have been an accident caused by following the link in the preceding section -- still not terribly good.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I concede that this may have been accidental, as SarekOfVulcan suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I had troubles with my account and was not able to access it for a few weeks, so I have been idle since April 9. That's why I reverted to an old discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean you did that on purpose?????? Any discussions in progress weren't as important as a month-old argument???? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It may sound stupid to you, but this user has been polluting Wikipedia for much too long. He claims absolute authority over anyone who adds neutral articles that dispute his beliefs. In case you don't know about why this all started, it was because in April 2009, I added a quote from a pro-life news site that criticized Obama's abortion policy. He claimed that the citation was not a reliable source. It is beyond me why he would think that the source of the criticism itself was not a reliable source. (For example, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia cites a very biased view on the topic as a reliable source. I looked on his user page and he says he is pro-choice and an atheist. Scjessy needs to be removed or at least disciplined for pushing a biased view on Wikipedia in the name of "neutrality".NYyankees51 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is why: Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources DKqwerty (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So why is this cited? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If you don't see the difference between a secondary news source which itself has no targeted focus or agenda and a site whose expressed existence is "devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community", then there isn't much I can say that will convince you. However, even if it weren't a valid reference, that doesn't justify your use of one in any way. And if you have a problem with the Conservapedia article or its sources, raise it on the articles talk page, don't bitch about it to me on your talk page. And the Conservapedia article has nothing to do with your vandalism of Scjessy's talk page and the objection raised here. DKqwerty (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know what this act of "vandalism" is about? I raised a valid point on his talk page . But you wouldn't be able to look now, seeing as he's deleted it from his talk page.NYyankees51 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Do not insert viewpoints [1] cited with unreliable sources into this biography. Discuss your desired changes on the talkpage, get consensus before making changes. Note that Barack Obama related articles are under article probation/general sanctions. The standard notification for the Obama article probation is pasted below. thanks, --guyzero | talk 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- guyzero | talk 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hey Arnold characters

An article you have edited may be deleted. Take a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Sawyer Hellerick (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maafa 21

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maafa 21, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/090618. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

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) 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights

"Please disregard the CorenSearchBot. The text it found is on the DVD sale site, which is where I got it from. RenewAmerica also has published the text."

That means the text is copyright. DS 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Bobby Schilling

I have nominated Bobby Schilling, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Schilling. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:BobbySchilling.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid the license situation is still unresolved. There is no indication on http://bobby2010.com that the image is available under a free license, so we must assume it is non-free and so it can most likely not be used. You can try to contact them and see if they would be willing to release this or another image under a suitable free license (such as Creatice Commons Attribution ShareAlike) though, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for tips on how to phrase a request to ensure we get the right permissions if they accept. --Sherool (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Is an email from the photographer granting permission sufficient? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what the e-mail says. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, but if they agreed to release it under a free content license just forward that to the permissions inbox as described on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. --Sherool (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I did everything I was instructed, so now I want to delete the original file and replace it with this one--- https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:BobbySchilling.jpg. How do I do that? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
To request deletion of something you uploaded or created yourself that no one else have done any significant edits to you can put {{db-author}} on it, or in a case like this {{db-commons}} could also have been appropriate. Or you can ask any admin to delete it, I've taken care of the local version now as you asked, but adding a suitable speedy deletion tag can often be faster since more people will see it when it show up in the deletion caregory. --Sherool (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling

I stand by the AfD close. Please open a DRV case if you wish. Black Kite 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington

You already know about Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, original research, and forum discussions. Please stop adding the "disputed" claim when the only people claiming there's a dispute are those who want to inflate the numbers for political reasons. Thank you. APK is a GLEEk 01:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Helpful suggestion - You should explain on the talk page your reasoning for removal of content and sources. APK say that you love me 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with NYyankees51's most recent edit. Welcome fellow Noo Yawka. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

hello, NYyankees51 from kenatipo

thanks for your kind note on the 912dc march page. i appreciate it. do you know how i go about addressing my issues to an admin? i still have to laugh about poor perfesser el-Baz -- he's only done two crowd estimates in his life and he got them both wrong! he's probably a very nice man, though. i sent him an email today asking him if he saw the time-lapse video before he decided on his 75K peak crowd estimate. don't really expect a response, but you never know. you're right about wiki being a losing game for anyone who believes in traditional values -- 95% of their Reliable Sources are LLM (Liberal Legacy Media). if the clowns editing the 912dc march page were editing an article on the JFK assasination they wouldn't let you even mention the Zapruder film because Zapruder didn't have AP cameraman credentials and his film wasn't narrated by Dan Freaking Rather! anyway, thanks again. Kenatipo (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling

Hi. Please don't recreate a title which has been deleted per policy...and please don't create empty articles with no text. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Instaurare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
68.50.210.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ronpaulfan83". The reason given for Ronpaulfan83's block is: "Vandalism".

Decline reason: Checkuser verified abusive alternate account of User:Ronpaulfan83; now directly blocked along with other abusive accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeah, can you explain this edit especially considering that Ronpaulfan83 vandalized the same page 6 days later? I'm having a hard time seeing this as a random coincidence. Syrthiss (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. APK whisper in my ear 04:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

All socks

I am crossposting this from User talk:BS24 as per Sandstein's request there. In the interest of full disclosure and showing my willingness to cooperate, here is a list of all socks I have used.

Socks of User:NYyankees51

Alleged socks that are not mine

IP addresses used

All illegitimate sock usage ceased on 12 Jan 2010. BS24 created 23 Jan 2010 as a fresh start account. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I intended for User:BS24, the article under which I have been making legitimate contributions for 10 months now, to be a fresh start account. I was not aware that a fresh start account should not be used to evade scrutiny. I apologize for and accept full responsibility for the vandalism I committed under User:NYyankees51. This BS24 SPI process began because of the Restoring Honor rally mediation. I was involved in a heated dispute with 11 other editors over the crowd size section of the article. The dispute had been going on for six weeks and in the interest of resolving it in a civil manner, I filed a request for the dispute, which was accepted. In my opening statement, I mentioned that I was involved in the Taxpayer March on Washington crowd size section. I forgot that this was under NYyankees51. Someone asked me how I had been involved. I was just as confused as him to not find myself in the history. Then I realized it was NYyankees51. I admitted it outright. An SPI was filed, and I was banned indefinitely. As I noted in the SPI, NYyankees51 was banned for indisputable vandalism of a few articles and user pages, all of which were ridiculous on my part. I blew a three year history in a couple of weeks for a few laughs, and I accept full responsibility for that. Since then, under BS24, I have been making legitimate contributions. I created several articles. I have been accused of vandalism, as have all editors, but those edits were made in good faith. The case has been made that I have continued to edit several articles under BS24 that I regularly edited under NYyankees51. But NYyankees51 was not banned for behavior on those articles, and all of my contributions were made in good faith. No one would know I was a sock had I not exposed myself during the mediation. Don't take this to mean I haven't learned my lesson or haven't accepted responsibility. I mean that no one would know because BS24 is a genuine clean start account. I have not returned to the stupid stuff that got me banned. I have a three year history of no socks and legitimate contributions, followed by a month of stupid vandalism and socking, followed by 9 months of no socks and legitimate contributions. I believe I was banned under BS24 not because of my behavior, but because I should have been banned when I first created the account. Blocks are supposed to be corrective, not punitive. The NYyankees51 was corrective and it worked; I have been editing legitimately. I'm not sure of the course of action the admins reviewing this will take, but I am willing to cooperate with whatever you propose. Thank you. EDIT: Please see the exchange below this unblock request.

Decline reason:

On the face of it this looks so nice: "yes, I admit I was a bit naughty in the past, but now I've admitted it and promised I won't do it again". However, there are just too many little problems. Repeatedly you have lied and taken steps to hide what you are doing. Much of your coming clean about what you have done has only happened when it has become clear that the true situation is known anyway. The discussion on this page covers many doubts about your trustworthiness which I do not need to repeat here. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In response to the latest decline, is there anything I can do to prove my sincerity? I have lied during this last investigation; that is absolutely wrong. Other than this investigation, I have been a constructive editor from January to October with zero problems aside from a 3RR violation. Please see email sent to WP:ARBCOM#BASC for my full case if you are on the committee.(Again, using this request to get attention of an admin; haven't been told this is abuse of the procedure so I assume I can do it again. Please see history for full appeal. Thanks.)

Decline reason:

procedurally declining. This has been up here for days, and in the course of recent developments, it appears that ArbCom is now involved; that generally takes it out of the hands of us Garden Variety admins. --Jayron32 05:17, 12 November 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a procedural request to get the attention of an admin -- I submitted my case to WP:ARBCOM#BASC nine days ago and I have not received any sort of response, not even a confirmation that the committee received my appeal. Would someone please contact one of the three BASC admins (User:Mailer diablo, User:Shell Kinney, User:SirFozzie) and ask the status of the case? That would be much appreciated. I apologize if this is misuse of the unblock template, but I have repeatedly used it to get the attention of an admin and have not been told it's a problem. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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.

Past appeals were removed by myself and by admins to clear up clutter on the page. Please see this page's history to see the archived appeals. If any admin wishes to have all the appeals restored to this page for reference please let me know. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

It has now been 12 days since my appeal was submitted to WP:ARBCOM#BASC, eight days since my second email requesting confirmation that the first one was received, and three days since User:Shell Kinney said he would remind the committee to review the case. I have yet to receive any kind of response or any confirmation from the committee. Would a regular admin be willing to hear my case anew? I would prefer to contact the admin in private since my full appeal contains some relevant personal information and to prevent interference from other users, but I would be fully willing to conduct it on public pages. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have applied to ArbCom, they have received your application, it would not be right to do anything until they have made a decision  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:07, 18 November 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

As per the third appeal above, it has now been four days since User:Shell Kinney said he would remind the other admins on WP:ARBCOM#BASC (User:Mailer diablo and User:SirFozzie) about my case. I am not questioning or criticizing Shell Kinney but could an admin reach out directly to those two admins and ask the status of the case? I am not impatient for a result, I am just wondering if my appeal was received and is being considered, since I have not received any sort of response to my two emails to the committee, one of which was requesting confirmation of receipt. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline--now in ArbCom's hands. You don't need our help to contact them. Use Special:EmailUser. Appeals to ArbCom take a long time.--Chaser (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2010 (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.

Questions from admins

Not sure if I’m missing something, but three of the conditions for a fresh start account are that it not be used to evade scrutiny, it not be used in the same topics (you have indeed edited many of the same topics, including the ones you were blocked for), and that it not be used for block evasion. How did you miss every single criterion for such an account? Did you even read the policy?
You mention that you admitted to being a sock outright, but that does not seem to be the case. You first stated that you stopped using the account because you forgot the password (which appears to be a complete fabrication), and then that you could not remember the account name. You also seem to be boasting that you would not have been caught had you kept your deception straight. Do you feel that these statements portray you as an honorable person who is here constructively?
You seem to have been blocked at least once with this new account; how does that play into your claim that all lessons were learned before?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but there seem to be some contradictions here. Kuru (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
When I created the account I wasn't really sure what "evading scrutiny" meant; my impression was that since my IP was not blocked from new account creation, I could start fresh, and the block evasion policy did not apply. I now realize that was incorrect. I didn't read the policy as closely as I should have.
I was banned for vandalism of a certain article and a few user pages connected to it. I have not returned to vandalize that article. I have continued to edit several main articles under BS24 (i.e. Bobby Schilling, Susan B. Anthony List, etc.) because my edits under NYyankees51 were all legitimate and made in good faith. I was not blocked for vandalizing those articles, so I continued editing them under BS24.
I will admit -- I said I forgot the username and password at first because I panicked and was trying to figure out what to do. I think I also said at some point at the beginning that friends/family had used my account, which was false. Both were wrong wrong and no, they were not honorable or constructive. It was a moment of panic.
I mention that I would not have been suspected not to be boastful, but to show that a block of BS24 would be punitive, not corrective.
BS24 was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. NYyankees51 was banned for repeated vandalism and use of sockpuppets to carry out that vandalism.
When I used NYyankees51 and at first with BS24, editing Wikipedia was not that important to me. I edited in short bursts every month or so; I had less than 1000 edits in three years. It has become quite important to me now and since the summer I have been making several edits per day, and I have made nearly 2000 in nine months. I want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and I didn't care under NYyankees51. If you look at my edit history, I have been editing constructively for 9 months now. I created five articles (listed at User:BS24).
I accept total responsibility for my past actions. I believe my edits over the last 9 months, while certainly not perfect, have demonstrated my willingness to abide by Wikipedia policy and contribute constructively.
I hope this clears things up and I appreciate your consideration of my case. Please let me know if you have any other concerns and I will be happy to address them. I believe I have disclosed everything, but if there are still some gray areas I will be happy to address them. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, in response to new allegations in the sockpuppetry case, I am not using a proxy and never have. My IP is User:173.73.38.62. I strongly endorse another checkuser if it would lead to any useful results. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the checkuser run led to the result that you did use that IP as User:BS24, but you're using a different IP and a different ISP as both NYYankees51. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The talk page edits from today were at a shared computer at a library. I will get that IP if I can. 173.73.38.62 is my main computer. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from other users

Hi, BS24. Was admitted puppet User:Ronpaulfan83 accidently left off your list? And was User:Huhnad placed in the wrong category; the account shown by a checkuser to share an IP with NYyankees51 & Ronpaulfan83? Just trying to clear up any confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; just added it. Huhnad is not my account, it was a friend of mine's. I think he created it at the same library I used in the past, so that's why checkuser showed that. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi NYyankees51! Retrospectively, what do you think about the complaints about your BS24 edits brought up in in the SPI? For example, what do you think today about this edit, since the edit of the IP you are referring to was legitimate and well sourced. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop distrupting this process. If you have nothing better to do than harrass BS24 I suggest you stop using WP. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
With that particular edit, I had seen conflicting sources about whether Fenty would appear on the ballot as a Republican. This Washington Post article said he would, while the article added by the IP said he would not. I soon realized the WP article was incorrect and used the IP's edit to correct the article.
No: The WP article is an much older article. And you "soon realized" the WP article was incorrect 10 days after I had stepped into it (bringing this new incident up in the SPI[2], undoing your disruptive edit[3], and informing the innocent IP user[4]). And even if there would have been an issues about the sources, this wouldn't made your edit [5] appropriate. Your justifications of bad actions make it hard to come to your side. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
In regards to other edits, obviously no editor is perfect, and I am certainly no exception. It is sometimes hard for me to set aside my own ideology and thus I am accused of bias or being unconstructive, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. We all have our biases but I will continue to work to get around my own and edit fairly and work with other editors. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You have admitted to being User:68.50.210.194( not a suspected sock but one of many IPs tagged as a "confirmed sock" of NYyankees51. But as NYyaankees51 on Nov 2, 2009, you left this message on IP68's talk page. "Please stop your destructive edits to Wikipedia such as you did on the Susan B. Anthony List page. If you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked.NYyankees51 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [6]. Why? .The Artist (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

IP68 is not a "confirmed sock" it was a shared IP that has been used by NYyankees51. There is a difference. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be a distinction without a difference. IP68 is on this list of confirmed socks of NYyankees51.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
By that logic you have no fewer than 13 socks. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and here they areThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Already explained above, "for a few laughs." Please read the unblock request before asking questions for which there are already answers. Akerans (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read NYyankees51 response below, which directly contradicts your sympathetic assumption. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think NYyankees51 should and can speak for himself. The Artist (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
68.50.210.194 is a shared IP at a library. As I recall, in that instance one of my former friends was making vandalism edits to a couple of pages I was editing legitimately at the same time. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept the answer, but I'm not going to push the issue either. The Artist (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What's not to accept? I'm happy to address your concerns. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You asked for this. I doubt the answers are consequential, nor am I inclined to believe them. Your admitted lie persisted into your appeal, and ceased only after after Kuru termed it a a seeming "complete fabrication." That would be candor subsequent to the lie being called out by an admin. (And I meant "candor" sarcastically.) It had already been shown to be a lie irrefutably by me and Xeno well before then. (You must have been thinking no admin would notice the compelling documentation.) Instead of responding substantially, you made ad hominem attacks towards me, IP82 and Xenophrenic. And these attacks persisted until your second appeal, when it was clear they would do no good. You have also still not acknowledged that BS24 is a sock, even after it made your list of many confirmed socks. Instead you think there is a statute of limitations for block evasion and are expecting special treatment based on good behavior, though a 3RR block, many contentious interchanges and disruptive edits detailed in the SPI strongly suggest otherwise So far you have shown no inclination to behave unless forced to do so. I hope you are not allowed back, but if you are, I hope you are banned from revisiting any of your previous pages, regardless of how benevolently you view your contributions to any of them. The Artist (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Quit harrassing the editor. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The appeal admin and Xeno damningly confirmed my suspicions regarding NYyankees51's veracity.The Artist (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by appeal admin and other users

You have said 'I wasn't really sure what "evading scrutiny" meant', but you don't need to know what the form of words means: you knew you were trying to prevent people from seeing what you were doing, whatever it was called. You say "68.50.210.194 is a shared IP at a library". It is registered to Comcast Cable Communications. It is possible that where you live the public libraries use a generic cable company's connection, but if so it is very unusual. All public libraries I know of have either their own independent connection or a share of a connection registered to some local government body. A connection registered generically to a cable provider in this way is usually a domestic connection. This looks remarkably like My little brother did it. Of course, it is not definite proof, but in conjunction with all the other known lies and attempts at deception, it looks highly suggestive, and assuming good faith applies only until a user has given good reasons not to do so, which in your case was long ago. This is known as "crying wolf". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, JamesBWatson. 68.50.210.194 is a library now? I was told it was a school. Maybe a school library? See here: "68.50.210.194 is another shared IP address at a school that I have no recollection of using. It was most likely BBFVA94. I don't really care whether this stays blocked or not because I don't use it (or know which one it is for that matter)." --71.178.26.97 03:09, 2 January 2010
Perhaps it is a school for librarians? Seriously though, it is possible it is located at Bishop Ireton High School, as the earliest edits appear to be from juveniles logging in to screw with the Wikipedia pages of rival schools. But the IP's location still doesn't wash as an excuse for the socking, and it further implies that we are dealing with a juvenile here. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an absurd conclusion. Look at the history of Susan B Anthony during Novemeber 24 2009, because either NYyankees51 was having an edit war with himself and then warning himself or he was telling the truth and he was screwing around with a friend. Did you even look at any of the evidence or you simply using your own limited understanding about libraries as your rational? You need to explain your reasoning because this reason is simply not acceptable. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see if I got this straight:
  • "The IP addresses used by Ronpaulfan83 are shared IP addresses at a school and the account belongs to my brother. A friend of his used the account to vandalize some pages when he wasn't around." --ProudAmerican93 00:02, 21 December 2009
  • "Ronpaulfan83 was made as a joke by User:BaseballFanVA94 and I. I made several disruptive edits (as a joke), but stopped. BBFVA94 made the rest without my knowledge. Evidence of his role in the username is found here. --71.178.26.97 03:09, 2 January 2010
  • "70.21.119.84 is a shared computer at a non-profit. However, the edits to Alexandria Aces and CRCBL were made by my brother who works there." --71.178.26.97 03:09, 2 January 2010
  • "Yes, I am NYyankees51. NYyankees51, was blocked in December 2009 due to some stupid jokes I was trying to pull on a friend. --BS24 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "My mistake; just added it. Huhnad is not my account, it was a friend of mine's. I think he created it at the same library I used in the past, so that's why checkuser showed that. --NYyankees51 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. So far, we have at least 6 people involved? You, your brother, your friend, your brother's friend, BaseballFanVA94, and a mystery person on a shared computer at either a school, or a library, or a non-profit organization. Got it. You can almost field a full baseball team. But wait:
  • "I will admit -- I said I forgot the username and password at first because I panicked and was trying to figure out what to do. I think I also said at some point at the beginning that friends/family had used my account, which was false. Both were wrong wrong and no, they were not honorable or constructive." --NYyankees51 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So no friends? No brothers? They were all you, and you just made up the friends and brothers in a panic? I see. No, actually, I don't see ... and now I have a headache. I give up on trying to understand this. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop twisting his words around. I swear some editors are more interested in making sure editors are banned then actually improve the project. Now tell me does the following look like one person or two people? I find it impossible to believe that this is one single person. The time stamps are so close together that he would have to have had two computers and be editing back and forth between the two consistantly.

From Susan B Anthony Nov 24 2009

  • (cur | prev) 19:00, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,628 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:56, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,664 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:55, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,452 bytes) (Undid revision 327709549 by 68.50.210.194 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:55, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,457 bytes) (Undid revision 327709688 by 68.50.210.194 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:55, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,460 bytes) (Undid revision 327709982 by 68.50.210.194 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:54, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,470 bytes) (→Recent news) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:53, 24 November 2009 68.50.210.194 (talk) (4,931 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:51, 24 November 2009 68.50.210.194 (talk) (4,921 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:50, 24 November 2009 68.50.210.194 (talk) (4,918 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:48, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (4,913 bytes) (→Recent news) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 00:22, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,080 bytes) (→Susan B. Anthony connection: Contains frivolous and uncited information.) (undo)

NYyankees51

  • 19:06, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Phil Hare ‎
  • 19:06, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Phil Hare ‎ (→Political career)
  • 19:05, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Phil Hare ‎
  • 19:03, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Bobby Schilling ‎ (Undid revision 327711301 by 68.50.210.194 (talk))
  • 19:03, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Bobby Schilling ‎ (Undid revision 327711429 by 68.50.210.194 (talk))
  • 19:03, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Bobby Schilling ‎
  • 19:00, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎
  • 18:58, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:68.50.210.194 ‎
  • 18:56, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎
  • 18:55, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (Undid revision 327709549 by 68.50.210.194 (talk))
  • 18:55, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (Undid revision 327709688 by 68.50.210.194 (talk))
  • 18:55, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (Undid revision 327709982 by 68.50.210.194 (talk))
  • 18:54, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (→Recent news)
  • 18:48, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (→Recent news)
  • 18:39, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:70.92.0.147 ‎
  • 00:22, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎ (→Susan B. Anthony connection: Contains frivolous and uncited information.)

IP 68.50.210.194

  • 19:02, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Bobby Schilling ‎
  • 19:01, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Bobby Schilling ‎
  • 18:53, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎
  • 18:51, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎
  • 18:50, 24 November 2009 (diff | hist) Susan B. Anthony List ‎

Bobbt Schilling

  • (cur | prev) 19:03, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (4,948 bytes) (Undid revision 327711301 by 68.50.210.194 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:03, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,113 bytes) (Undid revision 327711429 by 68.50.210.194 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:03, 24 November 2009 NYyankees51 (talk | contribs) (5,124 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:02, 24 November 2009 68.50.210.194 (talk) (5,105 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:01, 24 November 2009 68.50.210.194 (talk) (5,094 bytes) (undo)

Arzel (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"I will admit -- I said I forgot the username and password at first because I panicked and was trying to figure out what to do. I think I also said at some point at the beginning that friends/family had used my account, which was false."
Those aren't my words, and they aren't twisted. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
When you take his comments and put them into your own story you are twisting what he said. I swear I am watching a political smear. Arzel (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The only story here is his story, and I'm merely reading it. I find the twists and turns in the plot to be fascinating. You can't fault me for occasionally asking for clarification. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

I think you may just want to start taking this to ArbCom. AKA, and Xeno seem hell bent on making sure you are never allowed to edit here again, and will probably continue to try and derail any attempt you make. The declining admin does not appear to be willing to fully review your case, but he may not have reviewed my additional notes. I believe I provided above ample evidence that not all adits by IP68 were yours and provide a logical explanation for your statement that you and a friend were messing around. That coupled with the spurious SPI's against you by IP82, AKA, and Xeno and your largely good edit history over the past 9 months should be enough for you to be given a new fresh start. Good luck, I'll be mostly offline for the next few days. Arzel (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll submit my case sometime this weekend. I greatly appreciate your help. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a bit of advice, NYy51/BS24: scrap Arzel's help in trying to defend yourself as innocent of wrongdoing when you created the BS24 sock, and "only messing around with a friend" when your antics actually crossed over onto other articles and other editor's user pages. The more you try to justify wrong actions and wrong choices, the more frustrated Admins will become when dealing with this mess. It won't be any different at a BASC-ArbCom. My advice: Acknowledge the wrong-doing; apologize for the wrong-doing (without excuses); express your intent to be a productive editor; and finally, ask the admins what you can do to make this happen (and follow the advice, don't argue about it). It's not a guaranteed recipe for success, but it stands a much better chance of working than trying to convince admin after admin that your violations of policy aren't really violations. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Xeno is most likely right, and you could do better than to follow Arzel's advice. He has not substantially helped you yet, and his invective directed at other editors poorly reflect on you. (He just scolded admin JamesBWatson and thinks this will help you.) You might want to cordially repudiate his attack on editors on your behalf - past and present - and directly tell him to stop. If he doesn't, no none could fault or blame you for his ad hominem and uncivil tactics. If you don't take this step, you could seem acquiescent and possibly agreeable to them.
Other helpful moves might be to promise to not to edit any pages you have touched, and to promise to not post on any of their talk pages, or any page regarding them at all. You could also request to be blocked from these pages to demonstrate remorse and seriousness. I would also suggest removing your comments from the Honor Rally mediation, which you will not be able to be part of regardless. This would be a token gesture that would cast you in a good light - something you are in need of. Keep in mind that most of these suggestions are conditions which would apply to any clean start accounts. Beyond that you couldn't hurt yourself if you also promised to not post hostile messages on user pages, such as those that scold them for bad behavior or threaten WP:ANI and like procedures against them. Also, you might declare your intention to not tag any articles with NPOV, or similar tags. You're will also have to explain why you contradictorily declared IP68 to belong to a school or a library. If this is a lie, just say so, and tell the truth.
The ArbCom, one of whom has already touched your latest SPI as an admin, is unlikely to reverse any appeals, and will be more disposed to agree with JamesBWatson's fact findings. Because you have lost all benefit of the doubt through your mendacity, have tried blame others for your troubles, and have been a disruptive editor, your options beyond these suggestions are probably limited. Also, pretending that BS24 is a legitimate clean start, which none of the admins have bought into anyways, should go, and you would do well to clearly state without reservation that BS24 is a sock justifiably blocked, and that you did try to evade a block by starting BS24. If you argue with any admins, and make issue of any other users to deflect responsibility, you'll just get a snowball's chance, and honestly, that may be what you actually have no matter what you do from here on out. If any of this seems too much, give it some time, and make decisions after a few days, and not in an angry state. That would be fatal. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Arzel's "advice" is really dangerous (learning from a discussion with him on his talk page it even seems that he never look into the original evidence brought up in the SPI). Now multiple admins were digging into the history of the case, and they all saw the same problems. I also suggest that it's a better idea to carefully listen to (instead of accusing) the admins, and to resolve the doubts (instead of defending the actions). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lies

Since your admitted "I have lied during this last investigation", could you list those lies, or at least the one most recently made? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They are listed in my email to ArbCom. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That may be so. Why are they not listed here? Is there something to hide? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there's nothing to hide. This is in the admins' hands. I am not obligated to answer your questions, especially when you adopt such a belligerent tone. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You're talking to someone you lied to a lot. Not feeling the need to make amends? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AKA, while i understand your motivation and agree in principle with it, please do not harass the editor. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM#BASC

Just to note that they have received your request - User:Shell Kinney: "Since I was involved in the SPI, I am recused from reviewing this particular case. However, it has been received and I will remind the list that it needs an answer"  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is probably a slow moving process. I wouldn't expect to hear much until after Thanksgiving. Hang in there though. Arzel (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arzel, I did receive a response a couple days ago but no decision yet. Happy Thanksgiving to you. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

You have deleted an appeal and the admins decline statement, along with your confession to lying. Hopefully this was an error. I would suggest restoring the edit so no one could suggest that you have resorted to variants of deceptive practices like those you have already admitted to. We all wish this to be part of your past and not your future. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted them to clear up the clutter on the page. Other appeals were deleted from my page by admins. If an admin wishes to look at them, they can check the history, and I will post a message at the top of the section to that end. Regardless, this is not your business anymore. This is in ARBCOM's hands now, please stop interfering with the process. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, do you remember being warned by admin Bwilkins that "any additional harassment of User:NYyankees51 in any way, shape or form on any page on Wikipedia may result in a block from editing Wikipedia?" You promptly erased that message from your own Talk Page. Please take note that WP:OWNTALK says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." It is ironic that you would erase unfavorable information from your Talk Page in such fashion, then post an antagonizing message accusing another user of deceptive practices for erasing messages from his own Talk Page; nonetheless, you were warned previously to stop. As a good faith act of civility, please take corrective action and promptly delete your comments above from NYyankees51's Talk Page. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This advice is incorrect. Declined reviews may explictly not be removed from your talk page while you are blocked; please read the review notice. You can remove them after the block expires or is lifted. I've restored the recent removed I noticed in the history; if there are others that I missed which are specfic to this block, please restore them. I would strongly urge all parties to cease communicating here, including NYyankies51, and resolve your request with ARB through your chosen private channel. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kuru. I certainly concur with the point that appeal notices should not be removed; I only take exception with The Artist's continued attempts to interact with and harass NYyankees51. Please take note that a second administrator, Anthony Bradbury, also directed The Artist to stop harassing NYyankees51 here. Further, the Artist likes to engage in antagonism games by posting a message on a User's Talk Page, followed by immediately removing the comment. In this way, he is ensured that the User will check their own Talk Page history and receive the harassment, while other users won't notice. For example, in the last 15 minutes, he posted a comment on my page under a new header called "Gotcha" here, then promptly reverted it within 60 seconds here as a "Gloat." Minutes later, he commented on NYyankees51 again as being "sloppy" here, then promptly reverted it again within 60 seconds here. Is that acceptable behavior, or is that harassment, especially after being warned previously by two admins to stop? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)—Redacted by strikeout; Editor apologized on my talk page.— AzureCitizen (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It was my mistake for removing the appeals, I didn't read the "do not remove" at the top. The removals were made in good faith and I have no objection to restoring them. My apologies.NYyankees51 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've noted Kuru's advice, but going over what NYyankees51 has just done is relevant to his latest unblock request and his veracity in general. NY51 has insisted that a new leaf has been turned. Yet he disfigured his own talk page, despite the bold type telling him " Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked, (Something hard to miss when this exact message has been posted quiet a few times to talk pages of his and his confirmed socks.) Moreover, the redactions would be to his advantage if left to stand. The suspicious reason given is "to clear up the clutter." The "clutter" in this case is the most damning statements from himself and an admin. If the redactions were let to stand, ArbCom may not know that NY51 has at least twice admitted to lying, and also that an admin has accused and made a compelling case of NY51 perpetuating another lie. That is, unless candor has been used in the letter to ArbCom. But we do not know what was said in NY51's letter, and his record of being forthcoming before being found out is less than enviable. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

By "clutter" I meant the procedural appeals that were meant to get the attention of an admin. For some reason I falsely thought one of these had already been removed by an admin and thought I should remove the others. The first appeal was swept away with them. I didn't look at the template closely and didn't notice the "do not remove". My mistake. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You are NOT an admin, stop acting like one. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Admin? I thought his behavior was more inline with that of a troll. †TE†Talk 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The human experience.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The human experience.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

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).

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

Request reason:

ArbCom recommended that I stay off Wikipedia completely for a few months and try to work on another Wikimedia site, then make another appeal. Two months may be too soon, but since I haven't really been able to make any valuable contributions to another project I figured I'd try again. I was blocked on 4 November 2010 and have not socked since then. I attempted to write several articles on WikiNews (which were automatically deleted) and here are my handful of contributions to Simple English Wikipedia. I think all that needs to be answered about my socking has already been answered above, so I would appreciate a fresh look at my case. If the reviewing admin thinks it is too early, do you have any other recommendations for proving my willingness to contribute to Wikipedia constructively again? Many thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. If I understand the above correctly, WP:BASC has been seized of an appeal by you. As long as they have not made a decision and as long as that decision has not been made public, it would not be appropriate for an administrator acting on their own authority to unblock you, because they would risk preempting or conflicting with the subcommittee's decision. Please ask the subcommittee to make its decision public, or post it here and ask a BASC member to confirm it. Then you can made another unblock request, which must address the reason for your block in adequate detail.  Sandstein  14:25, 7 January 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.

I'll not review this request, but I will say there does not appear to be any evidence of socking from this account. TNXMan 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Might I add that if any administrator decides to unblock this account, they should necessarily request the user to change his/her promotional username. Clearly, NY Yankees purports to the New York Yankees. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly? We have tons of users who incorporate sports-teams into their usernames (User:TwinsMetsFan, who has edited for a long time, for one). His editing also does not appear to have involved the Yankees or even baseball. With all the other issues here I think username concerns are misplaced. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Procedural request as per above. BASC is terribly hard to reach; it took two weeks to get any contact from them, and my last contact from them was 21 Nov 2010 and I have yet to receive a response to both my 29 Nov 2010 and 7 Jan 2011 emails. Here is the last email from them:

"Thanks very much for providing the information I asked for. As your latest socking was recent, the Committee is very unlikely to overturn the block on appeal. Your best approach is to ask again in a few months time having in the meantime (i) involved yourself in another wiki project and (ii) completely stayed away from the English Wikipedia. If you can demonstrate a good trouble-free track record elsewhere, and shown you have the self-control to stay away from the English Wikipedia, we are likely to review the block request favourably."

Can someone contact the BASC admins through Wikipedia and ask them to confirm it? I may not be understanding correctly if they want me to re-appeal through Wikipedia or BASC, and I'm confused as to whether this was the official decision of the BASC or the advice of the individual admin, but either way, Wikipedia is the only way to reach them and I can't. Many thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This is probably because of the recent ArbCom election—I know the new arbitrators are just getting up to speed, but I'm not in the mood for red tape so I have a very simple offer to make: I will unblock you right now, but you have to agree to edit from this account and only this account, declare any undisclosed socks and consent to being checkusered regularly. Any further socking will result in an indefinite block without the ability to edit your talk page, but if you keep to the agreement and edit constructively, you have the opportunity to become an upstanding member of the community, but it will take work to gain the community's trust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I gratefully accept your offer and all the terms of it. I absolutely will work hard to gain the trust of the community. Thank you so much. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Then you and I have a deal. Please don't thin of me as some idiot admin with his ideals of assuming good faith – I've a feeling I'll get enough of that from third parties – I really would like to see you make a success of your second attempt at Wikipedia, but if you betray the trust I've put in you, I'll have no qualms about putting you back out in the cold. You're quite welcome to stop by my talk page if you need anything and please, try to keep out of trouble. Go write an article or something else constructive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Instaurare/Archive_1&oldid=1143063850"