User talk:Yorkshirian/Archive 01

This user has been banned for a period of a year due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended to indefinite for creating multiple sockpuppet accounts. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Message @ Jza

I'm looking to bargain a truce, apologise and be unblocked, starting a fresh for 2009. As an admin and the main person I have come into conflict with you can solve if you are willing. As it currently stands, I have the ability to create numerous and endless quantaties of accounts on Wikipedia, outside the "wikilaw" and engage in tit-for-tat guerilla warfare. However I wish instead to return as a legitimate content only contributor. I have suggestions, that you unblock me on trial under the following terms;

• That I use only one account — this is adventageous from your perspective, because as the situation is currently you are always looking for "Yorkshirians next sock" and many times you are banning people who are not actually me. Since my range is so large and dynamic, it cannot be blocked. If I was back under my Yorkshirian account editing legitimately, within the rules and policies, then you could see everything that I am doing, period.

• That I accept you as a mentors — this may make it easier to solve conflict and also it is better for the project as a whole (and arguably its purpose) if we are objective collaborators working towards a common goal (the improvement of information on this website), rather than combatants.

• I have reformed for the reason from which I was blocked — at the RfA I was blocked for "attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines". In regards to this I am proud of Yorkshire culture, but no longer hold and have grown out WP:FRINGE stances, such as wanting it to be an "independent country", as I previously used to. Should the block be lifted I would have no intentions to engage in such "ideological warfare". I also now realise it is incorrect to use former government administrative areas as primary, where modern ones should be used as primary and would accept to contribute with this in mind.

In light of my willingness to abandon the behaviour for which I was blocked and the fact that blocks are "not to punish users" but rather to Encourage understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated and Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I feel it should be lifted and I be allowed to legitimately return. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking, right? You've spent the last six months distrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. What was it you said last week? Oh that's right, I'm a "Scoto-Lancastrian nazi", but you've reformed. Right. You think that's acceptable behaviour? And what about the hundreds of sock puppets? It all speaks for itself Yorkie. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A helping hand, you were banned rather than blocked. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not joking. I am honestly willing to reform and have already done so in regards to the reason I was at Arbitration, in regards to cultural ideological warfare. The reason our dispute began was over historic-vs-current government usage in regards to counties, that I now accept that I was wrong and am willing to contribute in a manner which reflects this is surely reform. As well as the fact that I previously wanted Yorkshire to be an indepedendent country but no longer hold such stances.

Again I apologise for any past attacks I have issued under the heat of the moment or other such violations. However, I feel a trial under the above terms is reasonable and is the only way I can prove my words. Say a month trial and then after that there is a review to see if I have stood to my word or not, if I have not stuck to my word, then should be rebanned permanently and would agree never to come back under any guise. It is surely an improvement on the current situation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let me sleep on this. Although, I have to say from the outset that I alone cannot overturn the ban; there is a formal process to go through AFAICT. That might be something you want to read up on. I'd also like to consult some other users about this. You have been through several tiers of negotiation, fairly, but have continued to be something of a plague to WP. The bans (the one year and indefinate one) were your own doing, not mine (I didn't sanction them). It's not really me you need to apologise to (I'm indifferent), its the hundred or so editors who've spent many a man-hour to investigate and clear up mess created by you (not just on counties, but in many a topic), whilst forcing User:MRSC off WP is something I don't think I can grant pardon for. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, I find your words to be hollow, and while I would like to believe your claims, I do not see any evidence of change. Aside from insulting Jza84, Yorkshirian has not abandoned POV pushing, recently vandalising many Greater Manchester categories. For someone who claims to have reformed this is odd behaviour. You have the potential to be a very productive, but since you come here with veiled threats, I don't think wikipedia is the right environment for you. Nev1 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While banned I have no means in which to prove my sincerity, since the only concrete way which it could be evidence is by editing unbanned and showing. At the moment all I can do is voice my honest intentions to edit in a reformed manner, in following with the findings of the RfA and put forward an apology for making past attacks. If I went back on my word (which I do not plan to), it would be simple to just reban me, so this shows my willingness and the sincerity of what I am saying here. I certainly have no intentions to go on some sort of vandalism rampage should it be lifted, keeping my head down and getting on with productive editing within the guidelines (including WP:PLACE) in a non disruptive manner is what I wish to do. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What changed your mind? Nev1 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About the counties issue? I noticed that in the libraries, just about every book published after the 1970s makes reference in the title, for example to "West Yorkshire" instead of the "West Riding of Yorkshire". And since these are academic books, the content of them cannot be regarded as "derogatory" in intention. It also makes sense to use as primary the ones currently used in an administrative sense, even if some people have a cultural affilitation to the historical ones. Since the point of Wikipedia is simply to report in an objective manner "what is" in the eyes of the law ie - the administration and government, rather than "what we would have otherwise prefered it to be". - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What topics would you edit, and which would you agree are untouchable? (topic banned?). I can think of a myriad articles that I don't believe you should edit in any way shape or form. Keep in mind also, you were effectively banned by arbcom. Arbcom can overturn that, not your talkpage discussion or any editor herein. Keeper | 76 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Church, sport, general European history, towns, cuisine is what I'd want to work on, I presume I would be topic banned from things such as CountyWatch, Association of British Counties, Yorkshire Ridings Society, Saddleworth White Rose Society area, which was the main cause of conflict. - 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Break

My thoughts on this matter:

1. It was Arbcom that banned Yorkshirian; so it should be Arbcom that makes any decision about this.
2. It is generally not viewed as being a good idea to reward people in anticipation of good behaviour on their part when they have been behaving badly, even if they promise to be good; rewards generally have the best effect when they happen after good behaviour has been demonstrated. This is a fundamental and widely accepted view amongst all experts in behaviour.
3. Since Yorkshirian has been banned, there is an admission of bad behaviour very recently, which consists in editing wikipedia despite being banned. So until recently he has indulged in bad behaviour.
4. If any rehabilitation were to be considered, I would have thought that a period where Yorkshirian completely avoided any editing of wikipedia would be required. That is the extent to which he could demonstrate "good behaviour" by abiding by ArbCom decisions to require him not to edit wikipedia.
5. The previous requirement would seem to meet the behavioural principles of only rewarding demonstrated good behaviour in cases of persistent bad behaviour, and never rewarding merely anticipated good behaviour.
6. In my opinion, the more Yorkshirian has failed to abide by ArbCom restrictions placed upon him, the less willing ArbCom should be in tolerating a merely brief period of total abstinence on his/her part from wikipedia before any rehabilitation could be considered at all.

That's how I see it.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Point is dd, blocks are not meant to "punish" people as such but rather to make them want to edit in a manner which is within the policies and guidelines. Which I have put forward that I'm willing to do, have apologised and admited where I was wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I, and I guess others, just don't believe you. This is especially the case since words are easy, and you have lied before. Do not try to get up to your old tricks in this instance by wikilawyering about whether something could be viewed as prevention or punishment. In the light of your past behaviour, we would be taking preventative action by refusing to reinstate you at this point. That, quite simply, is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.  DDStretch  (talk)

There is wikilawyering and then there is making a legitimate apologly and openly stating that I have reformed on the issue for which I was blocked by ArbCom and admitting where I was wrong. What I have made is the latter. As I said above, If I went back on my word under a trial, then I could very easily be reblocked and that would undoubtedly be the no way back, end of the issue. However, I actually do want to return legitimately and contribute within the guidelines, so there would be no point in going back on my word. - 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, Yorkshirian has evaded his ban with sockpuppets as recently as 17 hours ago. It's not that he creates one account to evade his ban – he creates multiple! Just go through my last 500 blocks and search for Yorkshirian. I don't know if I can trust Yorkshirian to stay on one account in the future. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it was as brief as that, though I knew it was as many as that. In that case, I would think that any reinstatement or even any possibility of future reinstatement was out of the question for a long time, if at all. And if more determined means of enforcing the ban could be implemented, then they should be. Given that he/she has essentially stated that they will continue if they are not allowed back, I think it may be worthwhile escalating this matter upwards to see if any more serious remedy can be enforced or applied for...  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This must be a joke. Anyone see the contribs and deleted contribs of Fair Deal Denny (talk · contribs)? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Most regrettable yes. Might this plea by Yorkshirian be an attempt to stop being spotted and blocked? Yorkshirian states above that he thinks we're always looking out for Yorkshirian's next sock, when really they just kinda stand out on watchlists and are easy to spot. I would've been much more inclined to lift the ban (partially or whatever) had he sat through the 12 months, or even 6 months with no sockpuppetry. User:Daddy Kindsoul is at WP:LTA, and Yorkshirian is probably a candidate now given the latest round of puppets. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64, the only purpose of making them is to evade for content contribution. Many times I have done so, quietly contributing good work and then it gets mass reverted and a guerilla war begins. It is impossible to range block me due to the fact that my range covers millions of people, so I know it is possible to just create many throw aways and abandon them before they even get blocked (which in the end they do). However, if under just this account I would have no purpose to even have multiple accounts, since the only reason, if left alone, that I want to be unblocked here is to get on with article writing within the rules & guidelines. I'd be willing to have a checkuser every week or so to show there are no socks being used, or since you have CU abilities you could do it every couple of days. Since I have openly apologised & reformed for the reason that I was blocked by ArbCom in the first place, agreeing not to "use Wikipedia as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines", it makes little sense for me not to be given a trial chance this way under the terms above. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But your "guerilla war" includes threats of violence. If you'd guessed anything more than one of the various states I used to live in - along with 15,000,000 other people - I'd be calling the authorities. But now you want to gloss over that and get unbanned? Really?! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are "threats of violence" anywhere in the diff? don't you think such a claim is a bit facetious. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"please fire away"? What other meaning does that have next to someone's purported place of residence? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you feel this was unfair, please fire away." - From Encarta - to begin doing something, especially asking questions. In the context of next to an email. Don't you think its a slightly ridiculous suggestion that anybody would make "threats of violence" in connection to a user blanking work (even hours of work) on a website? Really? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And the town in Florida? Were you expecting people to "ask questions" in person? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of tit-for-tat, based on the ethic of reciprocity. I had never previously had any conflict with you at all, yet over a course of months, you have gone well out your way to remove hours and hours of contributions, which undoubtedly improved the quality of articles and were doing no harm to anyone. In fact they were making Wikipedia better. As I say, I'm a content contributor, I have even made GA, that is the only reason I come to Wikipedia and the only reason I wish to be unblocked, so I can get back to that legitimately, editing within the guidelines. However everybody has a threshold, when pushed to the extent which you have pushed me over months (which from my perspective, borders on narcissism), you can only expect to draw out a reaction eventually. If I was allowed to go back to editing legitimately, now I have apologised and made a pledge that I reform the things for which I was blocked, then such things wouldn't be an issue at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't well out of my way at all. I only found you because of some report at AIV or RFCU or wherever. I wasn't even sure why you were banned, but it's pretty clear now! The fact that you react to simple admin patrolling with thinly-veiled physical threats should make it pretty clear to anyone that you are not fit to be unbanned... Still, I'm not heartless. I'll make a deal with you: If you can stay sock-free for the next two months, I'll personally go back and restore all of the content of yours that I reverted. Leave a message here to remind me. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Process?

What is the actual process which I have to go through to request arbitration overturn it? A couple of admins have said its Arb who it ultimetly comes down to but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration or Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee doesn't seem to make mention of the formal process? Could somebody point me in the right direction please. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that similar requests for variations on rulings are posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests. I'm not sure about anything else. I wouldn't build your hopes up, and you may need a neutral third party to do the requesting.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DDStretch. Get a third party to represent you to arbcom is the best idea, perhaps talk with someone interested in helping you and discuss it with them first before appealing, to iron out all the possibilities and options. The arbcom would most likely want you to wait a while without any editing, possibly months, to show you can be trusted before they'd consider it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or email the arbitrators. I don't think they are going to think much of the idea, though. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• • You don't stand a chance at the moment. My advice is that if you mean what you say then simply sit out the rest of the arbcom ban without socking. When that is over come back to the community and ask for the indefinite to be lifted. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

OK so a couple of months ago I emailed Arb about having it overturned and Roger Davies suggested that I stop socking on Wikipedia for a couple of months first and work on another project. Since that message I have upheld that and have not edited Wikipedia in that time with sock accounts. During this time I have made a few thousand edits on Commons putting into the correct category place British town, village and people images, clearing up a huge backlog. I have also uploaded around 300 free images. Also on there I have spoken to the user with whom I once disputed, which had led to the Arbitration case in the first place (Jza84) and we have now put the past behind us, and agreed to collaborate together on some common articles to make amends. I am very willing to comply with this.[1]

During this break, in my notepad, I have work on improving vastly some articles for Wikipedia. I would like to request that I now be unblocked, so I could get back into constructive editing as part of Wikipedia community. I have now shown that I wasn't joking above by complying with what was requested, showing that I have reformed (cease editing with socks on Wikipedia and do some work on another project). Thanks Yorkshirian (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your ArbCom ban per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian#Yorkshirian banned remains in effect until July 14, 2009. Only ArbCom may remove that ban. Address any appeals to them, please.  Sandstein  14:29, 8 March 2009 (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 have a thought. Yorkshirian, are you willing to identify all the sockpuppet accounts you have created to date, including sleepers you haven't used yet? If you do that, it will provide evidence that you're serious about wanting to contribute and that you aren't just playing games with us. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There were hundreds, but they're all blocked and most are tagged as such. Most of the created sock accounts it was just a throw away thing. Like I would make an account, edit an article and then just log out and never use it again so it would be harder to be caught. Like Der bards (talk · contribs) for example. Most of these were simply blocked by Nishkid64, Nev1 or other people. I don't have any ones sleeping. I'm fine with having a checkuser done to prove that I've stopped socking completely and there are no other accounts sleeping. If unblocked I'd also be willing to have a checkuser done every week or so show I'm using only this. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk)

Edit - wait a second, I just saw some which had not been blocked. When, I made some "Zap __" accounts last October, there is Zap 03 (talk · contribs) and Zap 07 (talk · contribs). Its unused though and I don't have the password to get in. The others, this was just blocked at the time like Zap.00 (talk · contribs) for example. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I would mention this to the arbitration committee when you appeal to them. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sheffield FC badge.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Sheffield FC badge.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1 year ban is over today

Hi, how long will it be on hold for? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Until I comment. Hang on a minute. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I can tell you have kept to your word and not created any new socks. I'm going to unblock you. Welcome back! Theresa Knott | token threats 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I can finally get back to being a Wikiaddict now. :P - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So I trust I won't be seeing anymore I-know-where-you-live style messages? Wknight94 ^talk 02:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Christianity, WP:BRD

I don't care how great you think your image is. That image was agreed to after a long debate, and you need consensus to change it, per WP:BRD, not edit war. I see a ban ended for you just three days ago and you do not seem to like using article talk pages. I am sure you do not what to get in bad habits again.

Please revert your edit. Add back in your non-image edits separately if you like (idealy not all at once) and then use Template talk:Christianity if you still want to tell us how great the non-"Puritianical" image is. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Renewal Center

Please discuss on article talk page per WP:BRD. Ty 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have removed material 3 times. Per WP:3RR another reversion is liable to result in your being blocked. Two editors disagree with you. You need to get consensus to remove this material, before you do so again. Ty 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not unblock you so that you can start revert warring! Consider this your one and only warning, any more of this nonsense and I will reinstate the indefinite block. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. It really made my day. Thanks again!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Font on your userpage

I just thought I would let you know in case you weren't aware that the font you use on your userpage is barely legible using either Mozilla or Opera as your browser with IE it can be read best BigDunc 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey

Hi, I think the same, the article of a cancelled season is absolutly pointless, just like you said it, and is a good idea to move it. I hope you can do it. The only thing is, if the creator of the article doesn't agree, but if you move it, I support the change.Kyosukekun (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Flags and whatnot

Hello, Yorkshirian. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scotland during the Roman Empire Page move

Please be aware of WP:MOVE prior to undertaking page moves that might be considered controversial. Thanks, Ben MacDui 08:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resistance movement

Why did you redirect Resistance movement to Resistance during World War II? You wrote,

• seems to have been long consensus on talk that this should have post-WWII paramilitary movements, merge.

But I don't see that discussion and I'm nost sure how that makes sense anyway.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - that makes more sense.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Lordship of Ireland and arms/flag of Thomond

Yorkshirian, as already discussed, the treshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". Without a verifiable source, claims about a flag/arms of Thomond or a flag of the Lordship of Ireland cannot remain in the encyclopedia.

I appreciate that you have supplied what you believe to be a source for the claim regarding a flag for the Lordship of Ireland. Unfortunately that source does not mention a flag for the Lordship. Maybe I've missed it - could you supply the relevant quote? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics of England

Hi, please discuss on the talk page before blanking significant sections of the article. Fences&Windows 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. Follow WP:BRD - you boldly deleted, I reverted, then we discuss it. Fences&Windows 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here: Talk:Politics of England#Status of... sections. I acknowledge your concerns with these sections, but I'm not sure that blanking is the best outcome. There is an issue of Cornish independence, though the section needs sourcing better and reducing, and the Berwick issue is also a valid one, though the section needs reducing, probably by cutting out quotes. I must confess to never having heard of an Isle of Wight independence movement, so I'd bet that gets consensus to axe, but we should look for sources first. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE don't advocate removing fringe or minority views entirely, but they do need to be well-sourced, and they do need to avoid expanding unnecessarily. p.s. "Cruft" isn't a very constructive term, for two reasons: this isn't really fancruft, and cruft is pretty perjorative, so very likely to get hackles raised sharpish. I'm not offended, but best not to use it on the talk page of the article, as this nationalism marlarky invariably gets blood pressures rising high enough as it is. p.p.s. In retrospect, I should have discussed why I was going to revert on your talk page before I did. Apologies. Fences&Windows 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. I restored your formatting to the references, as it was a welcome change. Fences&Windows 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You were not unblocked to edit war. Final warning, stop it or be indeffed again. Viridae^Talk 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)