From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 05:03, 1 April 2011 by RickTommy (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search



Look out, Rick! It's Snuffleupagus! (makes furnace noise through snuffle) f-f-f-f-f-f-f (pokes RickTommy with snuffle. RickTommy falls out of bed)



FIRST BUBS! Image:firstbubs.png



...Well, my page has been vandalised. But here's some stuff to look at:



On Wikipedia, back in 2007/08, I was a bit immature, as you can see from these following discussions. But I have matured a lot since then.

An important unblock

Could you please unblock the IP address I need that address. I use it at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talkcontribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Is there a reason you can't log into the account you've contacted me with? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I need to use that IP address at school. It's my school address, so there! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't quite answer my question. As far as I can tell, the block on that IP at the moment would allow you to log in using your account and continue to edit Wikipedia. The only thing you can't do at the moment is edit without logging in. Is there a reason why you can't log in from school? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I can, but I don't want to. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason to unblock the IP. It takes about 10 seconds to log in with an account, so it really isn't a major disability to you to do so. The IP in question has been blocked since it was being used repeatedly for vandalism, and unblocking it risks precisely the same thing happening again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why am I even supposed to log in? I can do things that only accounts can do - and I don't really wanna do those things. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This page sums it up better than I can. Among other things, you're able to start new articles and generally join the community if you log in. I note, for example, that you can't be an administrator unless you're logged in. Also, if you're logged in then you won't suffer any "collateral damage" when your school's IP is blocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We might as well just shorten the block, then. 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? Again, there's nothing to stop you registering an account, logging in and editing. Laziness is not a reason to lift or shorten a block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
But the year 12's at my school leave early. I need that block to be lifted before they leave. If they leave before the block runs out, something bad will happen to me. And now I hardly have anywhere to edit Wikipedia, because a few weeks ago, my computer broke down. 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. Firstly, "something bad will happen to me" isn't a reason to lift a ban. What precisely will happen to you if the block isn't lifted before the 12s leave? More importantly, the fact that your computer broke down doesn't matter at all. See the thing at the top right corner of the screen which says "Log in"? Click on that and you'll be able to log in from whichever computer you happen to be at. The only circumstances under which you won't be able to edit is if you aren't logged in. Given that it takes about 2 seconds to log in, I don't see why we're having such a major issue about this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All right! But it's your fault - and the fault of every other administrator on Wikipedia - if that bullet that was shot into my head and will kill me in five months does so! Besides, it's my birthday in ten days, and you shouldn't be mean to someone on their birthday! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
For the umpteenth time, why can you (or anyone else at your school) not take the two seconds required to create an account or log in with one you already have? I do it every time I come to this site and it's not an inconvenience at all. If you expect me to believe that one of the year 12s at your school shot you in a way that will kill you in five months, I don't in the slightest. I also have no intention of "being mean to someone on their birthday", but likewise neither does the fact that it's your birthday entitle you to take illegal drugs, commit murder, rob someone or break the speed limit. In much the same way, the fact that it's allegedly your birthday on a given date doesn't mean that an IP will be unblocked when that block was done entirely in a manner supported by policy. If you can come up with a single reason grounded in policy for the block to be lifted, I'll consider it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to create an account under that address! I really need the address now! Just unblock the address now and make both of us happy! 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this at least twice before. "I don't want to create an account" isn't a valid reason to unblock the address. Furthermore, you wouldn't be "creating an account under that address", you'd be "logging into an account you already have but from that address". That's the beauty of having an account - I can go halfway around the world, and as long as there's a decent internet connection, I can log in at whatever address I'm at and edit away merrily. Additionally, if you think that you're making me "unhappy" in some way, you're not. I'm prepared to keep this up as long as you are, and at the rate you're going that will be quite some time - unless you want to surprise me by reading the policies. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of one, though. Could you give me a couple of policy-related reasons for unblocking? 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (resetting indent) Per the blocking policy, we see the following. Accounts/IPs can be blocked when there is persistent vandalism. That's shown clearly in the case of the IP you want unblocked. The only circumstances under which a block should be lifted are: (1) It shouldn't have been applied in the first place or (2) In order to change the manner of the block being implemented. We can dispense with the second option, since I have no intention of changing the nature of your block and neither should I without checking with the person who blocked you in the first place. In relation to the first reason, there was a clear pattern of vandalism from that IP, and the block was entirely justified. Given that you can edit from home and also are able to log into an account whenever you wish, you don't have a leg to stand on. Additionally, bear in mind that the account you have used has been warned on a number of occasions regarding its behaviour, so I would suggest that there is not only no evidence to assume that you wouldn't vandalise, but there is also evidence to assume that you would. Any questions? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. They decided to change the day that the 12s leave, so I'm safe. That bullet has disintegrated. But I still can't wait such a long time for the address to be unblocked! Could you please unblock it now? Besides, I wasn't the only one editing with that address. Several other kids edited with that address as well! 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood. You're not going to have to "wait...a long time for the address to be unblocked." It simply won't be unblocked. There's no policy-based reason to unblock it, and I have no interest in going against the policies on this one. I'm not necessarily blaming you for the vandalism from that IP. All I'm saying is that there was vandalism from that IP, and the response to that vandalism was to block the IP. You can clearly edit from other IPs and even by registering an account, so why does it even bother you? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay! I give up! I don't even want that address anymore anyway. Let's just block it infinitely again. But I still don't think the block is fair. I was away on holiday when the guy who caused the address to be blocked did so. I wasn't there to stop that guy. 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You're still labouring under an important misapprehension. The IP was blocked because of a persistent pattern of vandalism from your entire school. It was not blocked because one guy did something and you could've stopped him (unless that one guy was truly a fiend among vandals and you had the ability to stop him from doing that). Unless you have the power to control what everyone at the school is doing on the computers, you couldn't have done much if anything. The block, as I've been explaining all year, was entirely fair and justified. Your problem is in fact with the behaviour of people at your school, rather than me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but like I said, I don't need it anymore. So let's block it infinitely now. 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Lovely. The status quo. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? 04:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See status quo. 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you mean that the address is already blocked infinitely, it's not. As I may have explained, someone removed the infinitification and shortened the block. It will end tomorrow. But I don't like that address anymore. So let's block it infinitely. 08:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This ends now

We've dealt with your request to unblock that IP. We've dealt with it several times over the course of the year, in fact. If you don't have anything more to add to it (and you don't, going by the fact that you just copy-pasted the discussion in again), then don't say anything more. I'm going to revert a simple pasting of the discussion and call it vandalism, because that's really all it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record

The address is an IP. You can want it, not want it or want it to turn cartwheels for you for all that matters. Your feelings on the matter are entirely irrelevant when considering whether the address will be blocked or unblocked. I think this is now the 7th or 8th time we've gone through this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have an answer. That answer is that your feelings on whether an IP should or should not be blocked are irrelevant. I don't know how many more times you want me to say it. If you keep adding that obnoxiously long discussion to my Talk page, it will continue being removed and you will continue to be deemed a vandal. Several months ago, I remember suggesting that you read up on how to contribute to Wikipedia more gainfully, and I'm going to repeat that suggestion now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I've tried to help you, that didn't work. I've warned you that if you continued to vandalise people's Talk pages (changing templates) and articles (removing Speedy Deletion templates) and so forth that you would be blocked, that didn't seem to stop you either. You're now blocked, as I'd indicated you would be. As I suggested last time, have a bit of a look around this website and see how everyone else contributes. That way, next year when the block expires you'll probably have some good role models to follow.

While I think of it, there've been two edits of yours I've undone which weren't vandalism. Just to clarify:

  • If someone is found guilty of the crime of murder in a court of law, they're a murderer. The only time under which that designation ceases to be the case is if they lodge an appeal and are successful in the appeal. Robert Farquharson is planning to appeal, however he has not even lodged the relevant documents at present. The idea of intent is established as part of the prosecution of the case.
  • Putting a lower (or upper) case letter in square brackets (such as "[m]ining") is a very common convention. It means that the original text had a letter in the other case, but that you aren't using that punctuation in your text. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's me

Yes, it is that guy who used Jc iindyysgvxc. Could you please tell [[User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson to stop annoying me? And I've been creating an archive that contains the discussions of that user I repeatedly asked to unblock. But he repeatedly deleted it without telling me why he doesn't want it. So could you please ask him why? And don't tell me to do it, because he'll just revert it for some reason! JcIindyysgvxc67 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In case the user - who has now been indefinitely blocked and rightly so - strolls past this page, I will explain once and for all what's been going on. The previous account referred to above has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism (essentially every kind of vandalism known to man) and other abuses of editing privileges. This later account is clearly, and the user admits here to being, a continuation of the previous account. This is naturally a violation of the indefinite block, since the purpose of a block is to prevent the person from editing, rather than just the account from doing so. The reversions by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson were perfectly legitimate, as the user contacting me shouldn't have been making any edits in the first place. This seems not to have sunk in somewhere along the line, as the user has given the impression that he does not realise that the policies and guidelines of the site apply to him, but hopefully it will do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you referring to me as the third person? Gunasshu (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Because my comments were not entirely directed to you, but rather directed to any and all users who saw this. Let me make something very clear to you, by the way: You Have Been Blocked From Editing Wikipedia. Do not, under any circumstances make any edits to it. Do not create new accounts to edit it. Do not try to edit from your old accounts. Just leave off the editing. You're welcome to read the articles, but your editing days are over. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to all users equally, and you have demonstrated no willingness at all to abide by any of them. This is why people will continue to block you and revert your edits. Do not even think about responding to this comment, as it is positively the last word on the matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand everything. I understand everything. And there's no need to speak to me like that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I don't know anything else (talkcontribs) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I could've sworn that I told you not to respond to the comment and also not to create a new account to edit Wikipedia. Once again, you are demonstrating that you simply have no idea what I mean when I say "The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to all users equally, and you have demonstrated no willingness at all to abide by any of them." This means you. Stop creating accounts to continue this conversation. I can't make it clearer than that, although I wish I could, since it doesn't seem to be getting through. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent block evading

Heya Monkey-man. You're probably a bit closer to the technical workings of this place than I am, so a question for you. A user who's been indefinitely blocked keeps creating new accounts to complain about the block. I'm blocking the new accounts as soon as I'm able, but new ones keep being created. Is there a setting I'm not clicking properly (I tick all three check-boxes when I enact the block) that allows him to do this? Failing that, is there some way of getting the higher-ups to track down his IP address and physically prevent it from accessing the site or something like that? I know it sounds extreme, but he clearly has no understanding that an indefinite block is precisely that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just give me the sock list and I'll bin his computer....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Roger that. The present tally of accounts (he's also used several IPs, do you want them too?) is as follows: "Jc iindyysgvxc", "JcIindyysgvxc67", "Gunasshu" and "I don't know anything else". Those four accounts should all come up as indefblocked if I did it right on the last two or three. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, give me the IPs. If they are static IPs and nobody else is using them, we can just lock it [in effect binning his computer]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The ones I know for sure (i.e. the ones he used to contact me without logging in) are:,,,,,,, and Hopefully there are no duplicates in that list :P. Some or all of them may resolve to a school (he initially contacted me about a block on, which is a school-linked IP), in which case I'd be happy to send an Email to the headmaster or something along those lines too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately his IPs are all over the place and can't really be stopped with a rangeblock, unless you take out a whole chunk of Australia. I'll keep an eye on your talk page though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone is after you!

Hello BigHaz. I saw vandalism on your talk page and I think someone is after you. I am still new on Wiki and I think personal ego plays a huge part here. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a case of ego, but I'd bet I know precisely who it is who was responsible. If it's who I think it is, he really should know better, after our long interactions of late. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the IP addresses are too spread out to do a rangeblock. Slocking your page is probably more effective. Blocking a single ip isn't going to be useful because it seems his IP changes every day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn. I think I'll keep my page as open as possible for the moment, since I feel that new/unregistered users have the right to ask me questions and so on, although if he keeps it up then I might change my views. So he's definitely changing IPs regularly, or is there one big change from when his school broke for the year? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on my Talk

Following on from that list of accounts and so forth before, two more names and an IP. The accounts are the creatively named "HazBig" and "SmallHaz", both of which have been indefblocked for obvious reasons. There's also the IP, which I'll lay odds is the same guy (I've blocked it, but not indefinitely, just in case). I believe these ones are coming from a home computer, so with any luck we might be able to zap him and have done with it. If you could drop me a line on my Talk page when you take care of it, that would be great. What with Christmas coming up, I might forget to check back here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP addresses are too spread out to do a rangeblock. Slocking your page is probably more effective. Blocking a single ip isn't going to be useful because it seems his IP changes every day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn. I think I'll keep my page as open as possible for the moment, since I feel that new/unregistered users have the right to ask me questions and so on, although if he keeps it up then I might change my views. So he's definitely changing IPs regularly, or is there one big change from when his school broke for the year? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's me (2nd)

Yes, it is your old friend, Jc Iindyysgvxc. I just want you to know that with the IP addresses I have used recently, I have made constructive edits. Infact, I even got two disruptive users blocked by reporting them at AIV (this one and this one). So you OK with me now? (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be OK with you, but I'm not. All the edits before this on this IP were clearly disruptive, and the statements are incorrect as to this IP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Needless to say, the IP above has been blocked, the same fate that has befallen this user on several other occasions. I sometimes wish we could contact the user's parents and explain what "good use" their child is making of their internet connection. Having moderated a site which occasionally did precisely that, I know we got results in the form of mummy and daddy physically removing the kid's computer sometimes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the indef block of an ip is unnecessary is this user keeps changing his ip - we simply end up blocking someone else later. Please could you consider something like 6 months instead? Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted a post here from sock of this fellow. Annoying isn't he. Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't know the half of it. A 6-month block is superficially a good idea, but I fear that it sends the wrong message (you can edit in 6 months) rather than the message we're trying to send (you cannot ever, never, under any circumstances, edit again). I'd be more inclined to leave the block as is and then lift it if there's collateral damage, rather than the other way around. Then again, I might be influenced by the fact that I've been dealing with this pest for nigh on a year now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On blocking

Let me make this very clear to you once again, since you seem to have trouble understanding it:

I am not now, and never will be, "OK with you". You are a disruptive influence here and you have shown precisely zero signs of reforming. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia as a result of this, and that means that you are blocked indefinitely. You're not blocked under this IP and not that one, or under that account and not this one. You as a person are blocked and you will remain so indefinitely. That doesn't mean a week or a month or a year, it means that there is a very real chance that you will never be OK to edit here again, since you have demonstrated that you don't know how to behave and that you're not interested in changing those behaviour patterns. I really don't know how better to make this clear to you other than to say it over and over again in the hope that it will sink in somehow. If this were a school, your parents would have been contacted long ago and told about your permanent disregard for the school rules, and I would expect that they would have taken serious measures by now as well. The time for this to be a fun game of "let's try to push the envelope and see how long we can evade the admins" is over. Find a new hobby, since you are not welcome here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you call what you're doing in edits like this constructive, then you haven't the faintest clue what "constructive" means. I can't even count the number of chances you were given, and you never once gave any indication of reforming. If you can't trust yourself not to carry on like this, might I suggest disconnecting your computer from the internet for a while? It might cure you of your desire to vandalise and generally act like a bull in a china shop here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


He violated the blocking policy (he blocked an IP address indefinitely, and the blocking policy clearly states that you cannot do that). He keeps telling a user that they do not understand the policies, but I think he is the one not understanding. Indefinite IP blocks are not allowed. Could you please check this out. (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) BigHaz notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinate IP blocks are discouraged, but not expressly prevented. There can be cases where such moves are justified. COuld you provide us with the specific IP address so that we all can judge for ourselves the specifics of this situation? Without any evidence to go on, we cannot decide if BigHaz did anything wrong... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:user5 Note also the comment by BigHaz in the block log. James086Talk | Email 06:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed the block to 1 year. The IP had less than 50 edits, not enough justification in my mind for a "forever" block, but in deference to BigHaz, and he seems to know more about this case than I, he is probably justified in a long-term block. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I should probably explain what's going on here. The user complaining about me has - under a series of different usernames and IP addresses (yes, I can provide all or most of these if anyone wants) - spent most of the past year wilfully misunderstanding policies and generally proving a disruptive influence. He initially contacted me asking if I could lift a block on a school-based IP which had been done for vandalism. I told him that I wouldn't (I didn't enact the ban and the vandalism was pretty blatant) and, for several months, he argued with me and claimed that I was unreasonable, despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of creating an account and using it.
  • During our long interaction, I noticed that he was vandalising a number of articles and at least one AfD. I began by reverting this vandalism and warning him about it, which did not seem to result in a change in his behaviour. Rather, he created accounts specifically to vandalise and move pages, for which I eventually blocked him for a short time. On his return, he began the same behaviours once again, including creating accounts designed to insult me. I was prepared to block him for a longer time than before (I think I gave him a 6-month or 12-month ban, can't remember), but another admin in fact extended that to an indefinite one, something I don't dispute at all.
  • The user has, since that time, continued to create accounts and use his (apparently dynamic) IP addresses either to harrass me, vandalise various places (most recently threatening to kill people at a DRV discussion) or both. The reference to my repeatedly telling him that he doesn't understand the policies is because he has shown that he does not believe that the indefinite block applies to him personally, but seems to think that if he creates an account every couple of weeks - and tells me about it, which is baffling - people will eventually give up. Again, all the relevant diffs and so forth can be provided here if need be, but I'm heading off shortly so I can't do it right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if the IP address is dynamic, then there is a decent chance that sometime in the future, another person may attempt to use it to edit. Forever is a long time... If this same IP starts the same behavior in 1 year, then it will be a quick block. Indeed, playing whack-a-mole may be pointless. It sucks, it really does, but maybe a rangeblock may be better than the whack-a-mole method. If the user is editing from a truly random set of IPs, then I am not sure that ANY blocks will end up solving this problem at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with that as a solution, as I said on my Talk page earlier today (my time). My theory was that blocking the existing IP until collateral damage came to pass was an equally valid solution, since it still sends the same unequivocal message to the long-term vandal, but a long enough finite block makes just as much sense to me. Bags I not waiting by the rabbit hole in a year if at all possible, though, since I'm sick to death of having to explain to this kid that the rules continue to apply to him and that vandalism is still vandalism, even when separated by a month or so of inactivity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Just to let you know a user started a thread at ANI about your indef. blocking some IP address. See WP:ANI#BigHaz. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of context, it won't surprise anybody that the user starting this thread is the same long-term vandal who's been making life so much fun for the majority of the year. I'd like to think that he'll accept the decision of the umpire this time, but I don't think anything short of someone pulling his computer out at the wall, giving him six of the best and no dessert for a week will stop him now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it suspicious as well, but rather than commenting on the thread itself, I chose to notify you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And a good thing you did. My comment is more for my own records later on, when I look back at this in an archive in 6 months time and wonder why the devil an IP started an ANI thread about me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Don't refer to me as a vandal. You're being given a hearing at ANI, and you're welcome to air your grievances there. Just be prepared to accept the result this time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding templates suggesting you've been blocked at this IP. I can assure you that if you want to be blocked, that can be arranged, but you are not blocked at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


After one-and-a-half years, I was eventually unblocked, and have become a productive user. But I've also been blocked on this Wiki (coincidentally, the first block was almost a year after I was unblocked on En-Wiki):

I've removed several things

Recently you have shown a particular interest in another user. The specificity and persistence of your questions have begun to cross a certain line. As such, I've deleted several things from your talk page, the user's talk page, and your signature. Please do not put them back. I would like to remind you that in general we are all uncomfortable with your constant questions, and this is a warning that your behavior is beginning to border on disruption. Please stick to editing the main namespaces. Thanks. — It's dot com 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now that you have continued pestering him on another site. This is your last warning. If you continue this inappropriate behavior you will be blocked from editing this wiki. — It's dot com 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm, he insulted me in his reply. I try to be nice, and this is what I get? An insult from the guy I'm trying to be nice to, and a block warning?! RickTommy (edits) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup. For the record, he didn't insult you. It was harsh perhaps, but that's just an indication of how far you've crossed the line. Because of your reply above I think it's pretty clear that it's time to go ahead and serve you with a block for two weeks. — It's dot com 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wits' end

We have asked you repeatedly not to police the wiki. This means telling other users what to do or how to do it. You simply do not seem to have the knack for when it is appropriate. We've asked you to play fair on the featured article selection page, not to edit others' comments, and not to swear in edit summaries. Yet, things aren't getting better. We don't seem to be getting through to you at all, even after you were blocked for two weeks for disruption. So, I'm going to block you three weeks. Furthermore, I think it would be best if you stayed away from the featured article selection for at least a month. — It's dot com 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Block explanation

You have been blocked for one month for threatening to have another user blocked (specifically this edit) when we have told you over and over not to police other users. (The block time is so lengthy because it's your third block.) Furthermore, the things you were saying to this kid were not just rude but overtly hostile. This is why we have told you not to tell other users what to do, because when you do you are especially mean in the way you go about it. Effective once your block is up, you are restricted from editing any user's talk page other than your own. (If you try to get around this restriction, you may be blocked again.)
By the way, as annoying and frustrating as it may be for a new user to flood the recent changes, there is no rule against it. It is out custom to discourage it, but that's not the same thing as a rule. Since floods bother you so much, I have enabled enhanced recent changes in your preferences, which consolidates all changes to one page into a collapsible (and ignorable) section. Obviously if it's not to your liking you can turn it back off, but I encourage you to give it a try. In your preferences you can also increase the default number of changes you see. When viewing the recent changes page, you can hide all changes in a specific namespace (like the user namespace). — It's dot com 18:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools