User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

File:5 Seconds of Summer at Oxford Art Factory in August 2012.jpg

Hi Magog the Ogre. I am puzzled as to why you tagged this image for deletion as F11, because it has an OTRS tag attached. Was this an oversight, or was there something wrong with the permission email? Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This was an oversight. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don McGregor

Hi, Magog (love the Thor reference!). There actually is a permissions-pending box on the page File:Don McGregor circa 1978.jpg, headed: "An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS," posted by User:Denniss, who replaced the NP with this OP on Sept. 26. (Don McGregor sent in an e-mail.) Not sure why there's a delete tag on it two days later. Thanks for any help clearing this up!--Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Misread the history. Fixed. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Magog. Glad to help fix this. Don McGregor sent an e-mail personally from an e-mail address with his name in it, and which is posted on his website, giving permission for the photo (which he himself supplied) to be used. What else should he do? Is there a particular statement that his e-mail has to include? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I responded to his email explaining exactly what needs to be done. The email he sent was not sufficient, as he did not provide a license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My future request moves

Lately, I think I need your opinions on my recent contributions on titling. Are you still interested in retaining your mentorship with me? If so, will you interfere with my future contributions? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I can continue to mentor you, yes. I can only promise to respond when I'm online, though. Occasionally, if I'm short on time or mental capacity (e.g., I'm tired), I may have a few contributions on Wikipedia before I respond. But I will try to be timely. Also, what do you mean by interfere with your contributions? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting up restrictions, perhaps. Or keeping an eye on my future move requests? --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I will look at your move requests every few days. I will not look at them every day, so if you get in a conflict or have a question, let me know. I usually don't like to give restrictions (I prefer suggestions), so I probably won't recommend them unless someone asks for them. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request interaction ban. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculously, I cannot remember any of the specifics about this spate of interactions between you, me, and IHTS that led me to say anything to any of you. I remember saying them, but not why I said them. I must have been under a huge amount of stress (and thus distracted), or I blocked it out from my memory. As such, I cannot be of much help in that thread. Please accept my apology. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was just being thorough; you know how ANI (rightfully) hates it when someone who might want to comment isn't notified.
I don't know how much it will help, but here is an anti-stress kitten for you: --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An Anti-Stress Kitten for you!

Purrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I like it. If only I had a real kitty. I think I have to get myself one of those. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:St Edmunds School Canterbury.jpg

Could you please look at file licensing information from this image and add it to File:St Edmunds School Canterbury2.jpg at Commons which lacks this info due to curruption upon upload? --Denniss (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:WRQK-FM logo.png

Just so you know, I'm the user who who transferred this file to the Commons. I only did so, however, after it was tagged as being eligible for transfer by Sfan00 IMG.[1] Before that, LGA changed the license to PD-text.[2] Levdr1lp / talk 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A ogre-sized brownie for you!

Think this means you get the whole pan. :) Thanks for your help with the photo! After doing so many PD photos, it just wasn't clear what more information could be needed in this case and didn't want to argue over it. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

File transfer Commons to enwiki

Aloha! Could you do me a favor and restore File:The_Mikado.jpg here? We had to delete it on Commons. I'll add the description and transfer notes if you like. Could you leave me a note on my Commons-Talkpage? Thanks a bunch! :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

International release

Hi. Can international premieres for English speaking countries be added to episode lists? I just think that readers in the UK, Canada, etc. should have premiere dates for their country.Mouseinphilly (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Phineas and Ferb episodes Mouseinphilly (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd do best to post your question at Talk:List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. You must have made a mistaken when you asked me; I don't have anything to do with that article. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for helping me with the files that I transferred from WP to Commons! I haven't used the tools in a while, so I appreciate your efforts to ensure that everything is processed correctly. Edge3 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you for the waffles, or you're welcome, or whatever it is I should say. Well, here it is. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Who are you?

[3] - You best start explaining yourself. Sepsis II (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a neutral administrator who occasionally polices the 3RR board. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain your edit as it makes no sense. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You were previously warned by an administrator that you need to stop it with the revert warring and poor behavior. Rather, you just got out of being blocked for a 1RR violation on a mere technicality (no one reviewed the situation for a while), and you've continued to throw around insults (calling someone's edits snobbish, labeling the same person a troll). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I was reported for 1RR by one of NoCal's socks after reverting his socks which may be done without limit. The closing admin did realize I was "warring" with a drawer of banned socks and protected the page.I did not call someone's edits snobbish, the "information" itself was snobbish, I really should be blocked under BLP though right, that blogger might be mad I called his work snobbish. CSI was beinging a troll; he just copy and pasted the warning from his page to mine. Please revert your actions. Sepsis II (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've undone editing restriction. However, I am keeping the civility restriction in place. Please be conscious of the way you phrase things. I do not know which part of the world you come from (or if it matters), but throwing around the labels the way you have been doing has the ability to severely inflame the situation rather than deescalate. Please don't go saying things like truth not allowed here, or the number of personal attacks present in this edit. And no, it is not acceptable to go revering something with such harsh language as "irrelevant, misleading/false, snobbish" and then not even bother to try to discuss the issue with the editor who you reverted. I realize you probably see yourself as just calling things like they are, but one man's "straight talk" is another man's "insult." Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the no truth allowed here edit summary, well, when dealing with people who try to delete Paletine's existence - with the edit summary "Edited the article to contain only truthful information." I either get mad and stressed, or I can laugh it off. These days I laugh it off, though as you can see from that year old tirade you pulled up, I USE TO get mad. I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard. Sepsis II (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi Magog, as an admin who's knowledgeable about non-free content, would you be willing to help out here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up and closing this, Magog. Could you also post a note on Werieth's talk page, giving him the gist of our collective comments (we all seem to agree pretty well overall) and the warning, so that we're sure? It's probably best for it to come from you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for closing this, Magog, and thanks for your input too, Writ Keeper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI#File:Cardenio.jpg opposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I need your help by involving in the case that I'm partially involved in. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that File:Cardenio.jpg is no longer eligible for speedy deletion, perhaps should re-adding the image in The History of Cardenio be all right? It's been ten days or so, yet I don't know if the administrator will block me for re-adding it after the warring mess. --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that an administrator declined the speedy deletion, I think it's OK for you to put the image back in the article. However, it looks you may want to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is the one that originally threatened to block you. I do not agree with his conclusions or methods (and I let him know that by private email about this case... in fact I wrote a bit too forcefully in the email, and I feel a little bad about it). All I can say is that if an administrator blocks your account for reinserting the image, I will definitely defend your action (and point out that I said it was OK), and try to get the block overturned. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I did ask; he told me to "stop beating a dead horse" and that re-adding it is pointless once it's deleted. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it... why do you want to insert it again? If anybody at the deletion discussion wants to know how the article looked with the image, you can always just point them to the old version of the page. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone is computer literate; I met some people who aren't. How would many (if not all) people care about or be aware of history logs? George Ho (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You could post a note at the top of the discussion which says this This image is no longer in use. To see the original as it was originally in use, click here." (with a link for here). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Stiarts erid

Your indeffed User:Stiarts erid yesterday for his persistent edit-warring and personal attacks. Anyway, he has apparently re-registered as User:The one they called sir and re-installed some of his wording at George of the Jungle 2. The article isn't exactly Wikipedia's pride and joy, but it may be worth semi-protecting the article until he modifies his conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes you stopped me from editing unfairly as you didn't bother to hear what I had to say. However, I am re instating myself to prove that my edits aren't bad regardless of what some editors think. I have reworded George of the jungle 2, and there is nothing wrong with adding a contribution that is well meant is there? Also the previous version was incorrect Lyle doesn't send his henchwomen to the jungle as soon as it says and they appear again to capture George and Ape, which it completely leaves out. Pages get edited for a reason. Also it starts a sentence with anyway which is very weak english, I know mine isn't brilliant but that is bad. If someone could acknowledge this that would be a start but I'm not holding my breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The one they called sir (talk • contribs) 09:45, 25 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Block evading user is blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

a question

Hello Magog the Ogre

Remember me from the Commons? Well, I'm having a slight trouble here which maybe you can help with.

For some reason under Toolbox on the left margin of a user's page (including mine and yours) the link "User contributions" (A list of contributions of this user) has disappeared. I've asked around, including on chat, and no one has a clue. I don't want to be "forum shopping" so I don't want to ask on any other forums.

And also, I have a new link there under Toolbox called "Message names" (Display current page with MediaWiki names replacing their test). I don't know what this link is conveying but it seems useless to me.

Can I get it back the way it was? On the Commons nothing has changed. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a screenshot of what you're seeing and upload it to tinypic? That way I can see the problem you're having. Instructions for taking a screenshot are here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a devil of a time uploading it. Does this do it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contribution_links_missing.png

Clicking this link does it for me! Thanks! Soranoch (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:VPT. There's probably something silly I'm missing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Success at WP:VPT! From John Cline: It looks probable that you have chosen the preference under gadgets/appearance which says "Add page and user options to drop-down menus on the toolbar." And that was it. So now all fixed. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:OSU Parker Stadium.png

Could you take a look at this? A user uploaded it as non-free. Another user tagged it as replaceable fair use, but you changed it to PD due to lack of renewal. The uploader later added a tag which tells that the file doesn't violate WP:NFCC#1 because there are no freely licensed replacements, implying that this image isn't free. I can't find any renewal for the magazine and it isn't listed at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html so I would assume that your original assessment is correct, but the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag is confusing.. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Update

Hello, I was wondering if there was anyway that you could update your company footprint map for Dick's Sporting Goods. Since your initial map in 2010, the company has grown exponentially, and is currently located in now 44 states. We would love to see the concentration of stores now, and your help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.150.81 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that Dicks has opted for the type of site where they display a map, but do not list all of their stores by state anymore. This makes it considerably more difficult, and I'm afraid I'll have to pass. I may decide to write to their marketing department and ask if they could just provide me a list of sites. Is there a way I should inform you if i'm successful?

Another possibility: can you tell me if this site is accurate? I'm afraid I don't usually trust third party sites. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The site is accurate, and includes all 44 states Dick's is currently located in. If you do proceed with an update, or successful at all, I will continue to check here. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.68.150.81 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. This is now Y Done. Most of the new branches appear to be west of the Mississippi River, and in the South. The dots moved a little bit sometimes due to the peculiar way that the program handles areas with more than one branch. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.246.60.4 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please update photo on Wikipedia page, "Patrick Reynolds (Activist)" - Also, please add one or more photos to Commons from these two urls

• Patrick Reynolds (activist)
• File:Patrick Reynolds portrait.jpg

Hello Magog the Ogre, This is Patrick Reynolds (Activist). I'm a tobacco-free advocate, and just noticed on my Wikipedia page that my photo there is pretty dated. I also saw that you verified the license and permissions for that photo, and added it to Commons. Wonderful, and thank you!

I'm requesting that you change my photo to another more current photo from our website. The url where we post photos for journalists to use are www.Tobaccofree.org/photos -- Also, at www.Tobaccofree.org/book/ there there are photos of my RJ Reynolds tobacco family members.

The only pic not in public domain is the one of my father, RJ Reynolds Jr, aged and sick with emphysema from smoking the Camels and Winstons that made him wealthy and powerful. In that pic he has a male nurse and a tall oxygen bottle at his side. Corbis only gave me permission to post the photo at our site in low resolution, but did donate use of it to my Foundation.

If you can also add some of these photos to Commons (except the Corbis one), that would be very helpful.

If you need to call or email Michael Helms, the photographer who shot my portrait pics, to verify that his photos are indeed in public domain, I will add his info below. I'll also include the photographer who took the excellent photo of me speaking on stage in a spotlight. All the others are by Michael Helms; he took the portrait studio shots.

Many thanks for this, and all the best to you. What you do is much appreciated out here!

Please feel free to call me or email, if you wish to -- I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on the phone or by email. Unfortunately I am not Wiki-capable and can not do this myself.

Many thanks!

Thanks,

2Patrick2 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Patrick. Sorry for taking a bit to respond. Which of the photographs on the page is the one that you want for your profile picture? The best photographs seem to me to be the ones from 2009, but they are a bit old, and unlike the other images, they don't have a permissions note by them.

Also, can you tell me if the contract with Michael Helms included a clause wherein the copyright was transferred to you? If so, then I will not need to contact him. If not, then I will contact him for further verification.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution problem

Could you help solve the problem at the article (JHunterJ has completely given up, just stating that me and Greyshark09 should discuss, which is not happening... sadly)... It would be nice to have another admins input in the conflict, who can actually solve it. So could you help? --TIAYN (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Which steps of WP:DR have you taken so far? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually talking to the guy, Greyshark, but he does not wish to discuss the subject.. Trying to get JHunterJ to get more involved, but he keeps on repeating the same old mantra, all edits will be removed if not me and Greyshark agree.. But how can I agree with him when he is not responding? Its a black circle here, and no one is coming up with a solution.. --TIAYN (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So the answer is, "I tried talking to him but it failed." You should notice there are many steps other than that one at WP:DR; try them. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie. The user TIYAN is a disruptive editor and he tried to bully you to sanction others' protective actions against his monstrous disruptive edits on 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution, Corrective Revolution, Corrective Movement (Yemen) and Single-party state.GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is no problem with the article discussed - it has been protected from TIYAN's edits per my request to JHunterJ [4], because TIYAN had tried to delete the article without any discussion multiple times [5],[6] or merge it [7][8]. TIYAN even engaged in edit-warring with administrator JHunterJ [9], and disrupted his talk page [10].GreyShark (dibra) 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: I would like your feedback here, from your working experience with TIYAN, specifically regarding those incidents [11],[12],[13]; because TIYAN is trying to picture me a "bad guy", while he is your "friend". I'm protecting Corrective Movement (Syria) from repeating deletion attempts by TIYAN; that's it.GreyShark (dibra) 15:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Greyshark, I don't particularly care who's painting who as the bad guy. People write notes on my talk page which give half truths or mistruths all the time. Just let it go: it's not like I'm taking any corrective action over it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You have blocked me without any violation of wikipedia rules. It takes a very radical situation to block someone for edit-warring without 3RR violation. What you have done, is in contrary to WP:PUNITIVE policy - "Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them". Also, per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.", If you don't understand the problem in your actions, this is highly regrettable.GreyShark (dibra) 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's regrettable and a misunderstanding of policy is that you seem to think that WP:3RR is an entitlement to edit war up to three times per day, which it clearly states that it's not. This is not the first time you've been warned for the exact same problem,[14][15] so I'm clearly not the only one who's told you.

I've been working the AN3 noticeboard for three years now, so I am quite familiar with how to perform edit warring blocks according to policy. Your opinion of what constitutes a "punitive" block appears to be so broad that it would exclude 90% of edit warring blocks and completely neuter administrators of any ability to enforce edit warring norms. But that's not how it works: the block might not prevent more edit warring in this situation, but it will certainly make you think twice before doing it again next time. If you disagree and believe the community should tell me I've done wrong, by all means I invite you to open a discussion at WP:ANI and ask for their opinion. Please do not bother to continue arguing this with me unless you are willing to do so. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Stiarts erid

Thanks for blocking the user, because I have had enough of him causing an edit wars and his insults. Right now, he is pleading and saying he's sorry on his talk page. I can't make your decision, but I have to tell you that he promised that he won't insulting people or causing edit wars again after being warned before, yet he broke him promises. Please check his history before you decides to unblock him. He even calls me an illiterate. He even added " Im called neo bat freak and I can't spell and y" within one of my past messages on his talk page to him to make me look bad!!!! Perhaps you should also take away his talk page privileges as well.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hope this is big enough for an ogre! Thanks again for your help with my question :) We hope (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks like none of the original series was copyrighted, whether it was done at Desilu or Paramount. Not a thing at UPenn for any of it. So it appears that if one gets hold of photos that can be definitely dated during the time it first aired, they're in the public domain. We hope (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And you're welcome. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

File:87-1265714548Otmq.jpg

I added the invalid license because of the statement he added stating that if it was used it'd have to be linked back to that certain page. That didn't seem exactly like public domain to me.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's classic {{Attribution}}. Even CC licenses allow that kind of requirement. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, my bad then.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh

I don't think it is independent from Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh Snyder. Shall I propose deletion without necessary discussion? --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. If there is any, try merging any duplicate material first. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
Message added 11:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

SMS ^Talk 11:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg

This whole affair is getting out of control. I tagged File:BRafamily.PNG for deletion, and then Aussie adds that image back.... Long story. Go to my talk page, and I'll explain later if you want me to. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

BD2412's recent conduct

Recently, he converted The Fast and the Furious to the set index; same with A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation), which was convert from redirect for the set index to the dabpage again. Shall I report him on WP:ANI? --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, George. Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with article-space procedures. Do you think you could ask one of your other mentors? User:Dr.K. looks like a good candidate. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Vindictive actions?

Well, you are some nasty piece of work! After first harassing me over a picture of mine that I uploaded on the basis it would violate rights (it didn't), when I then requested the withdrawal of my *own* other pictures, you labelled my deletion requests "in bad faith" even though I have the explicit right: "then you have the right to list it at Commons:Deletion requests". Prior to this nonsense, I had 529 files pics aside for uploading, so I'm rather glad this scandalous affair emerged so soon, otherwise this Mafia that is so pleased with itself would have conned me out of a lot more material, but it beggars belief that requesting deletion of my own material would result in it being labelled an act of "bad faith". It is beyond every decency. It's also interesting to note that even though they ended up deleting one of my pics, these self-appointed and self-serving "guardians" were idiotic enough to leave an empty reference in one of the articles I had used my own (!) picture. Let's see if the court agrees that I cannot revoke my own pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuidoGY (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You cannot revoke the granted license ... it pretty watertight, as anyone who reads English would know ES&L 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP scolding me for "canvassing"

He did warn me about canvassing. For US V. Microsoft, well... yes I was notifying those who supported because I want to balance (or overweight) the discussion. But for Sega v. Accolade, I did propose full name, but that resulted "no consensus". Actually, I did ask whether to give the title an exception, and Greg said no exceptions. Greg saw my re-proposal on Microsoft as disruptive, so he created another proposal on Sega. Then I notified opposers, but I was supposed to notify supporters also before they came back. Was I canvassing/votestacking on Sega? --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your explanation of what occurred. I feel like there are some missing steps that I need in order to understand properly. However, as a rule of thumb, you should always inform equally both sides of a discussion. If you only inform one side, especially the side that agrees with you, it is certainly canvassing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Here: User talk:George Ho, User talk:GregJackP, WT:manual of Style/Legal, Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp., and Talk:Sega v. Accolade. It's a long story. --George Ho (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You straightforward asked him why he is disparaging you, and he told you to "figure it out." After you informed him that you can't figure it out, he refused to answer, so I say let him hang. I'm really starting to get annoyed at the way users try to play politics and the woe-is-me games with you, to be honest.

I realize it might not be comfortable, George, but you might consider displaying a prominent message near the top of your userpage which states that you have a learning problem, that you have a mentor, and that you might not understand the nuances of a conversation. That way if users respond poorly to you, they have absolutely no excuse at all (the one they currently have is poor). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How can I say that I don't tolerate conversations that I don't understand, like nuances? George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You could write "I have a learning disability which leaves me unable to understand a lot of social interactions, so please have patience with me." Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

One of disabilities is not qualified as learning disability. I'm not dyslexic or something. Somehow, people confuse "learning" with psychological disability, whose page doesn't exist yet. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My bad; I didn't know the difference. FYI, on a similar note, my father's professional has always been psychologist, which is quite different from psychiatrist, but the average person confuses them. Also, I think the relevant link is probably mental disorder. Anyway, you might consider putting that on your userpage if it doesn't offend you and you're not shy about it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mental disorder" is too general. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Luis Bunuel article -- images

Hi. I'm having a bit of a problem and would like to ask for advice. Over the past year, I've been slowly trying to upgrade the article on filmmaker Luis Bunuel. This has involved quite a lot of writing and also trying to find appropriate and interesting images. Some of these images were copyrighted, but I requested and received permission from the copyright holder to use them. An email was sent to WP verifying that. (I had a cc, but that was over a year ago, so I've deleted it from my personal email by now.) At the time, I also completed fair-use rationales for these images.

Today, several of these were summarily deleted from the Bunuel article by editor Werieth, with no discussion on the talk page and only a bare note in the diff that "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC". I contacted this editor on his talk page and we've had a pretty lengthy conversation, which has now concluded with his telling me to file a WP:NFCR on each of the images. Here's our discussion -- User talk:Werieth#Bunuel_images

It looks like my experience isn't unique. There was a recent controversy about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:SlimVirgin_.28Result:_warned.29 I'm not clear as to the outcome. Isn't it best procedure to discuss this kind of thing on the article's talk page before one editor takes peremptory action requiring other editors to go to a lot of time and effort to respond?

I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian of all time, and I really don't have much interest in going to war over this. But I do want the Bunuel article to be the best it can be. So I'd appreciate any guidance as to the best way to proceed. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI. This dispute is now the subject of an NFCR -- Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_37#Luis Buñuel. Thanks for your guidance and support. Jburlinson (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need to ask for your advice and assistance again. The discussion at NFCR as been summarily closed by a non-administrator who claims that a "consensus" has been reached. As a result, I've been informed that the images are now orphaned and will be deleted within 7 days. The NFCR discussion is at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#Luis Buñuel. I've contacted the editor who closed the discussion and he told me to contact an administrator if I had any problems. So that's what I'm doing now. Here are the issues as I see them:

1. Despite @ТимофейЛееСуда:'s contention, no consensus has been reached on these images. How can a "consensus" be reached when only 2 or three people have even participated in the discussion? In particular, the discussion of one of the images consisted only of a simple allegation by one editor (Werieth) with a response by another (myself). How can this exchange result in a "consensus"?
2. WP:NAC states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." It's clear that there is a controversy about the merits of these images. The controversy is expressed in the discussion that has been peremptorily closed. The outcome of this controversy is not "clearly unambiguous". Therefore, it was inappropriate for this discussion to be closed by a non-administrator.
3. The NFCR covered six separate images. They were all lumped together into one cluster and the closure didn't even pretend to consider the images based on their individual merits, even though there was separate discussion for five of the six images. This implies that there was little to no evaluation of the discussions involved, simply an action by a non-administrator based on a foregone conclusion that all the images were of equivalent status and therefore equally doomed.
4. During the period that the discussion was open, the images had already been removed from the article. This is contrary to proper procedure, as you pointed out to editor Werieth at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:SlimVirgin_.28Result:_warned.29. As a consequence, any editor who saw the banner about the NFCR at the head of the Luis Bunuel article would have no idea of the impact or value of the images involved, since they had been deleted from their appropriate context. Such an editor/reader would have had to go back to a previous revision of the article in order to see the images in place in order to form a judgment concerning their appropriateness.
5. I have repeatedly tried to get a straight answer from editor Werieth concerning the exact meaning of the phrase "critical commentary". This has been used as the reason why these images have been deleted -- that they lack "critical commentary" in some way. The term apparently lacks a clear definition anywhere in WP policy or guideline. As a result, it is interpreted in a highly subjective fashion. Apparently, a couple of editors who agree on the meaning of "critical commentary" are now in the position to impose their interpretation on everyone else, even though they are not able to give a clear explanation of what they think the phrase means. At a minimum, there needs to be much more clarity on the meaning of this phrase if it is to be used as a magic wand to zap WP content willy-nilly.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Also, please let me know if there's a more appropriate route for me to take in dealing with this problem. Jburlinson (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jburlinson:: Sorry for the long time I took in responding to your question. I honestly really hate discussions which revolve around the extremely fine points of NFCC. Sometimes an issue is clear to me, but in other occasions, it is not clear to me. So I cannot say whether @ТимофейЛееСуда:'s closure was appropriate. In all honesty, I recommend taking the problem to WP:ANI, and asking for advice there. Whenever you take an issue to ANI, it has the (astronomically high) potential to peeve off other people in the discussion, so you might want to make clear from the outset that you are doing so because you don't know how else to contest a closure, but that you have no ill will to ТимофейЛееСуда or @Werieth:. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The same information was listed at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Non-admin_closure_of_NFCR, including discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre -- Thanks for your response. I understand your reluctance to get involved in this mess. It's clear to me now that by challenging the action of some folks who are bound and determined to strip images from WP articles, I've stumbled into a hornets' nest. I certainly don't want to drag other people in with me. Jburlinson (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only half that I don't want to get involved (that is part of it; my attention span is shorter than I'd like it to be); the other half is that I'm not 100% competent to get involved, because I don't know the right answer. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Scolded by newbie ParacusForward?

Did I do wrong by biting the newcomer who was trying to help? Can I say an apology to him? --George Ho (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have bitten him, but only a little bit. I think you should have been more graceful when pointing out his flaws, as should have been several other experienced editors at that thread. When confronting new (and experienced) editors, it's important to remember that they don't know the processes as well as we do, so they will make mistakes. Perhaps in the future you could leave a note on the newcomer's talk page advising that there's a different way to do things. Make sure it is a polite note.

Rather than only apologizing, you could mix an apology with a statement that you're glad to welcome him to Wikipedia and glad that he's around. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Was my welcome template good enough at User talk:ParacusForward? George Ho (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was personally hoping for something a bit more personal than just a template, but I suppose it will do. You can't put toothpaste back in the container, no point worrying about it anymore unless the user indicates that s/he is still upset about it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at WP:VPT.
Message added 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Just a quick note to let you know why I reverted one of your changes to a template as WP:AGF. Please feel free to ping me and let's see if we can figure out an alternative way without adding so many characters (274 might not seem like a lot, but they add up with a multip-use-on-the-same-page scenario). Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

deleted file

Hi, I need you to upload the old versions of this file to commons because they were lost. Thanks! --McZusatz (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Need to see a man about a train :)

I've never been faced with using a negative for a PD photo before and am wondering if this is OK:

• eBay
• negative
• copy

The Star-Tribune used this on October 13, 1940 and a check of copyright renewals shows they didn't renew anything for 1940. When you "print" it, it turns into a super photo of the Kansas City Rocket, which went between there and Minneapolis. :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You should be good. Converting an image to a negative and back doesn't show enough creativity to garner separate copyright. Thus if the print is out of copyright, then the original is too. Of course, standard disclaimer. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I try staying away from them because most offered (celebrities, etc.) don't have any way of dating them and other knotty issues re: who owns the rights. Thanks once again!! We hope (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you for the upload. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

All Aboard! :) We hope (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking an Unblock, Can You Assist?

Hi Magog the Ogre, I am wrongly blocked for socking and hoping you will examine my case and consider unblocking. I come to you semi-randomly: I decided to ask an administrator with username beginning "M" and went to the active list. I picked you because I figure someone who identifies with ogres would have an independent view and be unintimidated by hierarchy. I have asked other administrators, one at a time and each with unique text. Some say "too complicated," some say "I don't want to get involved." Etc. The most recent person I asked is Oleg Alexandrov a week ago, but he doesn't seem to have logged on since 30 October.

I'll try not to type a novel here. It's either a super-simple case or a super complex one, depending on what you consider the salient point(s) to be. I cleanstarted early in 2012. It was for privacy reasons. I stated this forthrightly in my very first edit in my new account. I stated I would not return to my original account. I have never had any other accounts, except one I may've created accidentally, intending it to be a WikiMEDIA account to upload a couple pictures, and I never "edited" with that. I was no-warn/no-explanation/no-diffs permanently blocked by Timotheus Canens in May 2012. He clicked a Twinkle button that generated an hyperlink to WP:SOCK and has never said a word to me. This had the effect of making me look suspicious to the suspicious-minded all around. He was a "sock puppet investigator" so everybody figured he relied on "secret evidence." The kind some admins, like Dennis Brown, swear by but cannot reveal because they say it would give the socks too much advantage.

Anyhow I responded somewhat poorly, a bit angrily I'll admit, because I took the socking accusation as an imputation of dishonesty. I was further aggravated that the charge came without any explanation or warning. At that point, last May, several administrative participants that are regulars at the WP:AN/ANI drama board landed on my talkpage, each with his own theory and criticism. I didn't know whom I should respond to, who was administrator and who not, why all these people are all of a sudden going at me. Before I knew it, my appeal was denied (he said I must never question the motive or competence of my blocker, though I'm not sure I really did) and my talkpage was locked to me.

What next? I didn't want to use WP:UTRS computer-fingerprinting tool, because of online privacy concerns, including who gets access to the fingerprint. I appealed to Arbcom. I never heard from anybody except Silktork, who signed his emails "for Arbcom." Silktork said I must hand over my prior account to Arbcom. I said WP:CLEANSTART says specifically I *don't* have to do that, what about my privacy concerns, plus how does handing over my previous account prove I didn't sock? No answer really except "denied." This gets way too long, but I did end up appealing to Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, with whom I exchanged emails. He said, the first to do so, that he'd offer me confidentiality if I told him my previous account. He said he'd treat my appeal favorably if I told him. So I finally did. Jimbo has reviewed my prior account and is aware that it was exactly as I always said, unwarned, unblocked, unsanctioned, in good standing, and the original author of several decent Wikipedia articles. He then said, to my complete astonishment, that no he would not unblock me, but now I must further tell the Arbcom list my previous account!

So I think it is all unfair, and certainly the "sock" charge is false. If I showed "attitude" along the way, it is because I don't like being accused. What else should you know? In my current account, I at least originally authored one article Rain City Superhero Movement that was twice directly linked by Slate and I think other news media. Let no-one say "he is not here to build the encyclopedia." If you're willing to consider unblocking you can ask me anything you like at my talkpage, but you will have to unblock me there. It is less controversial to unblock me at my talkpage I think, just say "I am considering his appeal and I have some questions." Now, the hierarchical thinking part. If that is what you are guided by, and I've found that admins tend to be, you probably won't help me, because you'll say "Arbcom and Jimbo didn't, so I better not, and I don't need to know anymore." But if you think more individually or in terms of policy [16] you can still approach the question anyway, with a "tell me more." The fact is that Arbcom and Jimbo appeal declinations are not the same as affirmative Arbcom and Jimbo blocks. If it helps more on that question, one of the arbs (can't remember which) told me "we have no monopoly on block appeals." And that is also what policy says. In closing, sorry to type so much on your talkpage. I edited for years and it is kind of important to me. I am IP editing ("block evasion") signing my user name because I feel I have no other way to appeal. I have to type my user name funny, because of technical reasons. Thank you for reading (assuming you made it through all this, haha!).

C . C
o . o
l . s
t . m
o . i
n . c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.38.33 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk)

Yeah I'll take a look into it. I warn you, you may or may not like my answer. I will be a bit but I'll take a look. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Allow me to briefly defend myself if you see an edit of mine or a statement of another that turns you against me!! I will not be offended (and certainly not hurt) if you turn me down with a reasoned explanation. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, in case you didn't see the history, I attempted to remove CC's original post twice, and was reverted as the user kept changing IPs. Note that if you are unaware, the user has been engaging in the same behavior on numerous noticeboards, Jimbo's talk page, etc. There's a discussion on my talk page, User: Qwyrxian#I CAN'T Make a Standard Block Appeal w/o Talkpage Access, evidencing some very fundamental misunderstandings on the behalf of CC about his or her "rights" to be here, and some sort of implied right to "fair" treatment. Yes, fair treatment is all and good, but so far the community has spoken against this user's continued editing. My only recommendation here is that the user not be unblocked without a discussion at WP:AN, though I think that a talk page opening to at least keep the discussion in a single place would not be unreasonable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian. If a banned or blocked editor edits only to request an unblock, i do not have a problem with it, as long as it's not disruptive. Jimbo seems to have a similar philosophy, and I have found him to be a very fair individual. I am aware that cross-posting and trying multiple administrators is stacking the deck, but again, I'm not worried about it. If the editor is correct that he or she has been the victim of a case of poor management, I will gladly bring the issue up in the proper venue and ask for the community to reconsider. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Both, I am happy to be able to explain my actions (often they are reverted w/o regard to content). Am I "stacking the deck" by contacting another administrator (as I did Magog) after getting turned down for example with "too complicated" (exact quote) and "I don't want to get involved" (exact quote, different administrator)? To me it is WP:AN/ANI that is the deck-stacking forum. You get hauled there, rightly or quite wrongly, twenty block-loving administrators sniff it, nineteen passing it by, and then the lowest common denominator uses his or her block button. WP:AN/ANI deals deuces from the bottom of the deck. Magog, if you are set on a community venue other than opening it up for discussion at my talkpage, consider an RFC/U [17] over WP:AN. Wherever it goes, if it does, I would like the ability to defend myself.

Qwyrxian, I said nothing about any "right" or "right to edit Wikipedia" at your talkpage. Yes, I said I hadn't received fair treatment, but I should've worded it differently because now you give me the "life is not fair" treatment. It's one thing for you to tell me Wikipedia doesn't have to treat me fairly, and another for you to patrol others' talkpages and actively wipe out my constructive or at least civil comments, thus you yourself personally making it even more unfair. I disagree that "the community has spoken against" my continued editing, however I grant that Arbcom and Jimbo have *declined to lift* my block.

Magog, is Jimbo "very fair" as you say? I once thought that too. I will of course not share details my emails with him, but the generalities I told you above are 100% accurate. He sent me I think four emails, I sent him about five, and then about another five over a month-long period silence and of the "have you had a chance to think about" and "it has been ten days and I thought I might remind you" variety. I will present you with the lemons as well as the lemonade of my case: he publicly faulted me for "ranting." True, I sometimes speak passionately. He did not allege it rose to "disruption." As to Arbcom... they never really settled on any "appeal denied" rationale. Well, is "you must hand over your prior account" a rationale? No. It's a demand. I communicated sporadically with a few individual arbs. At least one arb supported my appeal, but another told me there was "overwhelming consensus" to deny it.

Okay, I don't want to risk throwing a wall of text at you. I reiterate I'm ready to answer your questions, and defend against any concerns or allegations about my conduct. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Magog, reality is: Colton was blocked for socking, but banned for his ridiculous actions afterwards. The original block would have been forgivable - indeed, the 6 month WP:OFFER period would have expired by now. But no, Colton could not drop the fucking stick. He became disruptive. Indeed, he had an e-mail exchange with Jimbo and Jimbo told him to go away after reviewing the "evidence" and behaviour. Don't give in to the dark side. Colton has been advised many times to stop the bullshit, step away for 6 months, and try again ... instead, he keeps both digging his own grave and putting nails in his own coffin. Don't be sucked in ES&L 22:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Magog, ES&L is a sock (try finding an authorized category of alternate account for it at the policy page) of administrator Bwilkins who I first got to know before almost any of this when he parachuted in from WP:AN/ANI to threaten to block me at my talkpage. It caused me some genuine consternation at the time: I had edited for years and was new to the "block block block" administrative personalities at those drama boards, of which he is an hyperactive specimen. I was losing my years-long hobby and didn't understand how it could be happening like it was. He is a belligerent type. I asked him to stay off my talkpage no less than four times, yet when I am discussed, he is always there, like he is here. What he says above is mostly meaningless: "won't drop fucking stick," "digs own grave," "puts nails in own coffin," "won't stop bullshit." Am I supposed to respond "I didn't pick up any stick in the first place," "no I don't," "No I'm not," and "I'm not bullshitting?" Let me know if you give that stuff any credence. I really don't want to respond to this guy at all, he follows me around, is front and foremost with masses of this profane and inflammatory criticism every single time and every single place I seek an unblock, and I guess there are those that listen to him, so I have to.

What else does he say up there? Jimbo declined to unblock me, he didn't tell me to "go away." (On the other hand Jimbo *did* sort of tell Bwilkins that[18].) I'm not banned, I'm blocked. He's liable to make some interpretative argument that my block "amounts" to a ban, but let him go ahead and make it before I go to the trouble of refuting it. The six-month standard offer thing is just an essay, not a policy, it's an "acknowledge your violation and pledge to improve" model that doesn't fit me because I didn't sock. How shall I repent of sins I did not commit? Nobody ever promised me that it'd be honored anyway, it was always more demands (as in Bwilkins' case for example, he happened to be the first if you go back and look) that I hand over my prior account. I had and have every reason to believe the answer if I actually tried standard offer essay that the answer would be "no," for one reason or other. Magog, I am sorry I drew Bwilkins' character of conversation to your talkpage, I find it mainly substance-free and object to his casual profanity because it just inflames and degrades things. I feel like I have to answer though. CC.

PS: let me get his "disruptive" comment too. Honestly, someone catapults in dropping f-bombs and s-bombs, says I represent the "dark side" like in Star Wars, where you and Qwyrxian and I were formerly having a calm and pretty much respectful conversation, and I'm supposed to be the disruptive one? WP:DISRUPT is a guideline. It is accurate that it refers to actions over a long period, and I have been trying to get unblocked over a long period. If you want me to defend against WP:DISRUPT then we can go that route, but I am still blocked for WP:SOCK as far as I know, which is policy, and that's the accusation I'd like to dispose of once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.227.65.0 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Never wise to start by being unable to read the part of alternative accounts that show that I am permitted to edit from an account that does NOT have admin rights attached to it, and go off on a tirade trashing me for following the rules. If you had an actual defense, it sure wouldn't have started with trying to trash what you perceive to be your "opponent". Plus, considering that I'm the only person on this project that has tried to actually GUIDE you wisely in this matter, it's again, not a wise idea to come out on the offensive. ES&L 10:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you accept a voluntary mutual interaction ban? I know, silly question. My comments regarding you above are civil, maybe even polite given what I'm responding to. I countered your statements about Jimbo and "banned not blocked" and "disruptive" and standard offer. I don't think I "trashed" you, and it was far from a "tirade." If there's a trashing tirade, it's you barging in here with profanity, heavy on the bolding and caps, charged and disagreeable metaphors about me "digging my own grave" etc. and labeling me as on "the dark side."

"Legitimate Uses"[19] at WP:SOCK lists the allowed uses alternative accounts. Whatever your use of "ES&L" is, Bwilkins, it's not on there. Further you're not open about it. ES&L chats with and snipes at the same users and in the same places, but the only way they (or I for example) would know it's you is by going over ES&L's user page with a magnifying glass and methodically clicking each hyperlink, or by tracking the drama enough to see where you've previously been called out on it. Objectively, I don't think you've ever "guided me wisely." (In fact what wise person actually goes around describing himself or herself as "wise?") Objectively, I find you routinely belligerent, uncivil, and insulting, you actually told an editor once to "rot in the hell that is eternal block." Subjectively, I'll grant that you actually believe the things you say about yourself, that you see yourself as a benevolent altruist, your "I'll block you" threats as those of merely a dispassionate and no-nonsense admin, and the repetitive profanity and "rot in hell" remarks as merely a bit of rough language to get your points across. You see yourself that way, but I think very few others do. Wise or not, I feel all your criticism about me has contributed significantly to my blocking woes, almost since day #1, and that I therefore have to respond to your charges. Part of that has to be, at least briefly, filling people in on who you are. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.227.65.0 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Magog, any progress? It has been several days. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.68.71 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. I am awake and in my house (i.e., able to devote time to Wikimedia) for a terribly short number of hours during the work week. I plan to take a look this weekend. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken about an hour tonight to review everything and form an opinion. I think your request has some merit, although your ban has merit as well. Here is what I have observed:

• The constant sockpuppetry in order to request unblock has done you no favors. I don't have a problem with this, but many others in the community clearly do. To use a metaphor: this is a lot like exercising what you believe to be the right to free speech by telling the judge that his wife looks ugly and you think he is an idiot. Perhaps you should have a right to do this - it is debatable - but why try to exercise that right when it could come back to bite you?
• I am worried about the fact that you seem to be attracted to WP:DRAMA. If I were to support an unblock request, I would want to get some kind of assurance from you that you would primarily edit to contribute to Wikipedia rather than try to tweak its policies and criticize adminship.
• People have pointed to the fact that you have wasted a lot of community effort in your unblock requests. This is true; but I think a good deal of that could have been avoided simply by letting you edit in the first place. While we shouldn't get hung up on sunk costs, we definitely should take into account the good versus the bad that you can contribute to Wikipedia.
• I am also somewhat worried about the fact that you don't really seem to be able to abide by community rules.

Given all this, I would be willing to support an unblock under the following conditions:

• You refrain from editing English Wikipedia in any form whatsoever for the next 6 months (I would personally support 3, but I seriously doubt I could get the community to support less than 6). This means no socking for any reason whatsoever, and it means your talk page will remain locked. It's going to bite, but you can fulfill any urge you have to work on content by working on another project such as Commons, Simple English, Wiktionary, etc. This would be a good demonstration of the fact that you know how to stay out of the community's hair and follow its precepts when it is in everyone's best interest, even when it is difficult and seems unfair.
• After unblock, your primary focus will be to improve content, rather than raise a ruckus regarding what you think is poor policy or poor performance by administrators. This would absolutely not be up for debate; in order to contribute more good to Wikipedia than bad, we cannot have you creating drama. I am of the opinion that a neutral administrator should be given the extraordinary power to enforce this by means of a block, and that this person's decision should be final, not open to more discussion which would give you the ability to create more drama by appealing it and opening more threads at the noticeboards. Perhaps we could have a second administrator to whom you could appeal, but only one more administrator.

Given all of this, I am not entirely sure I can convince the community to accept the terms, but I think I can try. Also, a caveat:

• Even if you were to be unblocked, I find it entirely likely that your personality type will betray you and somehow get you reblocked. However, I also find it entirely likely that you might be able to learn to edit peacefully. I have worked with disruptive editors in the past, but in this case I don't have a good gut-level feel for your future behavior.

Would you accept this proposition? I am going to tell you right now that you aren't likely to ever get a better deal, so I highly suggest you do. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you Magog, for taking an hour to look over things. You didn't owe me anything, but you checked me out at my request, when few others are so inclined. I notice that you offer to "support" my unblock after six months, not to unblock me yourself. Combined with your comment re: "convince the community" it seems you disagree with me that an individual administrator is given the authority to unblock (WP:UNBLOCK). Okay.

You are wrong about me in a couple ways.

• You are wrong that I ever "socked" Wikipedia. Sock means alternate identities used for deception. Every edit I've ever made has been clearly me. You can correctly say I "block evade." This happens to matter to me because I view "sock" as a slur on my honesty (I know you don't mean it that way, a lot of my accusers do). I block evade to seek unblock because I feel I have no choice, as I explained above.
• You are wrong that I am some drama maniac. In the years before I cleanstarted, I didn't even know what AN/ANI and Arbcom were. I have *never* been into that stuff. You may be forming this opinion by what occurred *after* my block, but that was never me as an editor. Nihonjoe unblocked me, and I only said then that I would try to live up to his faith in me. I couldn't have been more non-drama. Then AN/ANI grabbed it. You can't say I "wasted community effort" when they do it themselves.

I edited without incident (well, without block or warn, we surely had article text disagreements now and then, that we worked through) for more than five years. I can't blame you for not knowing that about me, because that was prior the cleanstart. The cleanstart was for privacy/harassment reasons. Some people weren't smart enough back then to pick a privacy-protecting username like Magog the Ogre.

The reason I don't like your proposal is because I've already been blocked for 18 months for something I did not do. You seem to see things not in terms of that, but in terms of a thumbs-up/thumbs-down judgment of me as an editor without particular regard to policy specifics. I don't think WP:AN/ANI or any administrator should have the right to do thumbs-up/thumbs-down judgments of an editor without policy specifics and evidence. It is prone to incredible abuse. You ask, like Bwilkins (well, he *demands* it repetitively), that I "go away for six months." I say I didn't do what I'm blocked for and I have been punished enough.

• Would you consider instead opening an RFC/U right away? Post notification at my talkpage and open it. My hope is that it avoids AN/ANI drama that way, and gets the views of a broader sampling of editors.
• Would you unblock my talkpage right away? I think you will notice if you check that I have never block evaded until my talkpage access was cut off. Even Qwyrxian said he or she'd go along with that.
• Would you open an AN/ANI discussion on the basis "Colton Cosmic asks for block review based on new evidence?" right away? The new evidence is that Jimbo reviewed my prior account and found it block, warn, and sanction-free. I don't think AN/ANI are good for crowd handling this sort of stuff, but they are what Wikipedia offers at this time.

In any or all of the above I promise to behave within policy. If you unblock me temporarily for purposes of answering questions and defending my self, I promise that I will only do that, that I won't complain when you reblock, and that I won't make you look like an idiot (except of course to those who find you an idiot for helping me at all). I see above where you see the "six-month break" as the best way forward, but it doesn't offer me any guarantee at all, I don't like being blocked, and I have a lot to contribute in the next six months. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.8.228 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: You say above that you'd rather see me creating content and staying away from policy and staying "out of administrators' hair." What this experience has taught me is that there are real problems with policy, and I feel the most valuable thing I could offer the encyclopedia is to improve policy. I could offer you at least a commitment to try not to criticize individual admins harshly. For a long time I have acknowledged my failings at WP:CIV. I pledge to reread it and try even more to do better at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.8.228 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Colton you say that you have evaded your block for the purpose of asking for a review of the block. That is not the only thing you have done while block evading. Some of the other things you have done while block evading include:

• Discussing changes to policy
• Discussing changes to policy again
• Changing policy
• Requesting unblock of another editor
• Requesting unblock of another different editor
• Discussing block of another editor
• commenting on an ARBCOM election candidate
• Commenting at ANI about another editor
• trying to implement a new policy

You claim to have never used sockpuppets but according to the sockpuppet policy everytime you post here you are using a sockpuppet. You have taken a very narrow definition of sockpuppet. The first sentence of the policy gives the definition of a sockpuppet, "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry." (emphasis mine) So what is an improper purpose?. The next sentence defines what improper purpose includes. It includes your narrow definition of "deception" but it also includes "avoid sanctions." Everytime you post from an IP you are avoiding sanctions because you as a person are currently blocked so each IP is a sockpuppet of yours according to policy. GB fan 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Gb_fan, it is cool to see those. I don't really bookmark that stuff, I just go by memory. My revision to WP:CLEANSTART would make it much user-friendlier to probably the couple or three editors who attempt cleanstart each day. I didn't write all of the WP:OPTOUT proposal, not at all, but I am most proud of it because it would potentially spare many BLP subjects anguish at their vindictive entries. The unblock requests for the two others were because I found them to have been abusively blocked. I did not really mean to "comment on an Arbcom candidate," I was trying to explain a viewpoint about honesty to whomever it was there. I don't try to hide any of these, but I can't very well cover every edit I've made when I seek an unblock.

Everybody knows what a sockpuppet is. Sockpuppet includes element of deception. In the plain language English meaning that is not my narrow definition, that is the universal definition. It is accurate what you say about the policy, but policy cannot change the English (or any other) language. Someone, probably someone who likes to block, stuck the phrase "and improper" in there. "Improper" is an essentially limitless expansion of "socking" concept. An admin says "this is improper" but what is improper about it? If it is improper because of edit-warring or improper because of a civility breach or improper because of COI, then just call it edit-warring or civility breach or COI. Everybody knows that socking includes the element of deception. Policy can't change the English language. The majority by far of those that have called me sock mean it as deceptive and mean it as insult.

Gb_fan, you are obviously familiar with my case, so I broaden my request of Magog to you. Please open an RFC/U on me, unblock my talkpage for further discussion, and/or raise my case at WP:AN/ANI on the basis of new evidence (Jimbo reviewed my prior account, found no blocks, sanctions, or warnings). You don't even have to support me, just bring it up. I'll owe you one. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.8.228 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Colton, I'm sorry, but I cannot further support any unblock request at this time. Your response to my offer above has raised significant doubts for me that you would contribute more good to Wikipedia than bad. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Magog, well, no offense taken of course, and my "thank you for looking" stands, but I feel you apply the wrong standard in the comment above. You are supposed to appraise the evidence, and whether the block was proper, not make some god-like judgment about whether I'm more bad than good. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.64.26 (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Colton, I have spent some more time looking at everything I can find about your case. At this point I will not take any actions to assist you. This is because I would need to see something similar to what Magog outlined above and as you have stated you are not willing to do that there is no reason to continue. On the chance that you would like my help in the future there are two non-negotiable things you must do. One, do not edit this Wikipedia for a minimum of six months. That means no more block evasion socking here during that time. Two, edit at a different Wikipedia such as Simple Wikipedia. If you do those two things for six months, contact me again at my email, gb DOT fan DOT wikipedia AT gmail DOT com and we can discuss how to proceed. Like I said, if you want my help, these two things are non-negotiable. GB fan 13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gb_fan, I could break for six months but it would be the same AN/ANI less-lovable regulars shooting down any unblock, except laughing twice as hard. Since you have thoroughly examined my case (thanks) I'd be interested to know which of my actions you feel warranted my permanent block. I can defend my specific actions, provide a context that you may have missed (i.e. Nomoskedasticity had bullied Youreallycan for two years and that is why I spoke sharply), or certainly I can express regret for them, as in fact I have on the civility question several times. My position is that the original no-warn/no-diffs/no-explanation block is so clearly abusive on its face that it should be overturned. Yes, I responded angrily to it because I viewed it as a slur on my honesty (which it is), but everything after that has been shrouded in "secret evidence" mystery (Silktork) and wrapped in suspicions (Silktork and Mastcell) about these heinous sanctioned users they specifically allege I am (but I'm not). And now Jimbo knows my former account, which like half my critics insisted I disclose, it ain't them.

I have no intention of "go away for six months," it's an unwarranted demand given the absence of any substance to the block, and is an insult to my work of several years without incident on the project, in which I originally authored several articles and substantially contributed to many more. You want me to submit to a contemptuous and contemptible non-policy Twinkle button-click block by Timotheus Canens and weep "I did wrong, forgive me please?" Without disrespect: forget it. Now, you say you won't "help" me if not for that, but you could still unblock me at the talkpage to at least advance the conversation, or on the basis of WP:ROPE. That's not really "helping" me, at least you might view it that way. You could opine critically there. In the past I have not block-evaded while my talkpage was available to me. If that is still out of the question, I thank you none the less for going over my case, and wish you happy holidays. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.64.26 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no evidence that you are or aren't a sock of someone else. I have plenty of evidence that you have evaded your block since you were blocked and I don't see any reason to go through all of it. That evidence shows, whether you agree or not, that you violated the sock puppetry policy of English Wikipedia. Based on the evidence I can predict with almost certainty the outcome of any RFC/U or AN discussion that took place right now, you would remain blocked. Either one would also make it that much harder for you to ever to be unblocked.

I have never and will never ask you to ask for forgiveness. I understand that you feel this has been entirely unfair but I can not fix that. I am trying to give you a path to possibly be unblocked. The way you are currently going no one will back you up at all and will become more entrenched in their opinion that you should not be here. As for your talk page, I see nothing good that will come of me giving you talk page access. My offer stands, I will try to help you, Happy Holidays to you also and good luck. GB fan 17:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)