User talk:HangingCurve

• Discussions prior to 2007: see /Archive 1
• Discussions from January-September 2007: see /Archive 2
• Discussions from October 2007-February 28, 2008: see /Archive 3
• Discussions from February 28, 2008-April 2008: see /Archive 4
• Discussions from April 2008-July 7, 2008: see /Archive 5
• Discussions from July 8, 2008-October 8, 2008: see /Archive 6
• Discussions from October 9, 2008-December 13, 2008: see /Archive 7
• Discussions from December 14, 2008-March 30, 2009: see /Archive 8
• Discussions from April 3, 2009-October 5, 2009: see /Archive 9
• Discussions from October 6, 2009-March 8, 2010: see /Archive 10

I've left a comment at User_talk:LaRouxEMP#Comment_from_blocking_admin. I find it hard to believe you're seriously considering unblocking that editor. Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should let the editor speak for themself before rushing in. I haven't seen the editor discuss anything about the oral sex comment other than "I decided to troll back " nor have I seen any indication this editor will constructively collaborate with other editors.

I've only seen the editor trying to explain how calling someone a nitwit wasn't that big a deal. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As the blocking admin in this case I thought I'd ask your opinion. You mentioned in your blocking summary that the user made use of socks, and given that his edits were to Talk:Red Dwarf, I think he is still using several other accounts there. Most of the edits to that page in the last few months have been similar unconstructive ones by accounts with no edits to other pages, User:Nosegays McToothen being only one among many. As he still seems to be active, is there a case for blocking these? Miremare 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all admns on wikipedia and wikimedia commons:

As you all know by now, On January 28 I been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted permission to use those images that were deleted. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. I've also had herd some false clams that the permission wasn't genuine. It was sent by Stanley J. Anderson amelia.m@frontier.com) the actual copyright holder.

As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. However I should not have added to it, it was inexplicable behavior on my part. I am more mild mannered than that.

The socking incidents were also inexplicable behavior on my part. I shouldn't have done it all

I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users, and other users have been biting me. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get allong just fine. I apologize for everything that I did and you'll have my word that it will never ever happen again

Sincerly

Jeffrey Todd Schoolcraft

11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboy I have new evidence that the reasons for my block on en wikipredia are falseified Bmpowell deseved you and your fellow admins when he cried copyright vio. This statement supports this:

I personally own all photographs in question. They are all in my collection and either owned by me or given to me by friends and relative. None of them have ever been Copyrighted. -Stanley J. Anderson

Any questions 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At Ban Johnson's insistence ...

Hi. Do you know, or can you recall anything about, your source for Ban Johnson's role in firing Jack O'Connor? --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the anonymous IP O-Parts Hunter vandal (75.144.160.241, 76.118.115.224) has not desisted in adding intentional hoaxes into each of the related articles (including Bones), in spite of repeated warnings, blocks and page protections. This has gone for far too long; I would recommend a permanent block and/or semi-protection, since it doesn't seem as if he'll stop anytime soon. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the vandal has used a unblocked IP (which has nonetheless been warned many times) to plant the hoax into the article. Perhaps it's time the article and related ones were indefinitely semi-protected and this IP banned as well? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I've unblocked User:ArneBab. I doubt it'll have much of an effect on anything, as he has no doubt given up on us by now, but I don't think it is right to leave a long standing contributor indefinitely blocked for a relatively minor matter that grew out of hand. Hopefully the commotion has died down by now in any case. Cheers, henrik•talk 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.147.65 (talk • contribs)

The evidence provided by the IP seems damning. I had no idea that you blocked so many editors indefinitely for something that isn't even forbidden: responding to canvassing. See WP:CANVAS. The discussion is at WP:ANI#Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96. I have made a subsection with details about your handling of User:Anselmgarbe. In my opinion, unless we get clear assurances that you will stick to policy in the future this case needs to go to Arbcom. It's the only way to get a desysop done. Hans Adler 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of WP:MEAT, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him. (reproduced from ANI discussion) Blueboy96 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to notify you that a user you blocked for violations of the username policy is requesting unblock in order to change their name. However, as this was a hard block, I thought you may wish to comment here: User_talk:Cornholiobunghole. The user is claiming that it was a good faith username not intended to be offensive, instead referencing a TV show, but they are willing to rename to avoid causing trouble. Your comment would be appreciated, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked several "editors" for socking and semi-protected an article in response to a post of mine at WP:AIV; here is another editor who made at least one edit similar to all of the others - note the similarity to another of the blocked editors' usernames:

Ucla16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MPFC1969 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for semi-protecting the article to stop that guy. Although I thought it wasn't called 'vandalism' when they add (bad) information to the article with (bad) cited references. I think vandalism is when they say "poop". I think this guy probably has good intentions. Hopefully he'll learn how things work around here. prhartcom (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the last of them:

Uclad1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Merku4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rey1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dmerkurev3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These last four were already blocked by User:Rodhullandemu; not sure if he did an SPI. MPFC1969 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing this article about a notable South African organisation from scratch as suggested. Ivulandlela (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's made a few (disruptive) edits as an IP:

76.168.1.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MPFC1969 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard him speak, but adding what amounts to a POV assessment of the sound of his "accent" is something that absolutely needs sourcing. "He speaks with an American/Canadian accent." requires sourcing, for which I marked it. There is a wide variety of "American accents", not just one wide one and the same is true of Canadian. See North American English regional phonology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first it would need to be sourced. Then whatever is said could take the form from the source. There are several reliable sources on Google, [1] [2]. Just whatever is said needs to follow what the source says. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This works quite well! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article about Erik Paulsen (Republican Rep from Minnesota). There's an editing war going on there. Your comments/edits would be appreciated. Thanks. David Straub (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time too look at it! I'd appreciate any edits you make. David Straub (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure why it didn't show up as either of us were doing the block, but we've obviously had slightly different ideas, but implemented at same time with Cillyness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You happy to keep it a week? Peter 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And you messaged me at same time as well :) If you're happy with my block, can you remove your message from User talk:Cillyness to save confusion. You can reply here for simplicity sake. Peter 22:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at ANI on your decision not to grant Swamilive's unblock request. My comments are more aimed towards Swamilive's actions in contacting an admin and showing that they have learnt from the block rather than a total criticism of your disallowing the request (although I don't think that SQL's thoughts on the matter are necessary, given that admin's inactivity for a year). Your comments are welcome over at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Blueboy. I'm letting you know that I've unprotected Phi Gamma Delta. It seems a bit redundant to block both the users and the page at the same time: if just the page was blocked, the users could discuss the issue, and if just the users were blocked, other IPs could still add to the article. Based on my reading of the protection rules, page protection should be limited to special cases, like an issue being in the media or two IPs waring with each other; otherwise the IPs should just be given ever-increasing blocks. If there is some reason that I'm missing to block the page, please let me know. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have been trying to remove the letters for ages, but normally someone only tries once ever few days and the page has a lot of viewers, so I think it can be handled by IP blocks. If the IP hopping get too bad to keep up with, then I agree that we should semi the page, but a lot of its useful contributions come from IPs, and this type of subject is a good place for people to get introduced to editing, so I'd like to make that a last resort. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Why did you autoblock Elsmaily's IP address if the account was compromised. I thought that "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" were to always be disabled when blocking compromised accounts. Keyboard mouse (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me last time for a month for "disruptive editing and POV-pushing" with a threat for indef. Do you think using language like "what are you fucking on about" is worse than 'disruptive editing and POV pushing' and is it acceptable at Wikipedia? Everyone else is saying yes. I'm wondering what you think. I think people are being allowed to be abusive and the whole civility thing is now a joke. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I could not copy and past from the team's website, even though I have permission from them to do so.

I have revised the page and hope that you find it satisfactory.

Daminilo (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this was not a good move, although possibly justified under the rules. The group are clearly notable Google books search, which was why I removed the previous speedy tag. This is discouraging to the new contributor who added the article, who will probably not bother to return. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its the modus operandi Shoot first ask questions later. I agree with Johnbod a modicum of searching would've shown notability. Admin should do this before just deleting things. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to restore it when I saw via Twinkle that this wasn't created, as I first suspected, by a sock of role account Lisa Mattocks. It's restored now. Blueboy96 15:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blueboy96. I've been asked by User:Lisa Mattocks to explain a bit of background to what's going on here. There is a weekend-long project underway at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London, UK called 'Performing Wikipedia' (http://www.ica.org.uk/?lid=24606). The purpose of the project is to improve the poor representation of articles about live art and performance art on Wikipedia by adding articles that fulfil Wikipedia's criteria, particularly WP:N and WP:BLP. The project is being undertaken by a group of arts professionals who are professionally knowledgeable and experienced in the relevant subject areas. Their internet access is predominantly via the ICA's internal wi-fi network. Please take a tolerant approach to their creation of new articles, which should be regarded as valuable additions to Wikipedia. If you or any other admin you can identify has blocked the ICA's IP address, it would be much appreciated if this action was reversed. Best wishes Alchemagenta (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind what I've described above, please be aware that it's very unlikely that there are any socks at work from that IP address, just multiple users sharing a wi-fi connection. Therefore I'd be grateful if you unblocked Lisa Mattocks. Best wishes Alchemagenta (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits are referred to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unfolding_fiasco_on_Live_Art_articles. Johnbod (talk)

User needs to be unblocked.[3] You don't seem to be online at the moment though. Ty 22:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is twice in two months that you've shown poor judgement in blocking newcomers. As you state that you are open to recall, I suggest we follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Fences&Windows 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe this case wasn't quite the minefield that the first one was, I'm willing to submit in order to clear the air. Blueboy96 23:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a recall discussion should be held. I have long standing feelings about some of your admin practices some of which does make me bias, hence why I think a discussion is in order. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just noticed your expansion of the A Nobody entry at Wikipedia:List of banned users#A. Although it's hopefully water under the bridge now, the most complete and helpful overview of A Nobody's disputed behavior can be found in the large evidence section in the RfC/U about him. So I thought a link to that section might be in order, possibly alongside a note that A Nobody shunned that RfC/U just like he did the later RfAr. It's up to you of course. --87.79.86.129 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formally we have to have six editors that agree that an admin should submit to RFA with one month tenure and over 500 edits.

1. Support, this admin often shoots first and asks questions later. Create's situations where there is none For example, blocking me indefintely when I made a good faith apology for being a jackass, or extending a block without actaully reading the discussion on my page. He blocked me for civilly discussing my block on my talk page say I needed to think more about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I have concerns over two incidents of Blueboy96's tools that show a tendency to block newcomers first and ask questions later, both with unfortunate consequences. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unfolding fiasco on Live Art articles. If others agree, I think that a reconfirmation RfA would help judge whether the community has confidence in Blueboy96's use of the tools. Fences&Windows 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Having been involved in the incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unfolding fiasco on Live Art articles and finding myself spending a lot of time helping to sort out the consequent mess, I have been taken aback by this admin's excessive zeal in blocking the new users involved. It was very poor judgement and the rapidly imposed indefinite blocks were unnecessary, inappropriate and way over the top. alchemagenta 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support. With his track record I don't believe he should ever have been an admin to begin with. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per the recent incidents at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Admins should never need to be adverse in determining they still have the trust of the community, and following two alleged incidences of poor standard of admin action I agree that a fresh RfA would be beneficial. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect this. Normally, I'd let this run the full seven days, but due to finding out that my girlfriend will likely need surgery a lot sooner than expected, I figure it will be another three to six months before I have the mental energy to submit a reconfirmation RfA. With that in mind, I'm standing down until August at the earliest. Blueboy96 22:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After blocking this guy you might also want to remove his creation Schummer which I first tried to save but it turned out that it was nonsense. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]