I've made your block indefinite because of continuing personal attacks, as seen here and the threat of vandalism made in this edit. Note you were already serving an arb-com imposed ban of six months for making personal attacks, a ban you attempted to circumvent through sock puppet accounts. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I've also protected your talk page to prevent further personal attacks. Steve block Talk 15:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• T-Man, if you wish to appeal your block, I suggest you take it up with the arbitration committee directly. If you go to WP:AC you will see members contact details, and you can email them and request an unblock or perhaps raise the issue of a check-user request with them. Nobody here can perform the check-user or ask for one to be performed, as banned users are not allowed to induce others to edit for them. Steve block Talk 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is no need to need for that. I trust your judgement, just keep on my case, please. I still find your mentorship very smart.

• As I said, my current opinion is that because I was not aware of the 5 blocks limit, eventually like 3 to 4 months after the 5th block I'd have sliped and therefore, I'd be currently blocked for 6 monts anyway. So I just want to be over with the 6 months thing.

• I also agree that using sock puppets was a huge mistake, and that it is fear to set the clock back.

• I didn't find out about the T-manWiki sockpuppet, you guys did. In that sense it wouldn't be a favor. Wouldn't asking through mail be kinda cheating? You are leading this case, you're a very straight person and I feel that it's up to you and that its kinda the ethical thing to do not to left any lose ends for this case (...then again who am I to use the word ethic?). I think the task is in your jusrisction and that it would be disrespectful to ask somebody else to do it and make you look like hiding something. I feel it would be like doing it behind your back.

Another way to do it would be asking you for your permission to request the checkuser through e-mail. I'll do as you say.--T-man, the wise 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and please, if posible, a little rephasing of your above comment would be enourmosly apreciated. As I explained you before I asked to CovenatD to stop editing my page in such way because he woulnd like me to do the *same* to his page. He was not vandalizing my page, therefore the same (including an equaly valid pretext) wouldn't be vandalism. I did meant similar conditions. However, I'd rather avoid the guy. My experience with the Judge ells me he is not the kind of person you want on your bad side. Thanks.--T-man, the wise 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced T-Man wiki was a sock puppet, and I wouldn't even know who it was a sock puppet of. But that's beside the point. You lost your editing rights when you were banned. When your ban is lifted, you can make the request. If anyone else, off their own back, wants to make the request, that's up to them, but nobody should do it because you asked, because you are banned. If you think it matters, then like I say, take it up via email with the arb-com. They all have check users. Onto your other point, there are no pretexts for messing with someone's user page, and messing with someone's page when you are banned is vandalism. It's also disruptive. And making threats ain't nice. You should move on. I'll check back with you in six months, okay. Steve block Talk 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, it was kinda my point not to do that because I'm asking, but because it's the right thing to do and because there is a policy stating so when a new user choses a user name with controversial words including other user's names, nemes that reflect wikipedia policies or charges. I think we all know kinda who he is, or at least I had the impression for a while. I didn't think it was a copycat, but it's possible. I will consider your last comment like the premission to do this through e-mail or whenever you decide to unblock me, unless you specify otherwise.

• I neither mess with anybody's page nor threat to vandalize anything. I was talking about alouded similar edits under similar conditions, because I wanted to point that from my point of view, those edits were legal, yet obnoxious, and that if I was the one doing the same to him he wouldn't apreciate it. I tried to make him picture himself in my shoes for that moment, that's all. I wasn't asuring I'd do anything, I wasn't planning on doing anything and I'm still not. I didn't imagine it could have been interpreted as a threat of vandalism, that's too heavy, it's like Wow! Wow! threat of what what who what?. I just wanted to clarify. I do apologise if I lead to such misinterpretation, it was never my intention to even look like I'm going near that far.--T-man, the wise 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Steve, maybe I didn't make it clear with all that that complaining about minor issues I've been doing, but thank you. I appreciate a lot the 6 months opportunity you gave me. --T-man, the wise 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GP2-TNBA.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenebrae, made a good point in your talk page. We do need a way to self blocking or blocking at users' request. I'm also a wikipediholic (add temperamental, pro-innovations/changes and the stress of being followed, and the outcome it's pretty logic), Shannel did me the favor of blocking me at my request, and believe me, it really helped! Or at least it gave me chance to dedicate my tme to more productive bussiness.

Think about it, I think it'd be a good idea to make it a common practice for wikipediholics. --T-man, the wise 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} Firstly, I want to clarify I'm not sure I should be asking help for this, if I'm doing wrong I apologise and promess not to do something similar again.

I created in a legitime way an article about a DC comics character called Draaga, this is a fearly common practice with comic book characters.

Some time later I did several poor choices that lead to my 6 month blocking, I violated it and kept editing, after this was noticed by some administrators, my edits were reverted according to Wikepedia's guidelines for these kind of situations. (I think a message should have been left in all the respective talk pages specifing tha if somebody liked the edits they can re make them, but nevermind) I broke the rules, so that's fair enough.

The problem is that somebody has gone further and started erasing articles I legitimaly made way before I was blocked. I find that somewhat abusive and an agression to me and the ways of wikipedia. However, I hope there is a logical explanation for this.

I though it was important to notify this, but if I'm doing wrong please tell me.--T-man, the wise 11:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear T-man, looking at your note here; I want to assume good faith with you; but your blocklog prevents me from doing so. I completely emphatise with the frustration you feel when you are blocked, but that is as per the choices you have made earlier and the decision of the administrators and other established users of the community. In case you want to contest your block and want to get back with a promise; you may appeal to the arbitration committee. Start off by sending appropriate emails to the members. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm actually ok with my blocking. The issue is that I fear there might be some irregularities behind the erasing of the Draaga article and I think reporting it so someone like you is the right thing to do. My question would be: was the Draaga article rightfully erased with legitimate reasons? If the answer is yes, the reason is all I want to know, and if the answer is no, it be up to you what to do next. I wouldn't want any further involvement with the issue. And no, you don't need to assume good or bad faith, the help I need is estrictly objetive.

...Since I can't reply to yo in your talk page, should I use the {{help me}} template whenever I reply to you or what?

Thank for your time. I truly apreciate it.--T-man, the wise 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was not created by you, it was created by your sock-puppet account User:The Judge on the 31st August. You were blocked from Wikipedia on the 31st July. All articles created by your sock puppets after your block were deleted in line with guidance offered. If you wish to repeal your indefinite blocking, please now take it to arb-com. I will no longer consider a review, and believe arb-com to be the only objective forum to declare whether you should be unblocked. I have protected this page top prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Steve block Talk 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are unblocked. Welcome back to Wikipedia! Steve block Talk 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I owe you a solid. Remember that as stubborn as I can be, I'll always follow your advise.--T-man, the wise 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Appointment_In_Crime_Alley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this image is non-free the deadline for the image to pass all parts of WP:FUC is 48 hours from the time on my message. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AvatarTP.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this image is non-free the deadline for the image to pass all parts of WP:FUC is 48 hours from the time on my message. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Day_of_the_Samurai.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Clock_King_01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Maxie_Zeus_B-TAS.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because of the same reason Chris Griswold used sock puppets as an admin; bad judgement and an abuse of power. I too think it's hypocritical and have placed requests with other admins informing them of this behavior. Ultimately I think people are giving him th 'benefit of the doubt'. But I think it's clear if he can't even 'wear' the tag he deserves, it shows he barely understands the depth of what he did and why it was unacceptable. —SpyMagician 07:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do so myself, but even my attempts to leave comments on his talk page have been deleted by him and his 'friend'. So I don't think that will work. But I have made a post on the administrator noticeboard about what's happening and hopefully someone else will place the tag. It's all quite pathetic and sad really. I'd respect the guy more if he truly took responsibility. But he's a coward as proven by his behavior in the past and his behavior now. —SpyMagician 08:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I even added another response that makes it clearer. He might be stripped of admin powers, but he is sure still in denial of what he did and it's disturbing. The least he could do is add the puppet master tag and deal with it. He's tagged others for much less; and as an admin he's done some nasty things. People need to know. —SpyMagician 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BTAS screenshot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — 十八 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-blocked you. I understand that Steve block recently un-blocked you because he was satisfied that you deserved another chance, and I fully support him in that. Steve is a good admin and I trust his judgment. Unfortunately you have breached the faith that Steve put in you, by repeating your pattern of prior behaviour. You need to learn that while everyone is entitled to express their point of view, even when it comes to commenting on the behaviour of others, everyone is also required to do so in a civil fashion befitting a collegial environment. You have failed to learn that lesson. --bainer (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was actively trying to report an admin who did sockpuppetry and was evading the use of his ban. I never insulted him. My only "fault" was to demand justice (maybe SHOUTING!! but I don'd think there is anything wrong with that).

The thing tha bothers me the most is that he did sockpuppetry and evaded the template after he bloqued me for doing the same. He even atributed to me a sock he knew checkuser confirmed as not mine. It also bothers me the fact that other admins are defending him instead of going harder on him because he is an admin.

I also want you to notice I wasn't given any sort of warning at all!!--T-man, the wise 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can consider your ban reinstated due to these issues as well as preventing the deletion of images while orphaned and of unsure sourcing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Of course not, that's not a reason, that's just formal editing, nobody ever gets bloqued for that (neither from talking to the noticeboard as I did as my "other sin") and the status of those images is very relative, btw. Read WP:F for more information--T-man, the wise 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were subject to an arbitration case in which you were solely banned for 6 months. After extreme abuse of the community, you were blocked indefinitely. You were given a rare second chance to contribute, which you have since squandered. All of this is warning enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Er, nope, I'm sure I did nothing wrong. Whinning insistively about somebody breaking the policies isn't against the policies. That aside, am I supposed to be bloqued or banned? When does it end. By the way, I don't think it is supposed to be accomulative, I already paid my dutties. There was no second chance the punishment was extended and then over.

And believe me, I know reasons to be blocked, and I haven't been given a real one. Good real reasons can be quoted more accurately than "WP:CIVIL". I didn't insult or ofend anyone. I only explained why I think and admin evading the sockpuppeteerproved template is propostruous. That's all.

the following procedure was missing:

1. Me breaking a policy.
2. Me getting a warning like an equivalent of {{Npa3}} or a "hey, be cool. You're breaking this policY (...)" comment in my talk page.
3. Me insisting.
4. The blocking log with my specific fault (WP:civil, is for insults or profanity I did neither)
5. The link tho the comparisson history page where I write the attack

My only crime was to write a lot and not shottig up... which I realise would have been a lot more convenient... Specially after realising an admin took of my sockpuppeteer template as chris griswold did his... hahahaha. This suck, but I'm loving the irony! I just got blocked because I complained about a user took of a labeling template that I also had but I could have also taken off!! Priceless. :S :P

• --T-man, the wise 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really need me to point it out for you, this, this and this were what got you re-blocked, particularly the first of those three. As I said, everyone is entitled to express their point of view but they must do so in a civil fashion. You were given yet another chance to reform your behaviour and you have not done so. --bainer (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure that's not "banning for life" matererial. The fact that I wasn't given a {{Npa3}} or any warning also makes me feel unfonfortable with this situation. Just as well, I'm aware all wikipolicies wold have required more disruptive insistence with the issue on my part after a warning.

I agree that it would be a perfect world if nobody ever shouted and get angry, and I assume responsiblility fo makin an unpleasanr personal remark (that I's sure doesn't qualify as personal attack) But wouldn't you agree after what he made me go through (he was behind at least two of my blockings prior to my 6-months-ban and then he spotted my attemps to start fresh, called me dishonest and put all those unpleasant templates), by doing the very same thing as an admin, it is only natural to cause me a "wikibreakdown". Agree, it is never a good idea to Comment on contributor, and not on the content, but it's only natural to make a mistake when situations like this happen. And for that mistake I apologise.

However it was also a terrible misunderstanding, he wasn't being cynical at all. At least not because of taking of the sockpuppeteer template. It was me who wasn't aware I could have taken of my own template. Now that I re-read my posting in his talk page I regret the use of the word "cynical" not only because he wasn't being cynical in the sense I though, but also because when you read it does come off as soemething unpleasant. I think I forgot there are other things besides personal attacks that come of as unpleasant, even if you're just trying to be brutally honest. A term I would start to avoid in WP, since now I realize goes against WP:APR.

I also would like to state, that after I was given this second chance, I never expected things to be accomulative. I thought I was starting fresh without the need of chanching identity. Consider that if I'd have done so, I'd have been given a warning and my blocking, in the worst case scenario wouldn't have been longer that 24 hrs. I choosed to keep my identity as T-man, instead of hiding. I really hoped to be treated the same as if I started fresh, but I didn't even get a warning. I paid my dutties and then I choosed to keep my past, I still stand by it, please consider that.

I'd really appreciate a chance to apologise at the Administrators Notice board, after I realized my mistake it was suddenly too late. I thought I was following guidelines, but I was wrong to put a template on a non blocked user, I was wrong to complaint ot him because he took it off, and I was wrong to take the matter to the noticeboard.--T-man, the wise 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of warnings is to educate people about policies and guidelines, and to give them an opportunity to adjust their behaviour. By now you are surely aware of relevant policies. To me, your history shows a pattern of engaging in uncivil behaviour and making personal attacks, before repenting and encouraging other users to trust you to behave properly, before soon after relapsing and engaging in inappropriate behaviour again. You've persistently failed to remedy your behaviour, and by the looks of things attempts by other users to help you improve your behaviour have also failed.

I am not going to unblock you. You can ask for review by another administrator by using the {{unblock}} template or by contacting the unblock-en-l mailing list. --bainer (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having established that I regret what I did to get you to block me and would like to apologize. I want to point out that I believe I'm entitled to my mistakes without being judged by my past...

Having completed my extended six-months ban, I could have asked for WP:VANISH, however I choosed and will keep choosing to keep my identity. The problem is that by keeping my identity -and my past- the tolerance towards my mistakes is smaller than ever. Baned forever only because I got mad at an admin because of a misunterstanding that was only explained after I got the punishment? I think I deserve a little more.

I'm a good person, I don't do drugs, I'm responsible with my religion, I've never been in prision, I'm a good student, do I deserve to be treated like if I were a criminal only because I can commit political mistakes (with no justification but with a good reason)? I strongly believe not. I've never been against being reasonably blocked now and then, I've learned a lot from that, but banned forever? like in til death? is that right? does that sound tolerant or rear?

If you don't think you can have that tolerance, please, I beg you, at lest pass the decition of my fate to somebody else.--T-man, the wise 04:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]