User talk:Badanagram

July 2013

I fully appreciate that I will be sanctioned for one of my edits yesterday. I let my temper get the better of me again :( Badanagram (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Badanagram/Archive 1 Start of archive.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, multiple times. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK Fair enough. Not entirely sure why you felt the need to edit my userpage so that half the content is unreadable though. Badanagram (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you think that the other IP in the 207 range is me because they offered support on WP:ANI, but it really isn't. If you read their WP:ANI entry, why would 'I' (as 207) be offering advice to have myself (Badanagram) adopted by an experienced editor? On the balance of probabilities this doesn't make any sense, the person was genuinely trying to be helpful. Never mind I see you've made your mind up already. I haven't really got time for any of this kind of IRCNet behaviour hence why I semi-retired almost 6 years ago, not even sure why I wasted my time on Saturday/Sunday. I'm not even going to bother disproving the suspected sock properly because I don't use it and therefore it's not my problem. I know that in some unreasonable persons mind, it probably makes it look even more suspect but there you go. Good luck for the future, mine obviously isn't on this project Badanagram (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Random IP thanks for coming to my support. I'm sorry it's got you blocked by the admin above (without any proof whatsoever of sockpuppetry) simply for doing so. I got the feeling that this would happen. I'm not a kid though. I probably act like one sometimes on occasion, as do some adminstrusted users and most commoners editors do when they feel like it. Badanagram (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I hope it's a simple misunderstanding that can be straightened out soon. —203.81.67.114 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blimmin 'eck/NOT IN MYANMAR

203.81.67.123 didn't realise that internet connectivity was so sparse, I am sorry that I have got you in to this much trouble already, I did try and see if I could ping or traceroute but got timed out on both occassions. Did a google search just to see if there were open http proxies to substantiate the claim made by the admin that I might be abusing one, but there aren't any, I stopped short of a portscan because that really would start flashing red lights at my ISP. PS I know exactly why there is no sockpuppet investigation but if I said why then I'd be violating WP:AFG so I won't. I also have my suspicions why it will take a while for the request to be reviewed. Badanagram (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1 except it looks nothing like a duck only to someone with glasses that have pictures of ducks on them. I really wish you'd stop this... you are seriously making me feel ill, I have nothing to do with the IP in Myanmar, what next? You hold me responsible for the wikipedia edits of an entire country? I cannot assume good faith any more because you appear to be making me out to be some cyberhacker that goes to Myanmar (I don't have a passport) to access wikipedia in order to not disrupt wikipedia and apparently offer support to myself, how much time do you think I have? The only thing the Myanmar IP is guilty of is putting a message of support to me in a thread about you, for this reason alone you are prepared to block him? For some reason you have decided to twist this all way beyond proportion because you can't admit that you have made a mistake. Do you even realise how ridiculous and vindictive this all looks to people with common sense? I apologised to you but you have carried out a vendetta against people who are not me!!!!!!! Enough please, you are exhausting me.... stop trying to increase my anxiety levels merely because you have admin privileges.... and stop making unsubstantiated claims.... neither of the other IP's have vandalised wikipedia and I have never used either of them. Short of WP:WL and asking you to demonstrate to me how I would do this I really don't know what else to say because you have blown this whole thing out of proportion in order to provoke me to act in this manner. Badanagram (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

203.81.67.123 Just seen your 'mention' This whole thing leaves with diametrically opposed views. It amuses me that the admin thinks I am able to travel the world so freely without any current passport with unlimited access to funds that would allow me to do so and at the same time break in to my ex-landlady's property. All in order to not make any vandalising comments on Wikipedia, yet I am distressed that his involvement seems to have implicated an entire country.

I am starting to think that if I continue to post here, my talk page will eventually become blocked because it's easier to do that than deal with the underlying situation. Badanagram (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

I'm not thoroughly acquainted with this case, Badanagram, but you can post here at your talk page still, and if you want to talk things over, you're welcome. I see you've done some good article work here and there. Tony (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the offer, I was at work when you posted, then went to my GF's, just about to go to work again after freshening up. I will give a more detailed reply soon, if I don't give a considered reply then it just adds to the stockpile. Badanagram (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, here goes Tony.

The behaviour of the admin above on both occasions that we have had a run in, has made me feel quite unnerved and the administrative actions on each occasion have felt too close for comfort. I appreciate that I may have got his back up (though I apologised this time round, even though it was ***** difficult to do from my mobile phone (I had no access to a computer, or at least not one I was prepared to access wikipedia from)) and obviously he has the power to make sanctions such as blocks and to be honest I probably deserve both blocks, it's the behaviour around the sanctions that has made me feel quite paranoid leading to anxiety at work and also anxiety when I was with my GF yesterday (she has no idea that I have an account here BTW so I couldn't explain this to her).

I don't feel that I need to feel as anxious as I have done on both occasions. However if I have anything more to do with this site as it currently operates, other than reading it, that is what is going to happen. In a way, the admin has probably done me a favour! However I wish he'd stop putting messages on the static IP I no longer have access to (it was my ex landlady's address, I'd have to walk in there and steal her password) and also on a proxy (that I'd apparently have to go to some country with a disputed government and well documented human rights abuses to access), it doesn't seem to have occured to him that I'd have to do both of those things at the same time, all in order to make a few anon edits on Wikipedia!!! Seriously???? I am not that sad!! I don't even have a passport at the moment, it expired almost two years ago. If he thinks that as a lowly paid civil servant that I am ready to flee the United Kingdom on an expired passport to a country with disputed governments etc. in order to 'disrupt' the wikipedia project for a week or so (there was no disruption, the editor simply had sympathy/empathy/whatever, I don't even know who this IP user is or why he suddenly appeared on ANI, he is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, if I was going to do either of those things, there wouldn't be a three year intervening period of silence from this account now would there? That is really starting to push the bounds of fantasy/reality), I begin to wonder what his reference point for 'things that could actually happen' is. Anyway if trying to deal with both incidents caused/causes this much anxiety and stress then really what is the point in trying to resolve it? be quite happy to e-mail an uninvolved admin e.g. not one of the suspected cohorts of the above admin a copy of my tenancy agreement stating that I have lived at my current address from 14 April 2013 and therefore do not have access to the previous IP address any more if it would satisfy the above admins criteria for not keeping those messages on there?

I started editing wikipedia because my ex (when I was still with her) seemed to enjoy it and I thought it could be fun. Over the years it's just become a pain in the backside to deal with because the way it operates is still stuck somewhere in the IRC era - which unfortunately seems to attract IRC era-type Admins/Sysops. Neither she nor I have been active on Wikipedia properly for a long time, probably for similar reasons.

So for the time being I am quite happy to leave things as they stand. I just don't want them to escalate beyond the burden of proof that would be required elsewhere.

Badanagram (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry edited that a few too many times probably.

It sounds like an explanation from Todds is in order as to why it's an indeff rather than merely a timed block. No, we don't want to lose you. I hope this can be sorted out. It would help if you made a solid declaration of having learnt from the situation that caused this, so that we can be secure in believing it won't happen again. Tony (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony I am surprised that you haven't been blocked by the admin above or one of his admin friends under WP:DUCK due to the mere fact that you have taken some time to have a considered approach. The admin concerned seems to be on a bit of a mission.

I will look forward to that explanation, meanwhile I'll be at my home computer, in the South of England, listening to birds tweet, or at work, doing something productive, or maybe somewhere in between enjoying life. Badanagram (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony would you be prepared to show this all to WP:ANI? I appreciate that you might not want to get involved in case you get accused of meatpuppetry (without any investigation) but I am really concerned about how the blocking admin is abusing the admin toolbox.

Block? Shouldn't there have been a warning, or some attempt to communicate first? I thought blocks were supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm not at all clear on the reason for the block. A little talk might go a long way towards defusing the situation. —203.81.67.114 (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That would only be possible if I used the e-mail system or Toddst1 responded here but I don't think he has got me on pagewatch or RSS feed. I am on a static IP (a different one to the one I was on before, because I have moved house) and I think one of the restrictions (according to the block) is that I cannot create a new account.

Ironically, one of the reasons for the block is multiple socks, however the only two accounts that have been block is your 'Ice cream and coffee shop' one and this one. The IP that has the other SP warning that I believe is from where I lived up until November 2010 was not blocked, neither is my current IP. So if I wanted to offer to talk things over, then bizarrely I am presented with a fait accompli. I can either:

• Go to my ex landlady's house and ask to use her broadband connection (assuming she has the same broadband package and/or her IP hasn't been reassigned, I just tried to check the last e-mail she sent me and it was sent via Gmail so the headers don't show the IP), get that IP summarily blocked for IP socking without any investigation (even though I don't live there and have not done since 2010 which is clear from the contribution history), more userboxes all over the page for any current lodger to discover if they happen to try and edit wikipedia... OR

• Use my current IP address where I now live (have lived elsewhere in the meantime and not edited wikipedia for reasons mentioned above) and do the same thing, get my current IP blocked for abusive IP socking with summary/no investigation and permanent boxes all over that one. Current IP address shows no edits whatsoever. So I don't propose doing that just in case a future tenant or any of the other tenants decide to use wikipedia from an IP address. Not revealing current IP for obvious reasons i.e. if I don't use it, then I cannot be a sockpuppet from it.

You can see now why I don't want to spend too much time trying to sort this out. Left for work at 6.25am this morning and got back home at 5.40pm, trying to work all this out is doing my brain in. Badanagram (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony. Lost for words....

• Calm is called for. I've posted at the blocking admin's page asking for prompt action on the matter. I'm wondering whether the admin and blocking policies have been properly followed on this occasion, and whether the decision was based on full and uninvolved judgement of the facts. Tony (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, explain please, where are alleged “IP socks”? One two-weeks-old edit in human rights in Burma and two AN/I postings of 203.81.67.123? And where is the sockpuppet investigation?! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as myself and apparently the entire country of Myanmar are concerned, No violation of Wiki sock policy has actually occured

Incnis Mrsi WP:SPI investigation never happened, I'm not even sure WP:SPI would be effective. If I am to fully understand its limitations, the Checkuser tool would only demonstrate that my current IP was used in recent edits (not prepared to disclose current IP because I'm afraid the Admin will place summary userboxes on it despite no contributions) as Badanagram . It won't demonstrate that I am not an IPSock of myself in Burma because all a sockpuppet abuser would need to do is log out of wikipedia when using the open proxy - if indeed it is open - to 'abuse' wikipedia and edit using the IP proxy. I am aware that this probably further implicates me based on my apparent understanding of technical issues but I really don't have any 'real life' reasons to violate WP policy in the way the admin has imagined and the suspected IP Sock (which isn't an IP sock) actually hasn't violated any wikipedia policy. This is all in Toddst1's mind. Badanagram (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Blocking Admin

Tony posted to my talk page, so I'll leave notes for any reviewing admin and simultaneously reply to Tony here:

Tony, If you look at User:Badanagram and the user's block log, I think you'll find most of the info you'll need to figure this out.

The block notice above states that the user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts multiple times and the block log (which the user sees) goes in to more detail, "multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry". You'll notice the at the top of his user page, the {{sockpuppeteer}} template which first appeared in 2010 after the first instance where this editor pretended to be someone else in a discussion (Proof please). Additional info has been added since then. If you click on the confirmed socks link, you'll see the IP address(es) that the user has admitted to using. The user wasn't blocked at that time but the warning that he could be blocked was left on the user page and you can see other warnings here. Badanagram new full well that ipsocking was wrong and he could be blocked if it continued. In retrospect, he should have been blocked in 2010. Name the policy.

After a 3 year absence, Badanagram reappeared only to complain about Sandstein on ANI and then another IP appeared whose 4th edit was at ANI supporting Badanagram. Those of us who have been here a while can spot behavior like that pretty easily.

Given Badanagram's known use of ipsocks, sometimes it's useful to use the WP:DUCK test which was used in this case. (SPIs are not mandatory when the connection appears obvious). The IP was identified by a properly applied {{ipsock}} template which will allow the IP to be identified by following the Suspected Sockpuppet link on Badanagram's user page.

Note that that IP has also evaded that block by using another static IP address and the timing of edits of both of these IP's edits along with Badanagram's activity is further indication of a connection. There is some serial disruption going here.

If a reviewing admin feels further investigation is in order, then by all means start a WP:SPI and dig deeper. Alternatively another admin is free to unblock if s/he feels the block is not warranted. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I'm pretty sure the policy assumes you lay it out for other parties to see. "multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry" requires some diffs so we can all get a grip on what your complaint is. A warning from 2010—even though there's been an intervening absence—doesn't sound like the intention of the blocking policy. Can you demonstrate where you've attempted to "educate" and "warn" the editor recently?

Complaining about Sandstein is commonplace nowadays: that situation Sandstein has brought on himself through extreme attitudes and behaviour that are starting to have an adverse affect on the editorial and social fabric of the project. I've complained about Sandstein myself in the past week or two.

The thread at the top of this page brings into question whether you're too close to this matter to be indeffing, which is a serious action to take against an editor. Are you aware of WP:UNINVOLVED?

I wonder whether another admin who is fresh to this issue might be brought in to review it. There seems to be a lot of froth under the surface over this Burma thing and IP range blocking (too technical for me, I'm afraid). And are you sure this editor hasn't switched accounts for other reasons?

The first thing required is for an admin to sensitively communicate with Badanagram (probably by email—see his/her userboxes?) to sort it out. I understand that it's often a difficult task for admins to deal with these types of situations, and you probably do a good job elsewhere; but maybe on this occasion a fresh look is in order. Tony (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. Another admin will review this as there is an unanswered unblock request above. That's the system working as it is supposed to. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1 How about whatever way this is investigated? That we just go our separate ways? My main concern is that you have blocked someone in a country thousands of miles away that isn't me on the basis that you think it is me and keep enforcing userboxes on IP's that I physically cannot acccess. As I stated when I apologised via my mobile phone at work (a technical feat of it's own proportions) I recognised my edit on your talkpage was unfruitful. Badanagram (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about me vs. you. Another admin is free to unblock this account if my block was found faulty or per WP:OFFER. I'm not going to do it however. Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OFFER doesn't really apply. I don't understand why everything is about wikipedia policies. There is life outside of wikipedia. It was more an offer to get out of you hair. Being an Aspie I don't enjoy conflict. That was it really Badanagram (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• So what has to be done? I suppose I'll put a note at ANI ... but it's really none of my business. Tony (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony I fully appreciate your support here, but I am acutely worried that continued involvement will only cause the involved admin to pursue you in the same manner as they have done here. I don't think you need that kind of stress. doesn't seem to matter to the blocking admin whether or not it causes further damage] to Wikipedia or the 'Wikipedia foundation', whatever that is. I've only ever made donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. Current admin behaviour doesn't warrant further donations. If WMF collapses then they don't get to play admin games any more, simple as.... Badanagram (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony it will only become an incident if Toddst1 continues egregious actions against people who are not me - Toddst1 seems to want to make summary blocks to the entire country of Myanmar on the basis that I as one human being in the UK can apparently spend all day and all night editing wikipedia whilst holding down a full time job in the UK! Also apparently not vandalising wikipedia is a blockable offense if you happen to live in Myanmar (none of the edits from the person in Myanmar were vandalism, again all in an Admins head). Common sense (if applied) would suggest that I don't have the time or inclination to do what he is suggesting but it's been completely blown out of all proportion. My user page has hinted that I am fully employed as a civil servant ever since I created the page back in 2005.

How about you let an admin respond to the unblock request? Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not stopping any admins from responding. Badanagram (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is tiring, the last few hundered edits that have been made are about trying to sort this out before the admin implicates himself in a matter of international diplomacy by his summary blocks that have nothing to do with me Badanagram (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

How about my version?

Now I appreciate the truth is always somewhere in the middle, but here goes

First things first, I will admit to being stupid enough in 2010 to criticise Toddst1's edits on an article and in retrospect I should have not made the comments personal.

I understand the 2010 1 month block of my old IP was for continuing to use the IP page to post on my userpage. I did initially go in to a bit of a hissy fit because it was clear that some admins work together as a group, but as I pointed out on that IP's userpage at the time, I was moving out of the property. This was never addressed. For some reason Toddst1 still thinks I live there and can access the IP. I cannot. I also cannot prove a negative.

I decided that whilst overzealous unaccountable admins were around, it wasn't worth contributing (either through edits or financially) to Wikipedia.

In the mean time I had found that there were various complaints off-wiki about the behaviour of certain admins. A few names were mentioned quite often, no prizes for guessing. I happened to spot the sandstien topic on WP:ANI and thought I would share my own experience of wiki admin behaviour.

So what follows were personal attacks from friends of admins, one of which I chose to ignore. Anon IP took some time to look at what had happened, it wasn't a completely accurate description but then again nothing ever is, he suggested I get adopted as an editor.

I then reviewed the diffs from 2010 and found that Toddst1 had made a comment suggesting his complacency as an admin, something about "I hope I haven't disrupted the Wikipedia foundation too much". I responded to this saying that he couldn't be taken seriously if that was his view. I apologised via my mobile phone at work some hours later because I realised it was yet another stupid comment. I completely expected another block. What I didn't realise was the lengths that Toddst1 would go to as an admin to link involve other people from a country over a thousand miles away who I don't even know. The whole sockpuppet thing is incredulous. I don't live at the address associated with the IP that I used back in 2010. I live in the UK not Myanmar and I don't edit wikipedia during the day owing to having an actual job where I make decisions with further reaching consequences than a block on wikipedia.

Regarding the timings of the IP edits. How about I give a rundown of a typical weekday for me in the UK.

7-9am wake up check FB/E-mails, have a shower and whatnot.

My work span can be anywhere between 6.30am to 7pm so I am usually at work for anywhere between 6-9 hours in any given day. Personal usage of computers is accepted but only during work breaks. However I tend not to use the internet at work. I think I may have used wikipedia once as a reader at work. I forget why.

So I come home any time between 5pm-7pm usually. Monday I went to my GF's so didn't really pay much attention to this whole thing.

I'm not sure how much more personal information I need to disclose in order to satisfy Toddst1's IPSock accusations. Though I'd be happy to disclose it to a completely uninvolved admin who won't abuse the information. My user page has disclosed my occupation and location in the UK pretty much ever since I had the account.

Toddst1, I note that you have only come here to reply to what is technically possible (and by technically I mean the abuse of open proxies etc), but haven't reflected on why in all probabilities that even though it is possible, it is also very unlikely that I would have the time nor inclination to edit wikipedia 24 hours a day, especially if - as referenced in the rest of my talk page - it is going to cause as much grief as it has already this week and did back in 2010 (where an IP was used once, not in plural as you have suggested above), the rest of the talk page as it currently stands is how much your behaviour has caused me stress. Not because of the block, but because you seem to want to make baseless accusations of cyberterrorism or something. I think the fact that you are suggesting that I am seriously disrupting Wikipedia is yet another example of trying to intimidate me and cause further stress and/or deflect from your own egregious behaviour as an admin. WP:SPI would be interesting. If Checkuser was deployed then it would not show up very much now would it? In the past year or so, I've only logged on from my current IP and through my mobile (to apologise to Toddst1 when I had a lunchbreak at work). Also, if I was abusing an open proxy (I'm not even sure if there are any open proxies- I'm not inclined to check because I assume it's illlegal in the UK for me to do so) then it wouldn't show up anything useful because it is possible to have two browser sessions open.

I'm not even that bothered about this block. I can live with it and may appeal it again some time in the future. It's the fact that you seem to be accusing me of ip sockpuppet activity that is implausible (I'm not even sure it is actually possible) and blocking an IP that had not vandalised wikipedia at all and made the 'mistake' of being sympathetic to me. One wonders why you were quite so quick to block that IP after their apparent support of me and put sockpuppet boxes on there without asking for an actual investigation in an attempt to 'silence' such a discussion about your past behaviour - that doesn't seem to have changed at all.

It is absolutely appropriate that I share [1] how you react to criticism from more experienced editors as well.]. In other words insult them using language far worse than what you blocked me for back in 2010 and also it appears that you think it's amusing to accuse the another editor of Domestic Violence at the same time? That is a serious all time low for wikipedia admins. All in order to detract from your own admin behaviour?? Badanagram (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

to be clear, I did not block this account in 2010. I should have - not for language, but for sockpuppetry. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1 this is of no consequence.

You blocked the associated IP for one month. However I no longer live there, I mentioned this on the userpage at the time, which is why there are no edits from that IP since then, as I am telling the truth. I live where I live now and this IP address has made no edits. Seeing as I had moved away from the address associated with the 2010 IP and in the intervening period had use of an ISP with dynamic addresses I could have just created a new account and severed all ties with the old one. I have not, I have been honest. I had no interest in editing Wikipedia because of Admin behaviour such as those demonstrated by you and no other reason. I have no interest in seriously disrupting Wikipedia because I have a job. For some reason you don't seem to have taken the fact that I have a life and a job outside wikipedia (and have done ever since I created the account) in to consideration when deciding that I have the ability to simultaneously contribute to this account and IPSOCK under an assumed persona that has a completely different editing style 24 hours a day, hence why the WP:DUCK accusation is incredulous, especially when the suspected sock has not made any disruptive edits to Wikipedia, but I see another convenient wikibreak has occurred. Badanagram (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1 additionally I don't think I misrepresented the reason for your first block above in my version of events. There is no dispute that I made two bad faith edits back in 2010 under an anon IP. I have already admitted guilt for them. It's the rest of it that I don't understand. Badanagram (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted my other edit as probably not helpful Badanagram (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, a little softer all round—softer than you think is warranted when first composing comments—might play the game more effectively. It's like that email we'd all wished we'd left for an hour and re-edited softer rather than pushing the button immediately. You're angry, and probably with justification; but the important thing is to stay outwardly calm in your text. It doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, me included. But I've learned to distort for that purpose. Let's hope this ends well. Tony (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tony, this seems to have turned in to a bit of a ****storm against the admin on WP:ANI, though I gather such things usually disappear and reappear as quick as rainbows. I hope it doesn't become too contentious.

Unblock request, I know that reading whole talk pages is tiring but please look at the headings above if you have time

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

No realistic or credible sock concerns or current editing concerns except a badly worded warning about sarcasm to the admin about an incident three years ago, how many times do I have to say that I don't live at the address associated with IP the admin refers to any more? I don't! Short of posting my current tenancy agreement here, I have no idea how I can prove this negative!!!!! and why in whoever deity's name would I relocate myself to Myanmar in order to set up a 'sockpuppet' for the sole purpose of having some sentiment (although slightly patronising)/making some positive suggestions on WP:ANI (scroll upwards a bit)? That IP did not violate wikipedia policy in doing so either but that's not my issue here. I will try my best (as only any human can, including admins) to act in a civil manner in future. I don't think I am the worst behaved Wikipedian, I just think I perhaps chose the wrong person to criticise. I also promise not to antagonise Toddst1 any further and I am prepared to let the incident(s) from October 2010 lay to rest and will not use my Userpage to comment on the past situation. This does not mean that if I see further disturbing behaviour from the admin that affects me personally, that I will not bring it to attention via the admin noticeboard, especially if it involves bad faith adminship. Please take some time to consider this request because someone appears to be going out of their way to encourage the idea that I am in Myanmar. As I have said, I cannot prove a negative, I can take a picture of where I live perhaps, would that help? This idea that I have gone to Myanmar and/or find an open proxy there in order to post to Wikipedia (and not make any disruptive edits whatsoever) is completely beyond the realms of probability yet it has got me a block. The FCO also offers travel advice against going to Myanmar. I am not able to be in the UK and Myanmar at the same time especially as I am at work for 8-10 hours a day and a round trip to Myanmar is half my net wages and would take more than a day to get there and back from where I live in the UK, all in the name of not violating wikipedia. I am in the UK. I sincerely swear that I have never been to Myanmar, I cannot find any open proxies on the other addresses the admin has blocked in connection with this, although I can't say I've tried very hard because that would probably violate the T&C's of my ISP. Badanagram (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on the check user performed by T. Canens, the sock puppetry suspicions appear to be unfounded. Bbb23 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed I don't see how this block could be reasonably lifted without a checkuser investigating Toddst1's block.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded Can we get a checkuser to settle this?--v/r - TP 21:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I point out that whilst I appreciate Checkuser being used, because it will only show my current IP and my mobile phones IP using this account (and maybe a few other random IP's in the past year or so). It won't disprove Toddst1's conspiracy that I am editing from both the UK and Myanmar 24 hours a day whilst holding down a full time job and not having a passport, that can only be done by common sense Badanagram (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser shows more than just IP addresses. It also shows useragent data. If you are the IP and as long as you didn't switch computers, a likely match can still be made.--v/r - TP 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well good luck on all of that. I've consistently used the same browser and operating system for accessing this account except when I used my mobile phone (Android) to apologise to Toddst1. My concern is that if you all agree that I am this 'serial disruptor' of wikipedia via open proxies in Myanmar that Toddst1 has summarily decided that I am (no evidence given that they are open and no disruption from the IP's concerned) then all I'd need to do is open a different browser when 'accessing' that IP? I hope you understand why I keep suggesting that this is verging on the ridiculous Badanagram (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, I think I'll have to call this  Inconclusive. T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In which case, the editor deserves a second chance to have this block lifted immediately, yes? Tony (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, it means that Badanagram’s edit are registered from a virtual private server or something alike, that leaves a doubt about his actual location and does not confirm (nor disprove) Badanagram’s assertion that he edits #not from Burma. But any editor from a VPS or other private proxy can be likewise accused in IP socking in whatever country. Tony, what second chance are you speaking about? Absolutely no post-2010 behavioural evidences were presented. Toddst1’s use of the sysop to avenge a user is an abuse. Badanagram needs not to have his “sentence” commuted, it needs rehabilitation, no matter, just now or after a week, to discourage sysops from going to such blocking rampages. Do you want to see more sysops in Wikipedia after whom the community has to clean their shit for several days? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am really confused. I access wikipedia from a wireless router downstairs. Either that or from my mobile (once). Badanagram (talk) No SPI has been opened either. 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, he's truthful about where the Badanagram account is editing from. On a more detailed look, I'm convinced that they are most likely  Unrelated. T. Canens (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So for which thing on Earth [2][3][4] still stand? Is there a division of labour such that a CheckUser only posts a verdict but other sysops have to apply it? It is obvious to any sane person that Toddst1’s blocks were controversial at best and personally-motivated at worst. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's all to do with acting impartially - which ironically didn't happen with my block or the Myanmar IP blocks but hey-ho, best not to dwell on that. It's given me a bit of an education on Myanmar I guess. There seems to be a bit of a backlog with block appeals so I can sit it out for the time being. Badanagram (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So here goes then. The IP's in the 203 range don't appear to have made vandalising edits. A user from there came out in support of me and got blocked for it. Other than that there is nothing connecting me to those IP's. I moved out of the house with the IPSock notice nearly three years ago. So, other than aggravating Toddst1 on Sunday and apologising for it on Monday there have been no other instances of policy evasion on this account. The block notice that was removed by me and put back by Toddst1 was because of no block occurring on this account until Toddst1 blocked it again on Tuesday (was it Tuesday or Monday?) Badanagram (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23, I am not sure exactly how to proceed from here. I will try my best not to make any further mistakes on here involving policy issues but it goes without saying I am only human. Is it OK that I archive this whole discussion?

It might be preferable to leave it here for a while. It's a slow time (weekend). It's the middle of the night in the U.S. (I'm in the U.S. and couldn't sleep, sigh). So, it might be good to leave it here so others may see it. However, policy does not preclude you from archiving it, so it's your call. As for "further mistakes", fair or unfair, your behavior may be scrutinized more than other editors, so my best advice is err on the side of caution. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again Bbb23 I appreciate that I will come under some watchful eyes because of said block. I think for the time being my behaviour on here should consist of revising past and future tense and things like that, nothing that can be considered vandalism. Shouldn't be any trouble there! Oh FFS forgot to sign my comment again. Badanagram (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We (en.wikipedia) are soooooooooo slow ☺ I hope nobody will blame the whole project for this regretful incident. When a wiki is attacked by millions of vandals and spammers, a great number of people is needed to maintain the defence. In these circumstances some of block buttons inevitably get into wrong hands. Please, do not think we are indifferent about the people who have only a handful of IPv4 per city ☺ Yes, and special thanks to User:Tony1 for bringing the outrage to my attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Uninvolved review requested. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me Mr. Stradivarius. I have seen the comments on there. I am glad that this is being looked at in a slightly more even handed manner. As I think I have alluded to, I am prepared to accept a block for somewhat constrained incivility but not this proxy nonsense that seems to have reined in an entire country. Badanagram (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Might it not be an idea for someone to notify Toddst1 about the motion of no confidence against him at WP:ANI? I realise he is on a wikibreak but it doesn't seem fair to do this in his absence.

Drmies please see the above. I am in agreement that the admin should probably not have a vote of no confidence in his absence, it doesn't seem particularly fair. I am currently blocked by him hence why not posted at WP:ANI Badanagram (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Badanagram, that's very kind of you. I hope Todd can respond soon. I am sorry that I am not well informed in this case, so there is very little I can do. Also, I like your user name: well chosen. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Badanagram, I copied your comment to the "oppose" section of the "motion" at ANI. If that's not what you want, please tell me (anyone) what you prefer. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23, it just seems unfair to have a motion of no confidence where the subject concerned cannot defend themself due to a break, even if I currently in disagreement with the admin.

I echo Drmies's sentiments above; it's very decent of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

zzuuz I do not edit wikipedia from Burma. I have no interest in abusing WP from whatever open proxies are available in that country. Badanagram (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed perhaps not, however something is related to Burma, including the IPs being blocked. I have no idea about your block, sorry. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Badanagram (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

File:MYANMAR BEER AT THE NEW DOREEN RESTAURANT YANGON MYANMAR JAN 2013 (8492498537).jpg

Happy editing. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)