User talk:Bt8257

Blocked

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

Bt8257 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that what I did was wrong (Using a second account, multiple IPs, evading the block), and will never do it again. I realize that I have no other options to get back on track and editing Wikipedia yet again. I now accept that I was blocked, and only ask for a second chance.

Accept reason:

Per the discussion below, I have unblocked your account with the following restrictions: you may not move any page for a period of 6 months and you are restricted from making edits from any account other than Bt8257 (this includes editing while logged out). Should you violate these terms, you will be reblocked. --auburnpilot talk 07:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That deal is now irrelevant, because I took the first step to getting unblocked. Could you please get AuburnPilot's attention so I can tell him that I've realized what I did? (Has he seen this post at all?)

This user has a history of disruptive editing. He typically renames and moves articles with no prior discussion despite being made aware that attempts should be made to obtain consensus on these types of bold edits beforehand. Even if he discontinues the sockpuppetry, I have my doubts that he will discontinue this other disruptive practice. He was made aware that sockpuppetry is not allowed several weeks before eventually being blocked for it, yet he continually ignored all warnings. For what it's worth, I advice against removing his block because he obviously doesn't believe in following guidelines. ChakaKong^talk 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've forgotten the fact that I made sure that there was little to no activity on the talk pages before I moved the articles. If the article's talk page had a lot of activity on it, I would not move it. I always made sure that the pages I moved would create little controversy. Here's some examples: The Talk:Missouri–Oklahoma football rivalry page is a stub. The Air Force–Colorado State football rivalry article is a stub as well (as is the talk page) and has no references at all. The Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry page consists of this: ice hockey with {{}} around it. That's all it has. The Talk:Blackhawks–Blues rivalry page is again, just a stub. I also forgot to mention the Talk:Colorado State–Wyoming football rivalry page hasn't been edited in nearly 5 years. Also, the reason why I moved all those college football articles is that a college football rivalry shouldn't be named after a trophy. You don't see the Notre Dame–USC football rivalry being called Jeweled Shillelagh, do you? So therefore your contention that I'm being "disruptive" by moving these pages without any discussion is untrue. I haven't disrupted anything, as I made the necessary changes to the templates and navboxes to reflect those moves. (P.S.: I already know about the Battle of Ontario and Battle of Quebec (ice hockey), those are the only two examples you have against me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt8257 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 October 2012‎

One of the biggest issues with moving pages without discussion, or doing so only when you see a page has not been edited recently, is that article titles are based on a general Manual of style. Having some articles named after a trophy or nickname while others are named after the rivalry will create a lack of consistency across a large category of articles. Consensus for a naming guideline or style should be reached, if current guidelines do not cover these articles, before moving them on an individual basis.

At this point, I would suggest a ban on any article moves if you are unblocked. This ban can be revisited at a later date, possibly six months down the road. If you believe an article needs to be moved, you would be required to leave notes on the article's talk page and the talk page of the relevant Wikiprojects allowing for consensus to be reached. You would also be restricted to one account: no alternative accounts, no editing while logged out, and obviously no using sock accounts to create the appearance of additional support for your stance. One account, no wiggle room. If you have no intentions of repeating the disruptive behavior that earned your block, I don't believe these restrictions would cause you any trouble. --auburnpilot talk 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me; as long as I can edit Wikipedia in general, I'll be alright. I don't need to move pages all the time to keep myself busy. I have thousands of articles to edit at my disposal. But I can still create articles, right? That's the only question I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt8257 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 October 2012‎

So long as you're not creating new pages and copy/pasting current article to a new title, I can't see any reason to restrict the creation of new articles. You understand that violating the terms of your unblock will result in further blocks? --auburnpilot talk 23:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's still the subject of an open SPI. How will the results of that investigation come into play should you choose to unblock him? ChakaKong^talk 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he is unblocked as a result of this conversation, I'll close the SPI case with restrictions on moving articles and a single account noted. Should suspicion of continued socking become an issue, a checkuser request can be made at a later date. --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand that violating those terms will get me reblocked. bt8257 (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, aside from the activities which earned you the block, there are many other guidelines and policies which can also get you blocked should you violate them. I urge you to take this time while you cannot edit to familiarize yourself with some of them. ChakaKong^talk 01:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm caught up on all the rules I need to follow. Now I just play the waiting game. bt8257 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extra wait...weekend and all that! The Toolserver doesn't appear to be working, so you'll have to place another request to be unblocked if you find yourself suffering from an autoblock. I'm currently unable to determine if one is still in place. --auburnpilot talk 07:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked your account for a period of 48 hours. Your behavior since your unblock has included at least two instances of blatant disregard for the restrictions you agreed to upon your unblock and your most recent behavior on Old Oaken Bucket indicates a desire to continue the same behavior. Moving pages serves as a means to re-title an article, something you are well aware you are not permitted to do, so you attempted to slide passed the issue by simply changing the article title within the text. No. Also, when another editor takes the time to leave you a note, you'd do well to take the time to respond (rather than blanking the message from this page). This is a collaborative project and you are expected to work alongside other editors. --auburnpilot talk 05:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, auburnpilot. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Broncos–Patriots rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Broncos–Patriots rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncos–Patriots rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shadowjams (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBt8257: Is this yet another attempt to circumvent the terms of your unblock? You created a new page while at the same time requesting that a pre-existing page covering the same topic be deleted. FYI: Eventually your block will be permanent. ChakaKong^talk 13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked your account for an indefinite period of time. You have repeatedly demonstrated you are unable to edit within the confines of your restrictions and have shown an apparent lack of competence that makes you unable to edit in a collaborative nature. Your newest stunt with regards to the Broncos-Patriots rivalry article was the final straw. Until you are able to edit constructively, you will not be able to edit at all. --auburnpilot talk 21:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]