User talk:Lukejordan02

Editing restrictions

These are the editing restrictions I agreed to on August 25, 2014:

I agree to comply with 0RR for a period of six months (until February 25, 2015). This period may be reduced by an administrator or my mentor, Dusti, at the end of the first month (September 25, 2014).
For twelve months (until August 25, 2015), I will immediately stop editing any article if an administrator or Dusti advises me to do so. I may resume editing the article if Dusti or the administrator tells me so.
These restrictions must remain unchanged at the top of my talk page until they expire on August 25, 2015.
A violation of any of these restrictions may result in an indefinite block.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

2014

Garbage (album)

Hello. Would you or @Dusti: like to weigh in on a discussion on genre here? It's not really an edit war or anything, but it's gone on forever and I'm just trying to figure out a way to user that you can't interpret genre from prose of a reviewer for an infobox. I believe it's against WP:OR. But they seem to think I have it in for them or something, getting information from anyone else interesting in music genre might help. If you can't, that's fine too. Thanks either way! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have recently made the decision to completely stop getting involved in or editing genres due to my past history, so unfortunately i cant be of any help, although i am sure @Dusti: will be more than happy to give his opinion on the subject when he returns. Sorry i couldn't be more help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't blame you. It's a pain! You are better off. ;) Happy Editing! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, I hope it gets sorted for you. :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

@Anna Frodesiak: HELP - Why have i been blocked, what the hell is going on. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: - Why are you doing this to me, what have I ever done to you? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just taking care of your repeated socking, JonnyBonesJones.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My repeated socking what the hell are you talking about? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, they blocked you b/c they think you're this guy. Or something. Don't try to appease Wikipedia. The nicer you are to the admins, the more they'll ask from you, until you have to sacrifice some of your dignity and you become supporting their hypercriticism of you. And THEN once you're so committed they ban you. By then they've wasted so much of your time it's hard to remember Wikipedia is just some random website.

This happens all the time. I've seen it a million times. I've seen people literally begging the admins. (Not an exaggerated "literally") At least you haven't done anything remotely like that yet. Get out while you can. If you want to contribute to society, Wikipedia is your worst choice. Volunteer in your local community or something. Learn programming and start your own useful website.

Have a nice day. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't even that bad. I heard in another site like it someone committed suicide. At least Wikipedia haven't caused that yet. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your generalizations aren't helping. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, generalizations are generally very harmful, but in my opinion, when one analyzes the situation, there emerges the issue that it impossible to criticize a large website without generalizations. I don't know, I want to talk about this a bit more before we agree. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 01:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they think I'm someone else, I'm still confused, I've been involved with a load of admins and they know I'm not someone else @Anna Frodesiak: @Wifione:

@Bbb23: @Dusti: @5 albert square: @Sergecross73: @Dl2000: Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone get me up to speed? Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - I have been blocked indefinitely for a apparently been a sock-puppet of someone, a load of people know I'm not. Me and Anna have been talking for ages now about me trying to get a page unprotected so i can re-create it, Kww commented on the report i made, the next minute I'm blocked for being a sock-puppet by him and hours and hours of my work is removed like I'm just a pile of shit on the floor. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Kww? I don't see any mention of him on the SPI you're linking to, so can you explain? Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke

You have been blocked because they suspect that your account is related to the account that was already blocked. I can't unblock you as I don't have checkuser access so I can't verify your account. @Kww: does have this access, I am assuming that they carried out these checks before blocking you and found something that makes them think the two accounts are related 5 albert square (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're getting closer. Kww? Any more insight? Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: & @5 albert square: , Looking at his talk page it don't the first time he has falsely accused someone of sockpuppeting. see here- Please help me, I suffer from stress and this really isn't helping. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's strictly a behavioural match: I don't have checkuser access and all checkuser data would be stale. Review the edits of the two accounts, paying attention to the propensity to edit war, topic areas, and phrasing of edit summaries and talk pages. I don't think any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that they are different people.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can someone please help I've done nothing wrong and yet i am being penalised. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the best of admins can make mistakes Luke. We will need to wait for Kww's response 5 albert square (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on his talk page requesting his train of thought on your block. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it right, as an administrator i would expect them to be more careful and not jump on actions until there sure. And what about when i am cleared, which i will because I've done nothing wrong, what about all the edits I've made that he has undone [1] will you be able to get the back? This whole affair is disgusting. I have spent hours and hours making edits trying to make the site better and now they've been removed, will you be able to get them back? Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - He seems to have replied here. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a consensus that I was wrong, I will undo the reversions with the exception of the ones where you were recreating deleted and redirected articles. I will be very surprised if people examine the two accounts and come to the conclusion that I was wrong.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

any administrator that knows me knows your wrong, you shouldn't be an administrator if you cant make good judgements for yourself. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: & @5 albert square: - Would i have a mentor if i was a sockpuppet? Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be possible Luke. @Kww: has CheckUser been performed or requested? 5 albert square (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww - You haven't actually explained yourself still though. How is anyone to prove or disprove anything if you still haven't explained your conclusion? Please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: - "has CheckUser been performed or requested?" He has already said above that it hasn't and he has blocked me just because HE thinks I'm a sockpuppet. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, I don't know how much detail you need. Edits the same area, restores articles created by the previous account, edit wars as all JonnyBonesJones socks do, similar language in edit summaries, and similar language in talk page discussions. Have you actually looked at JonnyBonesJone's contributions and found any reason to doubt my conclusion?—Kww(talk) 02:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this seems to be unclear: there was not an SPI report. Kww is not a checkuser. Neither things are evidence that there hasn't been a (privately discussed) CU check. And neither of the aforementioned steps are mandatory to block a sock as an administrative decision. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: and @5 albert square: - Is anyone going to help? Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That decision will need to be taken by the blocking administrator Luke. Please don't take this the wrong way if you are not JonnyBonesJones but I can see where Kww is coming from as you are editing in the same way 5 albert square (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he has already said he will only do so if there is a consensus to do so. I've wasted so much time on this site just to be treated like shit, How am i suppose to take it, i am getting accused of something I've not done. I have edited albums loads and loads of albums horror films books wwe manchester united ufc, the only one that other user has edited was ufc. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with Kww's decision then you will need to appeal against the blocking by placing the appeal template on your talk page :

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

Lukejordan02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been incorrectly blocked as i am not a sockpuppet, i have been editing wiki for six months now and I've been editing under my real name

Accept reason:

Unblocked with conditions stipulated below by Sergecross73 following discussion with Kww. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to sign the template and take out the obvious spaces I have had to put in. This will then be looked at by an independent admin 5 albert square (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak:, I cant answer you on your talk page, i am NOT the other user, i swear on my mothers life. I have been editing under my real name, i don't feel the need to use an alias as nearly everyone on the internet does. I also have an IMDB account under the same name (had that account for over 3 years) here What more can i say or do? Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People keep asking me to elucidate the obvious, so here goes. JonnyBonesJones was one of a myriad of socks of editors that were upset when the consensus became clear that having an article about each and every UFC event was equivalent to having an article about every NFL football game. The edit-warring in the UFC arena was fast and furious, with people attempting to restore deleted articles. Editors such as User:Jshgrace, User:ScottMMA and User:JonnyBonesJones came and went, edit-warring against the redirects, creating fresh socks as they went. Take a look at the deleted history of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall or the deleted history of UFC on FX:Belfort vs. Bisping as examples. There's a reason all these UFCs are not only redirects, but redirects with the underlying article histories deleted. Now we have Lukejordan02 coming in and rapidly recreating all of these deleted articles one more time. From that behaviour, I concluded that he was one of these sockmasters returning. From his writing style on his talk page contributions, I concluded that JonnyBonesJones was the most likely candidate for the particular sockpuppeteer. There's some small probability that I missed the specific sockpuppeteer, but I see no reason to believe that he's not a sock of one of that group of editors that disrupted the MMA project for too long.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on wiki for six months but i have only just started recreating them articles, if i was a sockpuppet why would i wait 6 months before i started creating them and why would i be bothered that my account has been blocked, if i was a sockpuppet surely i would just create a new account and carry on? Lukejordan02 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, JonnyBonesJones is probably the same person as Glock17gen4, who continues to edit on a MMA wiki - see http://mmawiki.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Glock17Gen4. Looking at the editing times, I think it's clear that Lukejordan02 is a different person. Otherwise, unfortunately, checkuser is of no use as there's nothing to compare to. PhilKnight (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because i am currently blocked i am unable to be helpful by reverting vamdalism such as this - [2] Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had experience with JonnyBonesJones, and quite extensive experience with Lukejordan02, and I suspect that they are not the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the 'time card' section, I think it's fairly obvious that Glock17gen4 and JonnyBonesJones are the same user, while Lukejordan02 is someone else. PhilKnight (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted a CheckUser for assistance. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was thinking a more thorough look into this was necessary, whether it be a real SPI on this, or a check user. Kww's reasoning is sound, but it's not without room for doubt either, especially with multiple people now believing he is not related. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: & @Dusti: - Any idea how long it will take to clear this bullshit up? Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it can take a bit. In fact, that's probably why Kww opted out of going through the whole process. (I do the same thing myself when it looks pretty obvious someone is a sock, so I don't don't blame him in theory, so I have no idea if things were obvious enough to be done in this case. (I'm not familiar with this other editor he's accusing you of being.) If you are innocent, then yes, sorry, it sucks you may be out of commissions for a few days...but if you were innocent, we'll be sure to make sure your edits are reinstated (unless there were other reasons that they were removed.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - Thanks for the reply, i am not worried about the fact i cant currently edit. I understand why the checks need to be dome to make sure i am not a sock for the good of the site, and I'm not worried because i know I've done nothing wrong, the thing that is worrying me is all the hours upon hours of edits i have made that have just been removed like that. Can you promise me when this is all sorted my edits will be reinstated? And i hope you understand my frustration at this incident because I've done nothing wrong and i am being punished, i spend hours trying to better the site and i get punished. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was requested to preform a second opinion check on this request, and I find the same conclusion to PhilKnight in regard to the Lukejordan02 connection. I didn't not review the other part. That said, this user is still editing logged out contrary to his block, for what it is worth. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: - No I'm not. My IP is currently blocked as well. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of your IPs is blocked yes, but there is another one that is not in which your editing a page that your account has edited before. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No i haven't - My IP addresses. here and here Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - What now I've been cleared of these horrible accusations. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I sent you an email about the results. It still stands that your editing logged out, and i'm happy to have any other functionary review it, and as I rarely do, I have provided the details to you via email. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness using behavioural patterns to confirm sockpuppeting is fairly useless and prone to error. if you consider that companies like Amazon etc, use previous buying behaviour to predict future buying behaviours (e.g. you're interesting in this, so we think we'll try and sell you this, because other people who like that, have bought this), then it stands to reason you'll find patterns of editing behaviour being repeated amongst wiki editors too. I mean, if people are interested in one topic, then it stands to reason they'll be interested in another topic (even if it's not related). Anyway, glad this got sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its hardly sorted im still blocked, but i agree that using "behavioural patterns" to confirm a sockpuppet is useless / @Sergecross73: & @Anna Frodesiak: & @5 albert square: & @Dusti: - When Will i be unblocked. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww - The check user did not support him being a sock, and consensus forming here is that hes not a sock. I'm feeling incline to unblock him, at least until you put together a better case at a different venue or something. Any more thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he's been evading the block while it's in place and he's been repeating the behaviour of sockpuppeteers past, I'm not particularly inclined to unblock him, no. If you choose to unblock him over my objection, please only do so if he agrees to stop recreating articles that were deleted and redirected in the past. Even if you doubt that that behaviour is a sign of being a returned editor, certainly we can agree it's disruptive to do so.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your wrong there i haven't been evading my block at all, me and Delta were talking over it on email and an understanding was reached. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that, DQ?—Kww(talk) 01:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion between him and I, and i explained the misunderstanding, which he then informed me was in breach of this rule i did not no of this until after. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: I can not confirm that no. There wasn't a lot of discussion to be honest, it was a lot of back and forth over an hour's time. The explanation I got was not satisfactory in my opinion and is along the lines of stuff i've heard before. He kept having to clear things up left and right, and it took me presenting the actual checkuser evidence before I got a story as to why I saw what I saw. I got it down to either he was evading his block or it was meat-puppetry along the lines of canvassing and getting people to edit on his behalf. Frankly, I believe the former. The meatpuppetry argument would require a lot of salt to work. He also claimed that the specific edits in question were needed as the quality of the article was dropping excessively, when in fact, they were only small numerical modifications really. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: - what i said was the truth and if i was liar i wouldn't have wasted all my time talking with you the reason why "it took me presenting the actual checkuser evidence" was because i didn't know what you was on about as the edits as you said were so small that i never thought much of it. O never made the edits but someone else simply OFFERED to and i wasn't aware that it would be consider the way it is otherwise i wouldn't have done. All te hours and hours I've spent making useful contributions and I'm being treated worse than a criminal its fucking bullshit. All this because i was eager being helpful to this site and for what to be treated like a twat. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am gobsmacked by all of this. Some things do not make sense to me: If Luke came here as a meatpuppet, why wait months before the UFC stuff? It is entirely possible that he just stumbled into the redirects.

But the redirects were from AfDs, so cannot just be restored, and Luke was doing that. Kww rightly reverted, and had had enough and blocked. But why not just protect the lot?

He was first blocked as a suspected sock of Boby with no SPI and only on behavioral. It changed into a sock of possibly one of the old UFC socks/meats. Now the rationale seems to be Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry (similar behaviour). But, he didn’t arrive at the project doing UFC restorations, so that is almost like digging up a rule to fit the crime. I probably would have handled it differently, but I am a new admin, so must defer to his judgment.

Now, the IP editing throws a wrench into the works. Oh, and I’d love to know who Nerdy Community Dude is.

And where is the post here that says "...There is no consensus to turn the old UFC redirects into articles. Please stop for now. They got that way from AfDs, so they should stay that way. It is probably best to forget about restoring these UFCs or at least post at the MMA project as a first step, and for now find other places to edit..."

And I just read the last DQ post, and that doesn't bode well for Luke. Oh, dear. I'm starting to think that the cons are outweighing the pros. This is a lot of talk keystrokes for the amount of project building we're getting in return. Seems to be a pattern of trouble following you, Luke.

I am still out of town on a lousy computer, so flying a bit blind here. Please tell me I am out of line with this post. If I am, I am sorry. Anna F remote (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm having a hard time understanding how you could honestly think meatpuppetry would be okay if you're blocked. But at the same time, if that's all that youre guilty of, then it would mean you should have his blocked lessened to a finite amount. I guess it's hard to tell without knowing more... Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - You've misunderstood me i never knew what "meatpuppetry" was until early so i didn't think it was OK and i honestly didn't think i did anything wrong. Well lesson learnt. May i also add that i shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 and Anna Frodesiak: I've only scanned this, but I want to be clear about something before I go to bed. What I was talking about was only the 5 edits made by an IP address today while the account was blocked. It has no impact on the past or other issues such as previous socks. His claim for those 5 IP edits is that it was someone who was recruited. I'll read this more tomorrow and reexplain anything as needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a checkuser and I agree with DQ that it certainly appears that some (I make it 4, not 5) logged out edits were made by Lukejordan after he was blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukejordan02, what do you have to say about this? Anna F remote (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: - I've already explained, i never made them edits, someone offered to do so when i was talking and explaining, And i shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we've got multiple people saying the check users don't support the socking, then I feel like the indef block should be lifted. However, I'm torn on the meatpuppetry. I find it hard to believe Luke didn't realize he was doing something wrong there. Should it just be switched to finite block length. Probably on the terms of a day or two? Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn as well. Luke should have never been blocked in the first place - it was a bad block. That most of us agree on. The fact that Luke may have edited through the block as an IP is fruit of the poisonous tree in my opinion. Due to privacy issues I'm certain those edits cannot be divulged without risk of exposing Luke's IP, however, were those edits vandalous? Should this block be turned into time served instead of marking it as a bad block? I think we're missing the fact that we have a good editor here who's currently blocked that shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. @Kww: I urge you to unblock Luke immediately and perhaps mark the block as time served and maybe even apologize to him? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 10:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The logged out IP edits weren't vandalism, although I'm ok with either a 24 or 48 hour block. In my opinion, we should require Lukejordan to agree that he can't go around undoing the results of AfDs. That is, if an AfD is closed as "merge" or "redirect", then it's perfectly ok to open a thread at deletion review, but unless a discussion is closed at Deletion Review to allow recreation, he shouldn't recreate the articles. PhilKnight (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either/both sound reasonable. I'll let Kww chime in before acting on anything. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you all are excessively trusting. There's too much going on here, from the restoration of deleted articles, to the false claims at DRV, to the block evasion using IPs. Still, the behaviour that led to me concluding that he was a sock of one of our old abusers was the restoration of articles that had been deleted, so if that stops, the disruption I was attempting to stop stops. I think we'll be back here quickly, though.—Kww(talk) 12:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look at Luke's block log, and I agree, it does look like he's heading for an indef block if he keeps on this road. But I don't think this is the incident that gets him there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't have the block and unblock button, I consider myself involved as I have a lot of experience working with Luke. Kww, the only thing that bothers me about this block is that now it's being changed because of other behavior and it's no longer a sock block. We can't (or shouldn't) just block someone and then go "Ah, okay, I admit the reason I originally blocked was wrong, but now let's look at this and justify it". If there's a pattern of editing behavior that bothers you, I feel that that should be appropriately addressed before you go to block an individual. Perhaps I feel this way because I'm not yet an admin and I am more trusting than others - and if that's a quality of mine and not how you feel I apologize. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thought exactly - the original sock block was wrong, so simply reverse it, and don't make the editor have to address other things that he was not blocked for. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I've said more carefully. I'll repeat it: I believe Lukejordan02 is a sockpuppet of one of the original group of editors from the MMA project that disrupted Wikipedia so thoroughly. People are acting like the CU information somehow disproves that but it does not. I'll ping User:PhilKnight and User:DeltaQuad to confirm, but no checkuser has come up with any information to contradict that. All checkuser data on JonnyBonesJones (and indeed, every editor that participated in the edit warring in 2012) is too stale to use. Only behavioural data is available. This editor edit-wars like those editors in the same topic area as those editors. Based on speech patterns, I concluded JonnyBonesJones was the most likely candidate. I still believe that to be true. The block evasion during this block combined with the constant evasiveness about it reinforces that belief. If reality is that he's a sock of some other person editing at that time, that's not a reason to lift the block, just a reason to edit some tags. —Kww(talk) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right in your socking suspicion, but when there's a consensus against you then that *is* a reason for unblocking. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on you lot, the block was clearly a mistake (an honest one, but still wrong), so why can't you just unblock? Instead of spending all this time clucking like a bunch of old hens, someone just do the right thing! Neatsfoot (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because admin edit warring brings so much more drama, so cool it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, KWW seems like an honorable chap and he's already made it clear he'll be happy with an unblock if there's a consensus that says so! (And I really don't see that reversing an obviously incorrect block in such circumstances would be seen as admin edit warring - and if you think it would be a wheel war, then you obviously haven't read the page you just gave me a link to) Neatsfoot (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love unsolicited admin advice from an editor of less than two months, it's common courtesy to consult with the blocking admin in situations like this. You can do it your way when you're an admin. In the meantime, I'll do it my way. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admins are supposed to be servants of the editing community, aren't they? And you're supposed to listen to us, aren't you? And you were wrong about what constitutes wheel warring, weren't you? It's not the length of time I've been here that counts, it's whether or not I'm right - and on the wheel warring thing I seem to know more than you despite your longer tenure. As for the "common courtesy", I repeat that KWW has already made it clear he'd accept an unblock if there's a consensus for it, and there clearly is. As KWW has spoken now (and responded in the honorable way I expected), how about you stop trying to talk down to a mere editor like me and make things right? Neatsfoot (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I should have been moe respectful to the guy who started off with a monologue about "clucking like hens". That commands respect from others, right? Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't honestly ask for respect, because I didn't give it in the first place, so I guess that's fair. In the light of your unblock proposal below, how about I admit I was wrong to use the "clucking hens" thing and you admit you were wrong about what constitutes wheel warring and wrong to suggest I'm not allowed to speak to an admin until spoken to? I'll start by unconditionally apologizing for the hens remark. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I know what wheel warring is. I didn't say me unblocking him would be that. What I was getting at was hasty in blocks may (and do) lead to WW though. Spend some time at WP:ANI and you may begin to understand where I'm coming from. Theres a big "Admin are corrupt" thing going on these days, some of it legit, some of it just being "sour grapes". Regardless, I don't wish to be dragged into all of that, so I try to be more cautious in my actions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's gracious, thank you - I'll comment over at your talk page to avoid filling this page needlessly. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a plan to consider: We want to protect the project and stop disruption, right?

We can protect by protecting these UFC redirects until the mma project participants feel they should be articles. If there is only one to complete the set, well, maybe consider IAR and let it exist.

As for disruption, this talk page is a keystroke and eyeball vacuum (sorry, bad visual), and that is disruptive in itself. So, how about an unblock and Luke stays away from UFC except to start a thread if he wishes about the redirects, and then backs off to see what the community wants. If the existing MMA project community is united and aware, then meats and socks that suddenly emerge can be identified and dismissed.

As for Luke, he worked on band genres, now UFC, both contentious. So Luke, if unblocked, do you have an area in which you could work that is constructive and non-contentious? I’d say if you created or expanded about 20 centipede articles, we’d break even and then start to enter the black. Anything you are interested in? I’d like to see some product with no talk page activity as a result for a long time. If you pick a third area and things end up this way, the community will probably boot you for good as a net negative, proof or not. Pick wisely and then act accordingly. What say you? Anna F remote (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to the UFC plan is that the MMA project has generally wanted a distinct article for each event, and was overridden by the rest of the community, much as would happen if some Wikiproject decided to create an article for every major league football game. It's not MMA project consensus that is required, it's community consensus that is required.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my friend. Let me revise my suggestion to say "...when the community at large wants the redirects unprotected..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna F remote (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requirements

Luke, I will unblock you, but I need you to commit to some things:

No more meatpuppetry, or ever editing through IPs while blocked.
No altering old AFDs.
Discuss prior to recreating articles that have consensus to redirect/merge/delete.

Confirm this, and I'll unblock you. You'll be able to restore your work if the only reason it was reverted was because you were blocked. If your edits were undone for different reasons, then your normal revert restrictions should apply. Kww can hopefully give you some guidance on which are which?) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just posted above with a plan without seeing this. I'll let you take it from here any way you wish. Sorry to step on your toes. Anna F remote (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, not at all. I think you explained my sentiments s little better. Luke, please read what she said above as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect this unblock offer and I can see it does address some valid issues, but as the block was only for socking and there is a consensus that that was wrong, I don't think it is right to add extra conditions now and make Luke address things that he was not blocked for. I'm sorry for my initial aggressive approach here and I do respect the people who are trying to help, but it is simply wrong to keep someone blocked when the actual reason they were blocked has been accepted to have been wrong. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if we don't discuss it now, we'll be right back at the situation again though. May as well get it out of the way. All he's agreeing to is basically discussing first and not editing against consensus, something everyone should abide by. I assume his lack of response so far is probably because he's unavailable for editing at the moment anyways, so I don't really think time is a factor right now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the merit in addressing the raised issues - but I'd say unblock him first because there's a consensus that the block reason was not valid, and then discuss those other problems. I know if I was in Luke's position, I wouldn't feel like cooperating under a threat that I wouldn't otherwise be unblocked even though I didn't do what I was blocked for. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (added underscored text)[reply]

Yes, but some of it was done during the block. Regardless, as I expected, Luke was more than willing to work with me. He has been good with that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: - Ok I agree. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll unblock you then. Please don't make me regret it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wont regret it your just doing whats right because i shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I just mean stay out of trouble. Kww's block was made hastily, but you've got quite the block log of legit blocks too... Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes i have bit I've since moved away from that area and made a fresh start ask @Anna Frodesiak: someone who once thought i should have indef block but has seen the change for herself. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, as I did a mere 22 minutes before Sergecross73 unblocked him that I consider the reason behind my original block to have been valid. At worst, I identified the wrong master out of a large list of contenders.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still an incorrect block. (I should add that it was clearly a good faith block, but a block based on an unsubstantiated suspicion is a bad block) Neatsfoot (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: - It wouldn't surprise me if you was a sockpuppet because you sound an awful lot like that Mtking guy that used to edit here. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, while your block was incorrect and you have now been correctly unblocked, I would strongly advise against making unsubstantiated accusations against others - smell the coffee and wise up! Neatsfoot (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a close one, Luke. I’m sure you remember this (which didn’t quite make it into your archives): "...Once unblocked, stay well, well, well, back from the line. Edit uncontroversially. The next block will likely come from me, and will be indefinite. After that, I cannot imagine anyone being so optimistic as to give you another chance. That will be it for you and Wikipedia. Think it over..."

Had you been blocked in the first place per the warning above, or perhaps even Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry (I say perhaps because you started in genres for a long time first), you would have been blocked for good. You essentially got off on a technicality. Thank your lucky stars.

So, considering your entire history, once again, edit uncontroversially. In my view, this is no longer about whether you are right or not in any future conflicts. This is about getting into conflicts in the first place. Conflicts = an indefinite block for disruptive editing. Would others agree with this? Anna F remote (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point, i never got in to conflicts or did anything wrong all i did was create some articles. Articles that i wasn't even aware had been made and deleted, i just saw they didn't have articles so i made them, then the next minute i am indefinitely blocked viciously for some utter bullshit that was not true, as for the Meatpuppetry once again i wasn't aware of what i was doing and if i hadn't have been blocked for something i hadn't even done then it would have never happened. I listened to what you said regarding "edit uncontroversially" and change my ways even you said so. All I've done is try to create content and I've got punished for it, how stupid is that i try to create content and i get punished anyone would think i'd killed someone with the way i have been treated. As for disruptive editing, in my view the only being disruptive is KWW by making harsh wild and untrue allegations and wasting many peoples time looking into something that wasn't true... time that could of been better spent creating or improving articles. So once again being threatened with an indef block for something i haven't done is cruel and unfair, i am well aware of a lot of the rules of wiki and have learnt so much more in only a few weeks. Perhaps if KWW would of done his job better all this would of been avoided. I am a young editor and a young person that has made mistakes but thats how you learn but the mistakes KWW has made are damaging and i would expect an experienced administrator and a 54 year old man to know better, and i think he should be investigated regarding his handling of administrative tools at the very least he could man-up and say sorry. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kww: and Luke. Luke, you are in a tough spot and things are complicated. I like to make things simple, and I’m having trouble doing that here.

You have a history of drawing heat and are no angel. At the same time, I see Kww going after you, and maybe in ways that I cannot agree with. I am not sure how to handle this. I am a new admin, and have never criticized the actions of another admin before. I really, really need some experienced admins and others to give opinions here.

We’re all clear on what happened with this block. I stopped short of calling this a bad block, but certainly would have handled it differently.

Now, I see that before you were blocked, you made around 40 edits to UFC articles, all of which were reverted by Kww and then restored by you, all with no edit summaries. I’d like some sort of explanation. Was there a discussion about all of that? Can I get some sort of response to this series edits?

In the meantime, Luke, I see you just prodded a dozen or so articles. I’d like this not be a new chapter that involves conflict and battles. Please. I’ve put in like an hour of typing with matters involving you, and I’d like to see you around for a few years making product. Please just expand stuff and don’t do anything blockable. You must understand that you are fighting with a shorter sword here. You can easily be seen as the common denominator if you end up in another conflict. Right or wrong, it can end with you booted. Not fair? Well, you’re the one who chopped half your sword off in the first place. Please, just build the darn encyclopedia and stay out of the UFC ring. Anna F remote (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, I'm not going after Luke. I still believe him to be a sock, but the rest of you have overridden my judgement in that. So long as he doesn't begin restoring deleted articles again, I don't plan on having any further interaction with him.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If Luke was a sock of a banned editor, then all of his edits could be reverted, so in my understanding, Kww's actions were consistent with the block. Now the block has been overturned, undoing the reversions is ok as far as I'm concerned. However, in this example I agree with Kww's reversion as Luke was specifically asked not to restore articles that were deleted following an AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear on that diff of Phil's: Luke didn't do anything questionable after his unblock. He had restored it earlier. When I did the bulk reversion, I only caught a minor edit, not the initial creation. When Luke undid my reversion, Luke did not do anything that violated any agreement that he has made.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. The reverts were part of the block, as in reverting all edits of a blocked sock, and that is allowed. That makes sense. I would have done the same. It was just that the reverts were made before he was blocked that threw me off. But, that is a minor issue.

As for Luke’s edits after the recent unblock (the PRODs), indeed those are not a vio and not inherently controversial. However, they are not exactly what I’d like to see. Luke, would you please just add some paragraphs to articles or make new articles? Simple stuff that nobody is going to object to. A dozen consecutive PRODs has the chance of someone starting to argue with you and then you arguing back and then zam, things get disruptive again. After your block before this last one, you ended up on my page asking for help with a conflict over a UFC article involving Kww. That is precisely editing controversially and exactly what you must avoid.

Anyway, Kww, sorry to ask so many questions about your actions. If I can be comfortable that they are all completely fair, then that uncomplicates matters to do with Luke’s actions. Best wishes to all. Anna F remote (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Just making sure you see my post. Anna F remote (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is good advice there by Anna and Tezero. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

find another project

Personally I recommend you find another project. Wikipedia is very much a clique, and the admins will all stick together regardless of who is right or wrong. Many of them dislike experts, and I suspect that secretly many of them enjoy the drama and conflict of picking on new users.

Read the comments on the link below to get an insight into the experience of other experts trying to assist the project� (tells you all you need to know):

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-contributions

" ... it's a mixture of libelous misinformation, endless debates about punctuation styles, and ridiculously overdetailed synopses of kid's television shows. Pokemon. That kind of thing. ....

Absolute total shit. Reams of it. Reams of absolute total shit written by kids. "

This isn't advice for you to fight this, is this advice to say just don't get involved you won't be able to change anything, which will be wikipedias own downfall (in the longterm).

- Someone reverted this edit, is there wiki protocol for removing messages on a users talk page that are not vandalism?

147.143.95.28 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]