User:False Positive CLEANSTART/Sandbox

hidden invisible imaginary


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_job
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How-to
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sim_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_(typeface)
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Black_is_the_new_white
 * http://www.soulplanet.org/home.html
 * http://www.soulplanet.org/
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-hit_wonder
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Multiple_issues
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keylogger
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_stroke
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_computing
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Winter_(novel)_John_Marsden
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:OlEnglish
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=ReDirectory+Linx&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1
 * http://www.ehow.com/how_2056317_underline-text-html.html
 * http://www.w3schools.com/
 * http://www.developingwebs.net/html/lesson3.php
 * http://ilovethecode.com/HTML/HTML-Tutorials-How_To-Easy/HTML_Underline_Text.shtml
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#How_to_create_a_user_subpage
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_HTML_Sourcebook:_The_Complete_Guide_to_HTML
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:ISO_standards
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:W3C_standards
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Document_markup_languages
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_document_markup_languages
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:FOSS
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Web_development
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BOT
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SoxBot
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Blacketer_2
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbcom
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:RTV
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Foo
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_discussions
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Redlink
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfd#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:SERVICE
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:NC-BK
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MediaWiki:Titleblacklist
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Deletedpage
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Deletedtalkpage

<!--

- Scientific Date/Time = Opposite (Categorical Organisation) WP:SUS Template:WP:UBS

Template:Human-powered vehicles

Template:WP:UBS Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Running Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports#Martial Arts Boxing

Drumming
 * Rudiments & Penspinning

Surfing
 * Swimming

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

New user admits to being a return of a banned user
User:CLOSEXACT admitted a few minutes ago that he was a new account for a banned user, Guitarherochristopher, after I asked him so based on similarity in behavior and the fact that he knew who User:White Shadows was and seems to have borrowed an edit notice from User:Master of Puppets. He does seem to be editing in good faith, having created the G-Surfers article just now, and his old user account has had its talk page access disabled, so he could not post an unblock appeal there. I am starting a thread here because I've never dealt with a situation quite like this and don't know what else to do. I realize he will probably be re-blocked, but that he's at least trying to make productive edits makes me feel he deserves something more than simply being reported directly to AIV or SPI as I would normally do with a sock.  — Soap  —  01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me crazy but if he can keep up his good edits. I say we give this guy another chance with this current account. I know that he'll be probably re-blocked anyway but thats just my opinion.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that he's not operating any sockpuppets, if that information helps you somehow. --Deskana (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not even once was this guy ever useing more than one account. He only got "banned" due to his myspacey edits. It apprears that this account is actually being productive and countering the edits that got him banned in the first place. Like I said, give him a chance. I know that my opinion on this contradicts one of WP's core policies but I think that this case is diffrent and I hope that you all see that as well.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is helpful, but an indefinite block for a series of problematic edits is not something that anyone should just be able to sock around (whatever their intentions). That said, his edits have turned productive, which is promising.  If he would agree to temporarily cease editing using User:CLOSEXACT, and if he would agree to make an unblock request for User:Guitarherochristopher, I think it should be given serious consideration, with the understanding that a return to unconstructive or unacceptable edits would lead to a swift reblock.  I think we ought to hold off on dropping the hammer on the new User:CLOSEXACT, and obviously his old talk page should be unprotected so he can make a proper request there.   jæs  (talk)  01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't just get to sock our way back in. This guy generated a mass amount of AN/I traffic.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was involved in one of his sock puppetry cases (that turned out to be false) he should have his talk page access restored for GHC so he can make a proper unblock request. His socking though has to end.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sock should be blocked and that is the end of it. Just further evidence that there is no respect for the wikipedia community.--Crossmr (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I support a block of this sock as a violation of GHC's ban.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I interrupt this. I am unable to log in under Guitarherochristopher, so don't unblock that account until I respond to User:Soap or somebody in Wikipedia that I figured out to log in under that name. c LOSEƎXACT 01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have immediately made a statement to that effect but you didn't. You could have contacted the blocking admin immediately and you didn't. You could have done so as an IP. It was 2 days after you made the account and only when questioned did you admit who you were.--Crossmr (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a block as well. –Turian  ( talk )  01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support blocking, as allowing this user to continue editing would, IMO, erode the credibility of blocks made in the future. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 15:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for AGF and "we dont do punishment, we just hope people reform and become good editors". What a load we spout out one mouth while we block people and dont give them adequate tools to tell their side. "Lets block someone, PRIOR to getting their side, then allow them to only edit their own talk pages so they cant even take the admin who blocked them to AN/I and get a fair 'trail', then lets have any decisions to unblock them be made by OTHER admins who are unlikely to question the authority of one of their own." Nice system we have here; so very fair. Not saying this individual deserves to be unblocked, not saying he didnt do things wrong, but if its true he has now been editing nicely within the rules and obeying and respecting Wikipedia it is simply wrong to punish him again now for past offences. We now know who he is, unblock his new account, watch him, and if he does something wrong THEN block him.Camelbinky (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF is not an indefinite shield. There were about 5 or 6 AN/I threads about this user. He had lots of time to give his side of the story or change his behaviour. He finally exhausted patience and was blocked indefinitely. His last chances had been expended. We don't let banned and block users just walk back in the door, especially one who wasn't honest about his previous account. He only admitted it when questioned.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Give the guy a chance here. As stated above, GHC's talk page access was revoked. As I remember, we are dealing with someone who is severely autistic. I suggest we allow GHC talk page access, let him post an unblock request. It he wishes, allow him to change user to the new identity after GHC's unblock request is allowed. If he wishes to use new account, old account can then be redirected to new account. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * are you saying he wasn't given a chance before? Wikipedia isn't therapy.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. It doesn't work that way. I admitted being a banned user and, get this, was blocked an hour and a half later for eight months. see also There's also the borderline new username; containing the substring "sex act".
 * Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200

<span style="white-space: nowrap; background-color: #eee; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, #999, #eee); border: 1px solid #999; border-radius: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 0.5em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); display: inline-block; margin: 0.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 0.8em 0.5em; font-variant: small-caps;" title="“Bollocks to the rules!”">— Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew   05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * :that isn't going to fly as a signature..--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be something you whipped up special for the occasion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That not my sig, it's my post wrapped around my sig. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, given the evidence of some constructive editing, I'd say that a chance should be given. I appreciate that GHCs editing previously, whilst not damaging to Wikipedia, was not constructive either. Let's not apply the rules absolutely to the letter here, cut a little slack and we may gain a productive editor. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. The claim about autism was made by someone claiming to be his father. I don't think any evidence was actually provided otherwise. In terms of useful edits, he's only made 10 mainspace edits, 3 of which were to link to the new article he created (which has some questionably irrelevant content in it) and a couple of other extremely trivial changes to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few reasonably constructive edits, yes, but more that are just about formatting his user page and user talk page. His posts to other editors' talk pages are as much about the formatting as the content (and frankly they are almost impossible to read because they are white-on-black). This wouldn't be much of a problem if it hadn't been for the fact that Guitarherochristopher was asked over and over by many different people to stop focusing on the prettification of his user space; see this final warning from an admin for instance. Even applying AGF (and I don't think his intentions are actively bad) there still seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is about, and given the large amount of extra work that misunderstanding caused to other editors a few months back, I would not think it would be a good idea to lift the ban now. But in any case, he can't go on editing under his new account as if nothing had happened - at the very least he needs to appeal his ban under his old username and argue in a way that shows he understands why his previous editing behaviour was unacceptable, and how it will change. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account, not simply because it is a sock of banned user, but because recent edits demonstrate the same pattern, , of behavior that led to the original ban (i.e., a mix of reasonable contributions along with excessive My-spacey edits). Given the thin attempt to disguise identity or behavior, I don't believe GHC or his sock are editing in bad faith, rather it seems to be an inability to comply with this project's goal and practices. FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to an unbannning if someone can craft appropriate and strict editing restrictions, and believes that there is a reasonable chance of GHC being able to follow them. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Raa G  gio (talk)   19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quotarion Quotazion QuotaZion

Template:User Template metaprogramming

User:CapitalR -->