User talk:Kww - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gimmetoo (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 15 October 2011 (→Your response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:44, 15 October 2011 by Gimmetoo (talk | contribs) (→Your response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives at

Merkey at it again

Trying to avoid a drama fest by telling a couple of hard nosed admins instead of going to the AN/I snake pit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/%E1%8E%A4%E1%8F%92%E1%8F%95%E1%8E%BE_%E1%8E%A0%E1%8F%82

Do with it as you will. SadFatter (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello :), please help reach consensus by weighing in your opinion here. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Proof of Case

I'm just wondering where the discussion took place that the user is a sock puppet? I've suspected this for a while, but I could never put a user on it. The user had been causing problems for weeks with me, even suspecting ME for sock puppetry. :/ Thanks, ℥ 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it went on so long. Once I looked at it, it was obvious. There hasn't been a discussion. Since I was convinced, I'm allowed to block. If he requests unblocking, a checkuser will be run before granting any unblocks.—Kww(talk) 18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It's fine, I'm just glad the user is FINALLY blocked. I'm looking at the original investigations, and you're right, it IS so obvious. That user would not stop with the bubbling under nonsense. ℥ 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography again

Kevin, I know you mentioned that you have a full time job now and your response time is slow, but if you have time please see the edits of user 1111tomica at Jeniffer Lopez discography. This user has made around some 30 edits within two days, which is fine. But making incorrect changes such as changing the first parts of the citations in the singles table from New Zealand's positions for Jennifer Lopez to NZ ALBUMS (see the entire change here), or supporting all Swiss certifications with 2007 certifications and claiming I explained it, I'm totally right here ! is not a behaviour of someone who likes to work with wiki community. Also, please note that the user has removed all those sources that were placed in the singles boxes for "I'm Into You" and "On the Floor", those positions cannot be found in the sources provided. There are other incorrect changes as Work=German Albums Chart (which should be Media Control), see all other similar changes. Unacceptable behaviour overall.--Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Wonda

Hi Kevin, I had included citations this time. Is that not suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarie9 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Charlie

Since blocks does not work with him, could you please protect the pages edited by 86.181.212.145 (talk · contribs). Thank you in advice. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sinead O'Connor

Hello. I've been trying to put the Singlechart template in "Nothing Compares 2 U" article, but it just won't let me to. The link becomes broken. I guess it has something to do with Sinead O'Connor's name and symbols used in it. I don't know how to write it correctly, so I'm asking for help. — Cannot (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Wonda

There is a wealth of information about this individual and I've been trying to update it as appropriately as possible. What can you recommend? Is there any way I can run a revised version with you without being blocked from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarie9 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dewan?

Can you take a look at Areapeaslol (talk · contribs)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Routerone

Would you please take a look at the most recent discussion at User talk:Routerone#Concern. It appears to me he has broken his zero revert agreement - and his edit summary "(cleanup, tidy and adjust)" is a bit misleading - adjust seems to mean delete some material and change other material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is an indefinite block over this really appropriate? Tweaks to the lede, especially the opening sentence, have been far from rare for this article; any change at all could be construed as a "revert". ...comments? ~BF izz 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It was borderline, but it was made clear to Routerone that there was no tolerance or fudging permitted. Even a revert of blatant vandalism would have resulted in him being blocked. In this case, he removed material from the lead that he had objected to and reverted in the past. It technically met the definition and I felt the spirit of it did as well.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely given his behavior in the past. I think it was inevitable. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hot100brasil

Do you think its time to blacklist this url completely? — Legolas 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an edit filter that watches for it, so the links don't last long. I keep arguing with myself as to whether it's better to blacklist it. Maybe refusing to save the edit will just result in people posting the figures without any clue as to where they came from.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dewan and Tomara dynasty

I hit upon Tomara dynasty via an unrelated route (searching for articles using a specific unreliable source), but spotted the PP and then the SPI etc. I've done a fair amount of quick cleaning but am off to bed. I would imagine that you have this article watchlisted, in which case you may wish to consult with SpacemanSpiff regarding what it is I am likely to do to it! Although SS has no information regarding my intent on this article, they are aware of the work that I have done on various caste/dynasty/clan articles. There will probably be a quite significant pruning, then rewrites/rephrases etc and it will happen in bursts. Obviously, if you have a problem with this then please do let me know. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

V7 sport/Iqinn blocks

No, I am not here to question your blocks. Thought I'd get that right out of the way, they are completely solid blocks of two users who clearly have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My only concern is that one or the other of them might be able to convince an admin to consider unblocking them. For the moment I have advised them both to consider WP:OFFER. If that doesn't fly I definitely think the next step is ANI to propose an interaction and topic ban of at least a year but preferably indefinite with no appeals for the first year and not more than once every six months thereafter. Neither user is helping in the area they choose to edit, and they obviously cannot work around each other. For the moment I think we can wait and see what they do next, but thought I'd put a bug in your ear about this as it seems you've tangled with these two before. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (song)

Kevin, a user is insisting on adding the Japanese Oricon physical CD sales chart in the above article. However, I reverted his/her addition since it is a component chart of the Japan Hot 100, along with the radio airplay and the SoundScan Japan charts. Can you please check if I did the right thing? — Legolas 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

About your recent revert of my revert

You undid my revert of Fleet Command's removal of red links from the template. with the message "addition of non-navigational links to navigation template". Have you seen the discussion on the talk page? The red link guideline page states: Red links are generally not ... linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc. These red links are thus valid, since these red links are in fact part of a series. Listing someone's books in those two bestselling series of his, and not listing all of them, is not a better alternative than this. Dream Focus 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado page

Hello! I was wondering if you could semi-protect the Nelly Furtado page, because just recently a prankster altered her whole biography, changing her from a "Canadian of portuguese descent" to an "Indian who came from New Mumbai." He changed the instruments that she plays, i.e, from "guitar, keyboards, ukelele and trombone" to "sitar, harmonium and what-not"! I had a tough time clearing that mess up. I would have semi-protected the page if I knew how to, the fact is that I don't.....so please help.....Manas justice (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sock puppetry

Hi Kww. I used to be a consistant contributor to wiki untill I left wiki 2 years back. The recent edits made under IP 69.118.40.76 and 129.42.208.174, mistaken to be sock puppetry by another user and reverted by you were actually made by me. After having authored more than a dozen FA's (some of which I touched recently) I left wiki, unable to contribute for both personal reasons and the kind of sock puppetry you face on wiki everyday. So, I dont blame you for the reverts. I was too lazy to log in. I do visit wiki once every six months or so if I feel I have found a really good source and some new information, though I realize I should have logged in. Please do revert your reverts and then lock up the articles if you feel there are socks trolling those articles. However, if you prefer not to revert to my edits (in articles Asaga, Western Ganga Dynasty, Political history of medieval Karnataka, Rashtrakuta literature and the template within that article, and Kannada) I will not bother to make an issue. I visit only ocassionally and really dont want to get into debates. You may retain the template I deleted from two of those articles, though I think they only create more confusion. All the best on wiki.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dale Brown: What should we do next?

So, what is the next course of action? Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Song article violations. Thank you.v/r - T P 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Boomerang

Could you take care of 86.173.57.177 (talk · contribs) Thank you. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Truefact

Thanks for spotting the sockmaster for Truefact1979, whom you have recently blocked and tagged. The SPI has not yet been archived - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357#Comments_by_other_users - but myself & MatthewVanitas has added a couple of notes about quacking IPs. Since the AN3 blocking admin has indicated that they are currently busy, is there any chance that you could take a quick look? It would seem that you may in any event have some background knowledge regarding editing styles etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Billboard

The other ones don't have either... but I'll transcribe the ones from the original version at the PT wiki (I only didn't do it earlier because it envolves translating the template!). igordebraga ≠ 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Muslim views about the Indicent of Umar at Fatimah's House

The Hashemites alone declined the oath of fidelity; and their chief, in his own house, maintained, above six months, a sullen and independent reserve; without listening to the threats of Omar, who attempted to consume with fire the habitation of the daughter of the apostle.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Fy0ho0JMc_AC&printsec=frontcover&dg=The+Decline+and+Fall+of+the+Roman+Empire+complete&hl=en&ei=JPisTKvnEYGucMyateYN&sa=X&oi=book_reult&ct=result&fresnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Add this to the Omar at Fatimah's House.

Pixie Lott

Please quit shoving singlechart templates down my throat. Just because I'm not in accordance with them does not necessarily mean my edits are disruptive. Last time I checked, they're not mandatory, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the formatting I'm using, which has been on Misplaced Pages for ages. In fact, I've seen single articles by thousands of artists which still use the manual formatting—why won't you go change those too? SnapSnap 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

requested help but got....??

I asked for help and advice on fixing category references on Toluca Lake's famous celebrity residents. But rather than assisting, you followed every entry I was making and deleted them before I had a chance to make the needed corrections. Wouldn't it have been more polite to have answered my call for assistance than to make me do it all over again? WikiBob47 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential Sockpuppet of Pesf

Hi there, I've been monitoring this user User talk:92.24.197.105 and it seems that they are acting in the exact same manner to the User you blocked Madiera1234. They are removing large chunks of information on the same articles as that of the named sockpuppet. I would be grateful if you could have a look into this. Cheers. Virus101 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, there is a User talk:92.29.24.100 who is again following very similar behaviour to Pesf by removing big chunks of sourced information and pretending to address a tiny matter. Could you perhaps look into this? Thanks again mate. Virus101 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesf again, but with maybe a different view

Some thoughts about Pesf. While I'll be the first to congratulate everyone blocking Pesf socks, as Pesf had made quite disruptive edits ruining the work of many editors, (and by the way, they may also be on 92.24.206.213, 92.24.203.92), the edits sometime really make sense. here for example I would have done the same. The download chart seems valid, and the cleanup tag was given without stating a reason, and I don't personally see what to clean up. here he removed an unsourced peak. If you look at the history, it was sourced to WP:BADCHARTS and the only reason I didn't remove it myself was that I have a personal agreement with the editor who added it to let him know on his talk page rather than remove - otherwise I would have definitely removed a WP:BADCHARTS listing. here of course I totally agree - I believe this is one type of disruptive editing that got him blocked, introducing unsourced sales figures. Maybe a bit of caution with the reverts is appropriate? Not that I haven't in the past reverted the entirety of a blocked editor's edits just to be on the safe side. So maybe I'm not sure what I am saying but just felt it needed to be said. Sorry to waste your time with my deliberations. On the practical side, maybe semi-protection is due? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments

Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.

Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.

Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. –xeno 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck protection

Hi, Kww. Can I persuade you that semiprotecting Scrooge McDuck for a year is a bit of an overreaction? The "FPS Kyle" vandalism -- whatever it means -- is rather low volume and quite easy to keep up with with normal editing procedures. Semi-protection, on the other hand, prohibits all non-registered users from editing the article, just to stop one person. I think that's too steep a price to pay for a very small added convenience. Powers 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article has spent half of this year semi-protected due to this kind of vandalism, and many of the IP edits that have been made are vandalism, I don't really think it's overdoing it. I could trim it to 6 months if you feel extremely strongly about it.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I do feel strongly about it, though I don't know if I'd say "extreme". Nonetheless, I'd have made the same request if you'd semi-protected it for six months as well. This kind of low-volume vandalism is just not a good reason to shut out non-registered users. Powers 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As six months is still excessive, I have requested unprotection at WP:RPP#Current requests for unprotection. Powers 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Confusion?

It's happened on one of your RfAs, so I didn't want that happening again, that's all. I'm strange and weird :) Kwsn (Ni!) 01:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ethiopia and other protection requests

Just IP hopping from somebody who uses Digicel Jamaica. I thought in a rangeblock because the IPS start with "69.160.xx.xxx", but also there are some with "184.70.xx.xxx". Also, those are not the only pages affected, there are more but not edited in days. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you block 86.161.35.65 (talk · contribs) and protect its target? Thank you in advice. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one 86.180.218.20 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tina Turner photos

You are maybe interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TinaTurner2008.JPG. Your caution with the use of this very old uploads in the article was correct, that user is a copyvio uploader and his whole story have been made up out of whole cloth. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pesf

Hello there Kww, Pesf is vandalising the same articles again using this account User talk:2.98.253.173. They are removing large chunks of sourced charting information from Take That singles and editing Boyzone albums inappropriately. I also have reason to suspect that this account, User talk:92.29.28.223 has been used as well as the contributions mimic the same actions as Pesf and his other sock puppets. Sorry to trouble you but they continue to vandalise the work of users and act in an aggressive manner when approached. If you could look into this I would be very grateful indeed, and perhaps as Munhandes has suggested a semi protect to be imposed on the articles that are being constantly attacked? Many thanks for your time. Yids2010 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your response

I notice that you haven't responded to my criticisms on your CU page. Am I to understand that you have elected not to communicate?

In particular, I do consider you barred from any administrative action with regards to me or my accounts. That includes any advanced permissions you may ever receive. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've engaged all points that you have made. I am not barred from any administrative actions relative to you at any time. I don't cross the threshold of WP:INVOLVED in dealing with you. WP:INVOLVED does not limit admins from taking multiple actions against one account. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." I don't think there is any reasonable perception that I am biased against you (or for you, for that matter). I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made multiple administrative actions that were incorrect with regards to me. That is why you are barred from further action. But since we're discussing this - you seem to have had no problem with NW issuing an out-of-policy ultimatim to a fellow admin, requiring consent and action as a condition for unblocking. Do you still agree that an admin may issue such an ultimatim without authorizations in policy? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First things first: please stop describing me as being "barred" from taking actions against you in the future unless you can get some sort of consensus to that effect. It certainly isn't a reasonable reading of WP:INVOLVED. If NW had blocked Gimmetrow, your argument would apply. NW did not block the Gimmetrow account. NW blocked the Gimmetoo account when he believed there was a substantial risk that it was being used to impersonate an admin. Given that it was the second time the Gimmetoo account had been involved in an edit war in a short period of time, he was not the only admin concerned that Gimmetoo was, in fact, a skilled impersonator. Gimmetrow made no effort to take any action to alleviate NW's fears. Gimmetrow refused to respond to e-mails requesting confirmation of his relationship to Gimmetoo. Gimmetrow refused to use his acknowledged alter, Gimmebot, to alleviate anyone's concerns. Gimmetrow refused to do anything about the situation, and, in doing so, caused most of his own problems. Did I make a mistake by not seeing that the autoblock had been forged? Yes, I did. Good-faith mistakes don't make someone incapable of action in the future.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NW blocked without prior contact or discussion, then removed email and talk. You supported this. Show me the policy that authorizes this? Show me the policy that authorizes any admin to require another user log in and perform actions from a specific account? If you cannot grasp why that's inappropriate behavior, then you have no business having access to privileged information. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I still support it. NW wasn't wrong. As for policies, I think WP:BURO and WP:IAR cover the extremely unusual circumstance of an account claiming to be an admin's alternate while the admin refused to acknowledge the existence of the account. No reasonable person would expect Misplaced Pages to have policies and procedures in place for a circumstance that should never have occurred. I really am sorry that you don't seem to understand your role in causing this situation to escalate.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made a claim that "the admin refused to acknowledge the existence of the account". Demonstrate that or retract it. I expect either response ASAP.

Since you can only claim IAR to ignore other policies, then you do formally support admins making an out-of-policy ultimatim?

You have still not adequately responded to the first serious event - you used admin tools to block a user who was removing false information from a BLP, and you did not remove the information yourself; hence you used administrative tools to support the retention of a WP:BLP violation. (You also knew the user in question was an admin.)

Once you have made such an egregious error - and have been unable to admit your error - it is quite reasonable to view any later blocks (and unblock declines) as an attempt to validate an inapproprate administrative action. You then later denied an unblock, supported the removal of talk page and email access, and then filed an SPI that was quite inappropriate in many ways. And since you brought up edit-warring, let's not forget you have been involved in disruptive edit-warring a few times yourself. According to your argument, isn't that grounds to suspect your account is compromised? How would you expect an admin to handle your account? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The request can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=378928321#obstruction_of_ref_clean-up : note my edit at 21:17, the follow up from Atama at 21:21, and your own block log. I can't prove a negative: if you want to claim that Gimmetrow acknowledged the account, show me an edit from Gimmetrow acknowledging that Gimmetoo is an alternate account. It is also far from an "egregious" error to view an edit war over whether Brenda Song won a trivial award or was only nominated for it as not being covered by WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the latter, it was verifiably false information, easily checked via websearches. Had no place in the article. You retained verifiably false information, and used administrator tools against another administrator to do so. At no point did you *ask* anything, which is part of the pattern you need to recognize and change. On the former, you have failed to demonstrate, and you have not retracted. Your failure to do so could be construed as disruptive and a violation of administrator conduct guidelines, which could be viewed as another basis for suspecting something amiss with your account. You have also failed to respond to my latter question. See how much nicer it is to be given opportunities to discuss and respond, rather than the "block first and issue an ultimatim" approach? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

However, you were adding it as unsourced information. If you want to argue that the other editor was using poor sources, certainly your use of no sources at all was equally bad? And I don't know how to characterize "Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation." as anything but "asking". In a fairly polite fashion, too.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The nomination was sourced as I recall. Anyone with basic web competence should have been able to do a websearch and find out who actually won. And I said that. Did you do a websearch? Did you consider asking for a source at any point, either before or after the block? Did you remove the false information after the block? As for the latter - can you see why the request might or might not get answered? Did anyone bother to wait for a reply? So how is that a "refusal"? Now, can you cite the policy which authorizes blocking someone for not logging in to another account when allegedly politely requested to do so? Is there any requirement to do so? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The winning of the award was also sourced. It's pretty reasonable to assume that given a source for a nomination and a source for a win, the winning can be seen as occurring after the nomination, and superceding the original source. That's the normal order of such things. Did you ever provide any reason to doubt the other editor's source? Did you ever provide a link to a claim by someone else to have won? Or did you simply edit-war the change hoping that the IP would eventually give up? As for the other issue, can you understand why an account impersonating an admin could be a problem? Can you cite a policy which justifies allowing accounts that claim to be alternate accounts of admins to continue to edit when the admin account hasn't acknowledged them after repeated requests? Can you see that other editors' suspicions were reasonably aroused by a combination that lack of confirmation?—Kww(talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The win was not sourced, and yes I explained why. That should have been the end of it. Have you bothered to answer my questions? No, I don't think so. You got a problem, you ask about it. I'm here asking you. Now respond. And to carry on the thought experiment - since you have failed to respond to my satisfaction despite repeated requests, I have reason to suspect your account is compromised. As such, persuant to the thought experiment, you are now blocked, and as a condition for unblock you are required do contact me by email to show that you are the original person in command of your account. Again, this is a thought experiment - how do you respond to that? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.scholastic.com/ink_splot_26/2009/06/brenda-song-life-sure-is-sweet-.html contains an interview with the sentence "You have received the Asian Excellence Award." That's not the greatest and most explicit source I've seen, but it is certainly a source. Worthy of a discussion, at the very least.

As for your question about ultimatums: you are basically phrasing it as a variation of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Describing NW's edits as having delivered an "out-of-policy ultimatum to an admin" is misleading. He blocked an account he suspected of impersonation, and indicated how the account that he suspected of being impersonated could deal with it. I've explained why I thought that was justified. NW revoked your talk page access after two successive denials of your unblock requests by two different admins, and gave you explicit permission to unblock the account yourself. Should you block me in the case you described, I would use {{unblock}} explaining that your request was based on an invalid motive. In the remote chance that my unblock was denied, I would happily deal with the unblock mail list if I had to. None of the steps you were requested to take would have violated your privacy in any fashion.

I've been extraordinarily responsive in this discussion. What you seem to be having difficulty accepting is that you placed every admin dealing with your case in a very difficult position. You didn't take any of the trivial steps it would have taken to resolve the situation. You logged in to the account that you received mail from as Gimmetrow. We know that because you received my messages. You could have posted that text at Commons (where you were still talking). You could have used a Hotmail account to reply if you didn't want to reveal your normal e-mail address to me. Hell, you could have just mentioned the timestamp of the e-mail in the discussion. Instead, you chose to fight a battle that didn't need to be fought at all, apparently on the principle that your account should have been above suspicion despite suspicious behaviour.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry kww, but you haven't understood the implications of the thought experiment. In this thought experiment, you were blocked after your suspicious editing provided grounds to suspect your account was compromised. You were given clear directions by an admin about the process you needed to take to become unblocked. You have not taken that process. Presumably you would agree that your not taking the process outlined is completely and entirely your fault? Rather, you have continued to edit while blocked, which is block-evasion and sockpuppetry. Therefore, in the thought experiment, you are now blocked indefinitely and your talk page and email access on wiki is revoked. You can still email me, with the email address you would have if you are in control of the email account associated with this wikipedia account. Now what do you do, in this thought experiment?

"None of the steps you were requested to take would have violated your privacy in any fashion." That's a most interesting claim. How do YOU know that? If you cannot even think of a situation where your claim is false, you have at least a failure of imagination, and consequently you have a fundamental blind spot in your approach to this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant that "none" was an overstatement. How about "there were options that would not have compromised your privacy". Using your Gimmebot account, for example, which has been confirmed, and you still use. Creating a throwaway Hotmail account to reply to me. Mentioning the contents of one of my e-mail messages in one of your unblocks or on commons. There were numerous ways to respond, and you chose not to.

If you could read e-mail sent to Gimmetrow, that means that whatever horrible, keystroke logging dungeon that left you unable to log in to your Gimmetrow Misplaced Pages account did not apply to your e-mail account. It was available for you to use. You refused to do so, apparently for the same reasons that plague you today: you view the affront of the block as so severe that it appears to have made you angry, and you then didn't deal with it appropriately.

Your thought experiment has very little relationship to what happened to you, by the way. Your request in your thought experiment would probably be seen as unreasonable, and my unblock would be granted. This is quite different from yours, where two separate admins denied your unblock. I said I would deal with the unblock mailing list, which is also a reasonable response, and not sockpuppeting in any fashion. The one detail that you are right on is that no admin can set a precise, enforceable action: if admin X sets a condition but you can persuade admin Y to reverse the block, that's fine. You had that open to you as well. Even if you felt NuclearWarfare was completely off-base (despite a general opinion that his action was at least reasonable, even if we wouldn't have done it ourselves), you had options. Instead, you just kept making unblock requests with "no policy basis for block" until your talk page access was revoked. Despite other's encouragement, you wouldn't use the Gimmebot account, citing a slavish adherence to policy about bot accounts. You wouldn't deal with e-mail. One thing that you refused to accept (and apparently still refuse to accept) is that there was no policy-based argument that Gimmetoo could have made that would have resulted in a consensus to overturn NW's block. Evidence had been requested, and your refusal to provide any or to explain why you weren't providing any wasn't being accepted. As I've said, everyone was in an awkward situation. You weren't helping yourself or anyone else by not cooperating.—Kww(talk) 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence has been requested of you, and you have failed to provide any or to explain why you aren't providing any. (Of course, your ability to "provide evidence" is somewhat limited, because you have no talk page or email access.) Using the unblock list would have violated privacy, so that's not an option if privacy matters to you. Discussing with another admin is not an option for you either, because your email access has been blocked; you are only able to email admins that have previously emailed you - which is me. Since I have noted your suspicious and disruptive editing, there is a good faith basis for suspecting your account is compromised, and another admin agrees. I have noted that I have edited with you before and so have private information to use to confirm you are still you, so the block is viewed as not reviewable by other admins. Since you continued editing while blocked, there is now a ban discussion concerning you to which you are unable to reply without socking more.. Things are not looking good for you in this thought experiment. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I have e-mail access, I just don't have access to the button. No one deprived you of talk page access or access to the e-mail button until you had made two denied unblock requests, which you knew you were risking when your second unblock request was unresponsive and an exact copy of your original unblock request. Access to the unblock request and arbcom mailing lists is available to all, and cannot be blocked by an admin. If people feel like a block is truly unreasonable, they have options. It's up to them to take them.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not have email access through Misplaced Pages, so you cannot email anyone whose email address you don't know. Now, to correct some of your errors. I made one unblock request, just as you have done. The unblock request was questioning the policy basis for the block - much as you have done. It was denied - just as yours was - for failing to perform the actions outlined by the admin. Then NW immediately removed talk page access. (Yours was removed for more than this.) At that point NW was required to demonrate the policy basis for the block (and talk page and email removal following a single unblock request). Since NW did not do that, NW had had a COI with regard to any further administrative action. NW then used his position as a SPI clerk to "approve" an SPI regvarding the account. There were other clerks; there was no need for NW to do that. It was an error for him to do that when the account had clearly questioned his administrative basis. (Keep in mind what happened to NW after that.) Using the unblock list is tantamount to outing; that's not really an option if you care about privacy. That is probably a point where this analogy fails, because you may not care about outing, but I do, and I doubt there is any policy basis to require editors to out themselves. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you have elected not to respond, I will reiterate: As a result of your repeated inappropriate actions, you are barred henceforth from taking any administrative action (interpreted broadly, including closes and any advanced permission) with respect to me or my accounts. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

: I hit the wrong button, but in any case, you are not welcome to post on my talk page. Since you assert you are not WP:INVOLVED, then as a consequence you fully agree that I am not barred from taking any administrative action against you. You therefore do understand that, should by some misfortune you get access to CU info about me, and I become aware of it, and I find it even the slightest inappropriate, you may be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Answer: False Chart Reference

Sorry, wasn't my intention. I though that the source were right because i heard Perry saying in the show at 2011 Rock in Rio that the Brazil were the only country where the song was #1. Diegoftq2 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian Nade

Lists 18 league goals in infobox. He scored eight. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Charlie

Can you block 81.159.63.33 (talk · contribs), and protect for a while Umbrella (song), and for a long-term Blue Monday (New Order song) (see logs). Thank you. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Kevin, I think MariaJaydHicky is using the IP 86.132.185.157 (talk · contribs) as a sock. The IP reverted my edit without any reason, to the version by MariaJaydHicky. Novice7 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My Profile

Is it too much to ask to not keep posting the alternative account on my profile, as it is MY profile and I don't want it on mine OK!MariaJaydHicky (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know that but don't busybody yourself on MY profile, how would you like it if I wrote something on your profile and you kept asking me to stop adding it and I thought "Allow it bruv, I'll do what I wanna do.." You'd get the ass ache so don't do it on my profile OK! MariaJaydHicky (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DrV help

Kevin, Could we get your 2 cents at ? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think many of the DRV regulars know their way around WP:MUSIC. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5 of 6: Complete Text By Edward Gibbon
http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Fy0ho0JMc_AC&printsec=frontcover&dg=The+Decline+and+Fall+of+the+Roman+Empire+complete&hl=en&ei=JPisTKvnEYGucMyateYN&sa=X&oi=book_reult&ct=result&fresnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false