User talk:Fred the Oyster: Difference between revisions

Hello, I am new to uploading content to Wikipedia and I'm afraid I do not know how to add the tags you have requested. I checked the page that has the file on it and can't see any way to add anything such as {{GFDL-self}} . The photo in question is of a 1927 revue program, original copyright expired, and I own the program. I created the picture myself in order to illustrate the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ANightinSPainprogram.jpg#file

If someone could please tell me *how* to edit the tags, I could perform an action for you. Thanks...

Just wondered

Hello Fred the Oyster,

I just wondered, if, as a graphicist, you would permit me to ask if you would be able to SVGify this image. It wouldn't be protected by (UK) copyright (as I understand) because it is composed of a plain typeface, meaning there is no artistic input. So, it should be able to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

I have some training in Adobe Photoshop but I can't find a matching typeface, and SVGs are beyond me. Would you be willing and able to help out? I'd be very grateful. Naturally, this would be for inclusion at the Greater Manchester County Council article. --Jza84 | Talk 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do it. I can even tell you what the font is, or at least give you two options. It all depends on whether the dot on the i in council is round or square. It looks like this image is a scan of a low quality print-out which makes it seem as if the dot is round, but I'm guessing it's square. As in a lot of big organisations in that era there was a resurgence in a particular font that gave the impression that the user of the font was modern, forward-thinking and 'fresh'. The font was originally called Akzidenz-Grotesk, but most people know it as Helvetica. It's used by millions of companies all over the world. This is why I think the font is actually Helvetica (bold for the GMC). Although if a round dot is required then Myriad Pro would do the job.

As an aside if you are into that sort of thing, typography that is, there is a film documentary available for DVD rental/purchase called Helvetica which is quite interesting (if a little sterile). It gives the history, and many examples of use, of the font. Only if you're a typography or design geek though :). So which do you reckon? A round dot or a square one? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thanks for the help.

Showing my geekiness here... I think I've actually seen the Helvetica film. Was it shown on BBC four sometime? I suspected it was the typeface from that film, but I couldn't remember its name (I was searching for Arial). I always wanted to go into design, but got sucked into the Royal Mail and local government...

Looking very carefully at the back of the book I've scanned the logo off (which only appears about postage stamp size), it's difficult to tell if it was square or round. It looks round, and I'd put my money (just) on it being round, but it may appear round just a result of the printing. The text beneath the "GMC" looks like its possibly a different typeface anyway (comparing the Gs) - the best other example I've found is at this url. --Jza84 | Talk 16:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, looking more carefully I see that the lower text is actually rounded. I had initially thought that was down to the printing quality but now realise that it's too regular. Anyway, I've given it a try with the image above. I'll be happy to alter it in any way you feel may be appropriate. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GMC logo.svg looks good. The only thing I think needs doing (just to be totally annoying), would be to make the bottom-right bit of the letter "G" into a square/verticle line rather than tapered. Is that possible? Otherwise looks spot on. --Jza84 | Talk 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the three letters in GMC appear a little more close together. :S I really must get to grips with SVG. --Jza84 | Talk 17:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What font did you use for the small lettering, Fred? I'm amazed how good you are at recognizing fonts, that's the hardest part with SVGizing logos. --Shandris^the ^azylean 18:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the file for you, Jza84. --Shandris^the ^azylean 18:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end neither of us got it quite right so I created a 'custom font' to exactly match the GMC. I've changed the lower font because it was completely wrong. It wasn't Helvetica Rounded as I first thought. It's actually a combination of about three rounded fonts, Frutiger, Futura and Myriad. In the end I went with a font that had all of the elements of those three and is a close approximation, Arial Rounded. Hopefully this should now be close enough to pass muster. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfect, thank you. Sorry you had to go to so much trouble to what must appear to be quite a dull logo. I appreciate the help however, so thanks again. --Jza84 | Talk 00:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. Vector art is a relatively new artform for me, so it's all a good learning process. Like you I'm more comfortable in the world of Photoshop and the raster image. I'm still not happy with the tracking of the lower font though. I may have a stab at doing some kerning adjustments tomorrow to tidy it up. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to take issue with "the font was originally called Akzidenz-Grotesk, but most people know it as Helvetica"; that's a myth, which I think is perpetuated by the New York Subway's publicity department and their habit of switching back and forth between the two as their corporate font. While they're both blocky sans-serif fonts and look fairly similar at first glance, they're actually quite different; compare Akzidez and Helvetica side by side. The difference is most obvious in the upper-case Q and R, the ampersand and the number 7. – iridescent 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do know that, but rather than deliver a thesis on the subject I went for brevity. Grotesk was indeed the forerunner of Helvetica, even though they aren't identical. Without Grotesk there would have been no Helvetica. I can recommend Helvetica (film) for the full history by the designers themselves. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QI Nomination

Hey Fred, Ive nominated File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg at Commons for Quality Image. See here under 5 April section. Just thought I'd let you know! --JovianEye (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured mate, and not a little embarrassed. I never knew that place existed. Looking at it though I doubt it will come to much as the are all photos. The only other illustration I saw was a non-vectored map of a military assault. Thanks for the thought though, it's very much appreciated, especially from someone with talents of their own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the rules for QI, an SVG file is permitted given the nature that it can be scaled to any size. So go ahead and nominate any image that you feel it worth a QI. :) --JovianEye (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y HELO THAR

Great work fixing up the History of IBM article. There was a major expansion not long ago, and the fellow who contributed all of it did a hell of a job, but I never got around to fixing some of the MoS stuffs that were low-hanging fruit -- thanks for taking care of them! Question: whyfor do you hate double space after period? My mother (an English professor) drilled that into me as a child, and the habit dies hard -- Whenever I edit a paragraph on here I invariably also go back and double-space all the sentences. I wonder if we're in a wheel war? :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heheheh, I was actually taught to use a single space, but that isn't the reason. In HTML double spaces aren't recognised and only display as one space, so basically it's just a 1 byte waste per extra space. I suppose it's the web coder in me wanting to optimise the download.:). Likewise, the only reason I did the fix up is because I detest capitalised words. I often get shouted at by clients when I lower case them when they actually want them upper-cased :). Oh, and this was a perfect example of when to use <dl>, <dt> and <dd> tags. That's what the tags were designed for. So no wheel war. If I see the odd one or two here and there I just leave the double spaces as they do no real harm, but if I'm doing large chunks of a page I remove them as I come to them, though I have to be honest, I don't search them out to nuke them. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

...for that. A good compromise. You should read the article as it was a while ago, before I edited it. Horrific, things like this should never be touted on Wikipedia's front page. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been watching that video. Horrifying, but I'm not sure that the benefit of hindsight is making me think the soldiers were amped up and wanted some action. BTW wasn't it the photographer on the phone? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself almost completely unmoved by it. Its all very well for me to sit here in my warm house and judge the actions of others, but I'm always aware of the lack of context that videos like this demonstrate. The whole thing reminds me of the argument over the Belgrano. Suffice it to say that those photographers knew the risks, and the helicopter crews seemed to me to be doing their job. It's a big can of worms. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Personally I wouldn't have fired as I didn't see anything overtly deadly and no-one was actually attacking the helicopter, especially given that it was about a mile away. On the other hand I don't know what their briefing instructions were or their rules of engagement criteria.. In any case, for you and I it just looks like a scene from Call of Duty. There's no adrenalin, there's no nerves, there's not even any go get 'em feelings because we're soldiers and that's what we're trained (brain washed?) to do. I'd have been happier if there'd been a chainsaw, but I suppose a 30mm cannon is close to being a BFG :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, people rarely attack artillery units, but they're there for a reason. Same with the helicopters, if you have ground forces moving around then the choppers go in first and sweep the place clean. They were probably over a mile away, but who knows where the ground forces were? Very dangerous to speculate, and Wikileaks may come out of this looking a little bit biased. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB banner

Hi, I gave some text for this at GraphLab. Do you have enough info now? Are you willing/able to take this on? cheers, Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll try to get it done this weekend. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

freddie mercury article edit

i just wanted you to know that wasn't me, it also wasn't me who edited that japanese article 168.99.144.58 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Livesy

If you feel that way about the images in Aaron Livesy then go and look at the John Paul McQueen article, not alot needed there Dannyboybaby1234 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras

I noticed that you commented on the Adam Kontras AFD page. Since the AFD page conversation has been leaning to the references and claims being not notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Should there not be a discussion on the pages that are used to reference this issue of notability as well. I found that on the 'Duke Fightmaster show' page there is an interview refenced where in said interview it was stated that Wikipedia was the source of the interviewers assumption that Kontras is the 'first video blogger'. If the Wikipedia standards for notability are not followed on his page, then this link on The Duke Fightmaster show is equally not notable. Further, on the 'video blogging' page, there are references to Kontras being 'The first video blogger' and this is supported by equally dubious references. Should not all of these claims be removed and/or discussed until such time as notability may be established? It still seems, as with the old pattern that Kontras is trying to be famous for trying to be famous. While this has been attempted to some success in the past, by the likes of people like Perez Hilton and the like, They were covering subject matter that was of some importance, or at least interest to a greater calibre of individual. I tried to get this into a discussion forum for removal, and anything I attempt gets reversed, and then I am attacked for vandalism, as this all was turned at one point to being against to being against me, Charles Groves, and not the matter at hand; the page and verified notability of Adam Kontras, which is what I was pressing to begin with, albeit extremely. I do feel very passionate (perhaps as i intoned too passionately) about this and would just like to see the record put in order as to all of this, and have verifiable sourses, and notability issues addressed as per Wikipedia standards. Any help you could provide will be greatly appreciated. Yes I know that I am not impartial, and as such wanted to have such information in the general discussion forum, and have the standards adhered to. 24.125.217.58 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating our policy on living persons and also treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You've had a lot of feedback on this and you're not listening. This is by way of a final warning. We are serious about this: use of Wikipedia to insult people will not be tolerated. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where have I insulted someone? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you're a fucking idiot. The comment for which you blocked me wasn't an insult, it was a play on words and wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just taking the piss out of words used in an article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"where have I insulted someone? [...] fucking idiot". Way to go. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your actions I'd say it was extremely accurate. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you would. And as I know from my own personal experience, you're allowed to think it but not say it. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being blocked for something I haven't done then I may as well do something that deserves the block. As I say you're a fucking idiot for not understanding the difference between wordplay that didn't refer to any person living or dead and an insult to a living person. I'd say that was factually correct. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected your talk page for 3 days due to personal attacks towards JzG. Please take this time to think about your block and decide whether or not you're willing to contribute more constructively. You may submit an unblock request on this page once the protection as expired. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block is just for 24 hours, I've reset the talk page protection to coincide. No opinion on either the block or protection.--Chaser (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of WebHamster (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Do not delete Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred you are absolutely a Wikipedia hero, some of your edits are simply genious, and insightful. If some cannot handle your tone, they need a class on saying what you mean, quite frankly I find it refreshing. 24.125.149.247 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I think it's a bit premature to block Fred indefinitely. His previous incarnation was blocked, not banned, so it's not strictly against the rules to start over with a clean slate. While I agree that some of his comments and edits have been ill-advised, I still think his contributions outweigh the harm done, and I wouldn't categorize this as an abusive sockpuppet. I don't see why the block needs to extend past the original 24 hours. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And neither do I. I'd like to see some evidence of what harm Fred has caused that warrants the extension of a 24-hour block for a fairly minor misunderstanding to an indefinite block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fred was one of the finest contributors over at WP:GL, it would be such a shame to lose another wikigraphist. Fallschirmjäger 00:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, so it will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, the blocking admin can provide of disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Kafziel, it most certainly is very much against the rules for any person to use a sockpuppet for block evasion. WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply, since there was an indefinite block on WH. To Malleus, to be honest I didn't think that Fred and WH were the same person either until I looked at Fred's earliest contributions; I have trouble believing that a brand new editor who has never used Wikipedia before would report someone for hounding WebHamster on their very first day. I mean, their first edits to Wikipedia (after adding Twinkle to their monobook?!) were to revert changes to WH's user subpages. Fred's account was created, coincidentally, while WH was serving his very first block. It doesn't really get any more obvious than that. -- Atama頭 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but perhaps you also miss the point. The block is of a username, not of a person. It's astonishing that so many seem blind to the obvious. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't block only usernames, except in rare cases like WP:U violations for people who aren't being otherwise disruptive (in which case we block that account and actually encourage the person to make a new account). Generally, when we block, we block the person behind the account; that's why block evasion isn't tolerated. WH=Fred, so WH's disruption is Fred's disruption. A case can be made that WH/Fred has done enough good to merit being welcomed back into the community, but that case has to be made to the community at large. Right now, WH (and now Fred) is blocked indefintely and no admin is willing to unblock, which is a de facto ban (see WP:INDEF for the policy). If Fred shows undue defiance throughout the process, though, it's doubtful that there would be success in that. I'm actually not against giving someone a second chance, and at least I'd be willing to hear out you, Fred, or anyone else who'd make that argument (WP:ANI might be the best place to do so, dramafest as it may be, or perhaps WP:AN). -- Atama頭 01:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's an absurd argument, as we're all editing pseudonomously. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It has been the long-standing practice to block block-evading sockpuppets - except for the soft username blocks, the block is against the person, not the username. Or are we not allowed to block Grawp sleepers until they actually engage in vandalism? If you want to propose such a radical change to standard practice, WT:Blocking policy and WT:Sock puppetry are that way. I have restored WebHamster's talk page access. Should they wish to be unblocked, they can make a request there. Tim Song (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incredibly bad block to make, as Fred is one of the better contributors on here. I would ask the powers that be to rethink this. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Fred/WebHamster wants to appeal his community ban, there's a process for that. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "community ban". I've been indefinitely blocked by one admin with vague support from a couple of others. As an admin don't you think you should understand the difference between a block and a ban? You were the one who announced on AN/I WH as having been "banned". Way to go, there's no POV there is there? This is a perfect example of why admins are not to be trusted. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few explanations and comments should be in order. Firstly I will not be asking for an unblock either as Fred or as WH. The following explanation should make it clear why.

The reason WH is blocked is because I deliberately depth-charged the account with behaviour I knew would end in an indefinite block. The reason for this is that I was being stalked by a nutter from Plymouth who was tying to out me, give my family's details and various other psychotic and obsessive behaviour. This was made clear on my talkpage, yet surprisingly the only actions WP admins wanted to take was berate me for my relatively harmless behaviour about Gere's gerbil. I have no respect or confidence in 99% of WP's admins and as such I would, out of principle, not ask any of them for help or support in having a clean start. I did not want an account where anyone could link it to WH. WH had to effectively die (the melodramatic part of me preferred it to be in flames, so sue me). Now that Fred is linked to WH then there is absolutely no reason for me to want that account to be unblocked.

I do take exception to several things though, firstly describing WH as being "banned" on AN/I is incorrect and prejudicial, having the sock-puppet (before now) being described as being "confirmed" is also incorrect and prejudicial. There was no CU, no SPI and absolutely no concrete evidence that Fred was indeed a sock-puppet. There was merely conjecture, supposition and guesswork. There was also a railroad going on. I was blocked for 24hrs, which I didn't have a problem with, then an hour after my last comment, Ryan Postlethwaite waded in with an absolutely unnecessary and unfounded 3 day talk page block thereby denying me any chance of responding to any charges laid against me.

Now the biggie. I'd like anyone to prove or demonstrate that FtO has been an abusive or disruptive sock-puppet. I actually believe I've been a conscientious and valuable contributor. I have spent hours producing illustrations that would have cost £100s or even £1000s in the real world. In the two years and 4000+ edits this account has been running this is my first block, and even then it was purely because a humour-deficient admin didn't understand an admittedly non-PC joke.

At this moment in time I don't really know if I want to come back to WP given the way I've been treated. Incidentally I should point out that I've been editing here since Oct 2003 so I've done my time and in the long run have made my own little impact in making WP a better place. I'm not sure I want to waste another second of my time or effort on it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are proper ways to start anew. Getting your main account blocked by disruption is not one of them. Tim Song (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really address Fred's points, one of which is discussed here. I asked the blocking admin for more detail, but little was forthcoming. I didn't ask further as I didn't see the point once Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet, but his comments have cast a different light on matters. Right now it seems to me as though a constructive editor is blocked over a matter of bureaucracy, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given my mistrust in, disgust at, and lack of confidence in admins and WP bureaucracy there was no way I was going to go through the "proper" channels. Due to admins total lack of interest and unhelpfulness I had to find my own solution (part of which helped make my talk page inaccessible to me). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out before, Fred, per WP:INDEF you're banned. As it states in the policy, "If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." That is exactly the situation you're in now. -- Atama頭 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can he still write on this talk page? --Shandris^the ^azylean 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We usually let blocked editors use their talk page to communicate with administrators and others, to voice their concerns and to explain their actions, also to request an unblock. Only when the talk page is abused is its use revoked (as it was a couple of days ago for 24 hours). -- Atama頭 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all semantics. That "if no admin is willing..." wording has always struck me as meaning whatever the quoter wants it to mean. Everybody makes a big deal about ban vs. block at RFA's, and you get slapped down if you don't specify the difference noted in the policy page, but by this interpretation, they're basically the same. In almost all cases, no admin is unilaterally going to overturn an indef block, so indef block = banned in pretty much all cases according to this argument. So, I'm an admin. I'm willing to unblock. I would right now, except consensus seems to be against it, and I won't just substitute my judgement for others'. Still, since I'm "willing to unblock", he's not banned anymore.
Similarly, the whole "name is blocked vs. person is blocked" argument doesn't hold up. We don't allow someone who's been blocked to create a new account and start right up where they left off. Still, if he comes back under a new name and edits productively, we shouldn't care, and we likely won't ever find out. We should only care if they create a new account and resume being disruptive. FtO appears to have been productive, and except for a poorly thought out joke and an occasionally too-sharp tongue, has been a big help around here. The only reason the link was made to WH was because of early editing indiscretions, not because he repeated WH's trolling (which, by the way, I'm not condoning).
So, there are a couple of ways forward. We could discuss the wisdom of allowing Fred to start a new account under another name without fear of being blocked for being himself. I, for one, think it would be a good idea. Or, since he doesn't appear to care much what we say, we could just accept that he will, if he wants, create a new account, and if he edits productively with it, we'll never know. If he puts up a picture of a woman's crotch on his userpage, he'll be reblocked. If he continues to do what FtO has been doing (minus the unwise jokes in the middle of a BLP nightmare), we all win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for that, Floquenbeam. I'd like it if Fred made an effort to be civil, but I can't overlook the positive contributions he has made. He's come clean about being WH in the past, and that counts a lot for me. I don't know if there are enough other people who'd be willing to support giving him another chance, but we won't know without trying. Do you think this idea should be brought to WP:AN first? Should we unblock Fred, or unblock WH, or should a new account be made (which clearly links to the first two accounts)? I'm totally open to ideas here. -- Atama頭 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support unblocking Fred. His help in protecting Pink Floyd-related articles against vandalism and stupidity has been invaluable, and his artistry speaks for itself. He's also a welcome dose of common-sense in an arena often dominated by spoilt children. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Well, to be honest, I'm fairly sure it's not up to us, and is going to be option #2. If I understand correctly, he doesn't want a link to his old account to avoid stalking. If he wants, whether we "approve" or not, he'll create a new account; that's nearly impossible to stop. As long as there aren't problems, we'll never know. All I guess I'm saying is, that new account shouldn't be hunted down and blocked just for being him; it should be blocked if it's disruptive, and not blocked if it isn't. The only time knowledge of the old account history should be "fair game" is if he's disruptive, we shouldn't have to go thru the 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, etc. series. But I don't think he'll do that, so it's more a theoretical problem than a practical one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting we just turn a blind eye to any future socks, give a wink and ignore them? I know that there's an unwritten but understood rule that an editor who is evading a block and/or ban who keeps his nose clean and stays out of trouble is left alone. That's done so whether we like it or not, because we just can't tell that a person is a sock automatically. After all, Fred would probably be free to edit today if he didn't rub people the wrong way and bring scrutiny to his edit history (which revealed the connection with WH). I'd be much more comfortable with an official "pardon" from the community, but I guess with the stalking situation the clandestine approach might be best. It's a real shame that we can't do things officially but your approach might be all that we can do. -- Atama頭 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it be left to Fred to make up his own mind? Unblock him and he can either choose to return to this account or ignore it and start another, his choice. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct, Malleus, that it should be up to Fred. However, Fred made himself clear already, and I admit that I've ignored that somewhat, that's my mistake. Fred does not want to be associated with either this account or his previous one. Unblocking this account would do no good if Fred doesn't want to use it anymore. Since he has been "outed" as being the same person, if he is worried about his personal safety, I understand that. I can't support block evasion or sockpuppetry, but neither would I be eager to hunt Fred down if he did come back under the radar. I guess that's all that is appropriate for me to say. -- Atama頭 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Because right now ~~I'm the only admin~~ there are only one or two admins who supported an unblock, and it isn't just my call, and he hasn't requested one; in fact, he's said above he won't. Unblocking would be fine with me if I detected a consensus somewhere to unblock, or even a lack of consensus to keep blocked; I'm not sure his talk page is a great place to get that, and I'd like to avoid an ANI "discussion", so I don't want to jump thru those hoops if Fred isn't interested. If he is interested, I'll do the necessaries about trying to get a consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 ::::*Why can't it be left to Fred to make up his own mind? Unblock him and he can either choose to return to this account or ignore it and start another, his choice. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 :::::*You're absolutely correct, Malleus, that it should be up to Fred. However, Fred made himself clear already, and I admit that I've ignored that somewhat, that's my mistake. Fred does not want to be associated with either this account or his previous one. Unblocking this account would do no good if Fred doesn't want to use it anymore. Since he has been "outed" as being the same person, if he is worried about his personal safety, I understand that. I can't support block evasion or sockpuppetry, but neither would I be eager to hunt Fred down if he did come back under the radar. I guess that's all that is appropriate for me to say. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
-:::::* (e/c) Because right now I'm the only admin who's supported an unblock, and it isn't just my call, and he hasn't requested one; in fact, he's said above he won't. Unblocking would be fine with me if I detected a consensus somewhere to unblock; I'm not sure his talk page is a great place to get that, and I'd like to avoid an ANI "discussion", so I don't want to jump thru those hoops if Fred isn't interested.  If he is interested, I'll do the necessaries about trying to get a consensus. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
+:::::* (e/c) Because right now <s>I'm the only admin</s> there are only one or two admins who supported an unblock, and it isn't just my call, and he hasn't requested one; in fact, he's said above he won't. Unblocking would be fine with me if I detected a consensus somewhere to unblock, or even a lack of consensus to keep blocked; I'm not sure his talk page is a great place to get that, and I'd like to avoid an ANI "discussion", so I don't want to jump thru those hoops if Fred isn't interested.  If he is interested, I'll do the necessaries about trying to get a consensus. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)