User talk:Kiwi Bomb

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Kiwi Bomb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please see WP:BLP,WP:SOCK and WP:SPA. You're done. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiwi Bomb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to defend myself since I am blocked. I am not aware of having broken any rule and I find this investigation insulting. KayBee (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what have I done?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been unilaterally blocked for what appear to be political reasons. There is nothing wrong with the article I created or the sources I used. Please unblock me. Thank you. KayBee (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Go read WP:POINT and stop wasting our time. NW (Talk) 02:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please unblock me

{{unblock|I have contributed what I think is a well written and properly sourced article on the use of the word "Lewinsky" as a slang term. That use appears in books, scholarly works, and countless well known newspapers. I have broken no rules here. I stand accused of being a "sockpuppet" but I am unable to defend myself because I am blocked from editing. Please unblock me so that I can address any concerns that you may have with my work. Thank you. [[User:Kiwi Bomb|KayBee]] ([[User talk:Kiwi Bomb#top|talk]]) 02:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)}}

Blocked for...?

The SPI turned up nothing and being a single purpose account is not a reason for blocking. The only problem this user made was in making an article that, while I would err on the side of deletion for it, was certainly not an attack page of any sort. What exactly was this user blocked for? SilverserenC 03:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the block, but if I did, it would have been for violations of WP:SOCK and WP:POINT. NW (Talk) 03:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Kiwi Bomb a sock of? If you can tell me that, then I will gladly leave this alone. And creating an article is not a violation of WP:POINT. SilverserenC 03:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding to this just makes it look suspicious. SilverserenC 06:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks like this editor was blocked to make a WP:POINT, but editing a new article about a topic that has been under widespread discussion? That's not a "point", it's merely participating in editing which our extended discussions at ArbCom and elsewhere have clarified is genuine and appropriate. Alas, Wikipedia is stumbling, falling, followed by hounds that tear at its flesh; it was to be a resource for all, but instead it is the property of whoever can control it by the most trifling games and patent deceptions. Perhaps this editor will learn, and avoid our mistakes, and eschew forever the siren song of the public good, and turn all his or her efforts toward works for his own personal gain. Wnt (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I don't think the hyperbole or the metaphor is all that helpful. Just saying.) SilverserenC 09:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If just up and indef-blocking brand new editors for writing articles isn't the time for hyperbole, what is? Wnt (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

I have been blocked for no reason that I can discern. I was accused of being a "sockpuppet" but unable to speak for myself because I was blocked. That investigation seems to have been completed but no one has offered me any kind of apology for the insulting accusation. I find now that the article that I contributed to Wikipedia has been deleted although no one thought to let me know. The "sandbox" that I used while developing the article has also been deleted. Does Wikipedia have an obudsman who can help me? I would like to be unblocked, have the article restored, and have my work area restored. Thank you. KayBee (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked was denied, and the odds are good that future requests would be as well. You created an article which seemed pretty clearly designed to make a point with respect to another hotly debated article related to a former senator from Pennsylvania. You evinced a good understanding of Wikipedia formatting, which is frankly rare for brand new accounts. When it comes to spotting problematic accounts, we have something here we call the duck test ("If it looks like a duck..."). The behavior of your account is one that strongly suggests motives which are, shall we say, not entirely aboveboard. Is it possible that this judgment is wrong? Yes, but administrators make these kind of judgments all of the time because we need to help prevent disruptive editing, and I think most administrators looking at your contributions would have come to the conclusion that this was a sock account and/or a problematic single-purpose account editing to make a point.
All that said, if you truly are here to contribute there is a fairly simple solution. Go create another account and start editing. Probably stay away from the Lewinsky and Santorum stuff, but there are a billion other things to work on here. If you make a new account and don't engage in what seems to be "pointy" behavior then I don't think you would have a problem. This account has been blocked, but you as an individual person have not been banned (unless you were banned previously under a different incarnation and we just don't know who you are, which is certainly possible). I would recommend letting this account go rather than wasting further time on it—if you are just here to work on the encyclopedia you shouldn't care about a user account you only just set up.
As to the article you created, there is a decent chance it will be undeleted and listed for discussion where it might be kept, or also might be deleted again. When one creates a controversial article on Wikipedia it's out of the initial editor's hands as to whether it is retained or not, so there's really nothing you could do about it at this point even if you were unblocked.
I hope this information is helpful, which I offer only because there is the possibility, although I think it's very much a weak possibility, that you were acting in good faith. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're wrong about the creating a new account thing. If you look at the block log, you'll see that Dreadstar also blocked account creation. Therefore, Kiwi Bomb has no ability to make a new account without finding a new IP address to use or going through a proxy. This is obviously out of process and i'll be filing a new unblock request in just a moment. SilverserenC 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, well that is an issue, or at least theoretically it is an issue. Rather than filing another unblock request though Silver seren, can I prevail upon you to wait for Kiwi Bomb to weigh in here, assuming they even choose to do so? If they are not interested in creating another account, then your point is moot. Also there is nothing "obviously out of process" about anything that happened here, so far as I see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, already submitted below. SilverserenC 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I suggested you unsubmit it. There is simply no need for you to submit a request on this user's behalf, and frankly you are not remotely helping the situation. This account was blocked and then another admin declined an unblock. I am another admin and would also have declined an unblock. My note above offers suggestions about what to do now--if this person really wants to create another account and go on editing happily and productively in some other part of the project we can do a bit of assuming AGF and enable new account creation. I am very doubtful that that will happen though because I do not think the person who created this account is interested in editing happily and productively in some other part of the project, for reasons that should be fairly manifest.
Again, not sure why you are making this request rather than waiting for Kiwi Bomb to respond to my note. From where I sit you're stirring the pot to no apparent purpose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're setting a precedent here that any new user that creates an article immediately is to be blocked as a sock, even without any evidence. That is a precedent that I do not want to be made. There was no reason for the block, the SPI investigation came up with nothing and the accusations of Point and BLP violations were refuted at DRV. There is no reason for this block at all. If the user actually vandalizes something, then fine, but thus far, the user has only created a fairly good quality article. Whether it is proper for the notability policy is something to be discussed, but it is certainly not something that should have led to a block. It is these sorts of actions by admins that are leading to a declining editor rate, because new users are being treated like trash even when they don't do anything wrong. SilverserenC 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not remotely setting a precedent "that any new user that creates an article immediately is to be blocked as a sock, even without any evidence." That's just a ridiculously inaccurate argument completely unrelated to the reality of what is going on here. When a brand new account creates a contentious article with perfect formatting which is related to one of the most hotly debated articles on the project, 99 times out of 100 something not good is up. The reason for the block was clear, namely that the account seemed to be an SPA here to make a point. Hopefully you can admit there is a good chance that is true.
I can admit that there is a chance, albeit a small one to my mind, that it is not true, which is why I left the above comment suggesting moving on to another account, which should be no big deal if the person in question is actually here to help. We're still waiting on a reply to that, and you have not explained why you needed to ask for an unblock before waiting for said reply. You are not blocked, and there is nothing preventing Kiwi Bomb from speaking for themselves here.
You admittedly have a larger agenda relating to admins and blocks and new users which is why this looks like pot stirring. As this user is blocked, any unblock is the provenance of an administrator. The user left a note to which I responded, meaning I was dealing with the situation. What you are doing here is making that more difficult, and again there is no reason for you to be involved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty understanding how most of this discussion is relevant to my situation. It was my belief that creating properly formatted articles about notable topics was the goal of Wikipedia, not a reason for blocking editors. Using the word "lewinsky" to mean oral sex performed on a man or the act of performing oral sex on a man is quite common. There is no reason why this should be any more contentious than an article on a species of moth. I see that the article has been restored. I would like to be unblocked so that I may continue working on it. Does Wikipedia have some kind of ombudsman who can assist me? KayBee (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lewinsky (neologism)

The article Lewinsky (neologism) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page should be deleted for various reasons already discussed here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BE——Critical__Talk 21:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You undid your own prod, wha? SilverserenC 21:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filing unblock request for Kiwi Bomb

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

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

Request reason:

This block was completely out of process. The SPI report came up with nothing and the account was blocked under a flimsy pretext of WP:DUCK because the user created an article that admin Dreadstar found inappropriate. However, Dreadstar has been proven wrong in his opinion, as the DRV for the article in question has ended with it being restored as an out of process deletion. Therefore, the community has clearly disagreed with Dreadstar's accusations of WP:POINT and WP:BLP issues. Therefore, I request that the block be overturned, as there is no basis for this block, even under WP:SOCK or DUCK, as being able to create an article does not automatically imply a sock. The user could have been involved in other Wikia wikis, which all use the same format. Or the user could just be intelligent enough to use templates and such properly and make liberal use of the preview button before submitting. It's really not that difficult. Without any proof in the SOCK accusation, the block should be dropped. SilverserenC 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Second. The ban is based solely on speculation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third. True, Dreadstar also described Kiwi Bomb as a "SPA" above. But with one day between account creation and indefinite block, that isn't a particularly big surprise, is it? I object to:

  • presenting an unusual and improper reason to block a newbie, the BLP-neologism argument the community and ArbCom had already rejected
  • a block appearing to be making a political point, with no attempt to even tell the editor what specifically was wrong with what he did, let alone to determine if he was willing to change - a purely and absolutely punitive block intended only to send the editor away with a one-line comment "you're done".
  • dismissing Kiwi Bomb's first tentative one-line attempt to argue with the block without him even being aware it was almost his only real chance at appeal (a sign, incidentally, that if he were a regular under a new name, he never looked at how blocks work before!)
  • piling on additional charges, also unsubstantiated, all of which are supposed to be dealt with before there's any relenting
  • refusing to further reexamine the block out of deference to the first admin - even when the original reason is proven wrong.
  • ignoring that many editors learn as IPs long before getting an account
  • requesting a checkuser only to ignore it when it doesn't say what you want

It is a big game, and not fairly played. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that we should wait for Kiwi Bomb to respond to my suggestion above, which is that they be allowed to create a new account and go on editing, staying away from the Lewinsky, Santorum, and other similar topics for the time being.
To me this should be a perfectly acceptable solution to someone who is here to contribute. This is a brand new account, and there is no reason why this person has to edit under this name or write only about sexually charged political neologisms. If they want to contribute, just accept the fact that this looked like a bad start and start again, no hard feelings.
Of course if they are not interested in that option or don't respond to any of this, to me at least that would suggest that this account was created solely for the purpose of creating one article to fan the flames of an already existing debate, and/or simply to make a point (since said article was created about someone associated with the opposite end of the political spectrum from the former Pennsylvania senator).
If Kiwi Bomb is not interested in a fresh start or does not reply here at all, then I really don't see any reason to unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me the primary reason to unlock the account is that pretty much all of the accusations leveled in the block summary have been vacated. The article isn't an attack page and the SPI unearthed no evidence of socking. I have respect for Dreadstar and the blocking policy so I won't unblock him unilaterally, but the status quo cannot be treated as completely valid. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadstar has already said that they do not object to another admin unblocking, just FYI.
Let's somewhat leave aside policy for a minute (obviously I'm not saying it doesn't matter) and just think in terms of common sense ways to proceed. A few things: 1) The behavior of this account was pretty suspicious and one can still make an argument for a "duck" type block of an apparently disruptive SPA; 2) The possibility exists for this person to simply create a different account and go on editing, which should not be a problem if they are just here to edit the encyclopedia (that's a really important point); 3) If it is a problem or if they do not respond then probably Dreadstar's initial suspicions were correct; 4) We are in no rush here, and there is no reason why we must unblock now, or why we cannot wait for the person operating this account to weigh in again.
So to my mind, and you did ask for input so I assume you are not decided on a course of action, the status quo is perfectly fine for the time being. Let Kiwi Bomb say some more things and we'll go from there--if they have nothing more to say then I assume they don't want to edit using this account anymore, in which case we can do nothing, which in the end is always more better, or at least easier, than do something. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't intend on my reply to you to mean I wasn't interested in your input. But my persistent complaint is that we can't/shouldn't treat blocks like this as a means to privilege a given state. We certainly wouldn't allow KiwiBomb to make a new account as the block stands now. They would be indeffed for block evasion and the sock charge validated ex post. No, we need to look at the situation at hand and not the best possible outcome. Based on what we know now I can't imagine that an account like KiwiBomb would be indeffed without Dreadstar's action. Watched, maybe. Contributions viewed with some suspicion. But not blocked. So I'm not as receptive to arguments supporting the SQ cum SQ in comparison to an argument justifying the original block or something that looks like it. If you can give me a good reason why a hypothetical admin would block KiwiBomb right now were they not blocked, then that is much more persuasive. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's kind of difficult to give a hypothetical reason along the lines you describe. They were blocked, then the sock checks came up cold, then the article was restored. What you're asking for, I think, is what would have happened had no block been put in place and then events unfolded similarly while this account sat here and did nothing. I would agree that in that situation probably no one (or very few) would be blocking right now, but as you say we need to look at the situation at hand.
The reality is that the blocking admin is okay with an unblock, and I certainly do not care enough to argue strenuously against it, so go for it if you are so inclined. My prediction is that the outcome will be the same as if we had left the block on--i.e. nothing will really happen and this account will not begin a glorious swathe of constructive edits. I'd be happy to be wrong.
I do disagree in some sense with your "we can't/shouldn't treat blocks like this as a means to privilege a given state," mainly because this just isn't a very big deal and I don't think we need to frame it in such abstract terms. I'm very sensitive to newbie biting and the like, and I would not have handled this the way Dreadstar did (I'm not very block happy, and I think a note would have been enough to suss out what was going on). But I don't think it was a terrible block, and I think the odds of this being a legitimate account are extremely slim, meaning we don't want to spend too much time on it. We have to use some common sense in these situations, and we have to know that we will make mistakes. When we do, and the person is really here to help, that should be easy to rectify. Basically my first comment to Kiwi Bomb was trying to do that--here's the way back in if we screwed up and blocked you by mistake, if we don't hear from you then I guess we didn't (I would have preferred it if the first admin responding to the unblock request had said something along those lines, and indeed that the blocking admin would have done the same). Honestly what I was hoping to avoid was what has followed, that is a bunch of discussion before we hear more from the account in question.
Anyhow, like I said I won't object to an unblock, though obviously this user's contributions should be watched for awhile. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to make things anymore abstract than they need to be. I'm just trying to balance the blocking policy (which affords some respect for the status quo) with my thoughts about the block itself. I don't demand that a complete counterfactual be developed, but I do want a little more attention paid to how we should have treated the account beyond only starting from the assumption that the block prevented disruption. Insofar as that requires some hypotheticals, fine. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to make of some of this discussion. Without the block being reversed, Kiwi starting a new account at this point would only be counted as "block evasion", and the sockpuppet investigation means IP data has been recorded - so far as I know, any future allegation of sock puppetry, however specious the circumstance, might bring us right back to this case. There's no substitute for reversing injustice. (And what does "SQ cum SQ" mean?) Wnt (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "SQ" there meant "status quo" Wnt. As to the new account/block evasion thing, my thought there (and this is only my thought and not really a policy per say) is that we would enable the person to create a new account, and then not bother blocking them for block evasion if they went on to contribute with another account, even if the IP data was recorded and indicated it was the same person. The fact is, we don't generally care if someone is evading a block when they are not doing anything disruptive, though technically I guess we are supposed to care. The thinking is often different when someone is banned, which is more severe than a block and applies to a real-life person rather than just an account.
Regardless, Protonk seems inclined to unblock and I'm not objecting to that so probably the new account idea is moot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you've never run into one of my arguments with Baseball Bugs on the Reference Desk discussion page! There are people who hunt even for IPs evading blocks like it was the next Crusade. Wnt (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with those arguments, but I do understand that people hunt for people evading blocks—the idea here would have been a specific comment from an admin allowing for account recreation that if the editor made a new account and didn't cause trouble, they would be okay. Presumably whoever discovered any future evasion would end up back here and see the situation, which hopefully would lead them to not block the person in question. I have no idea if this course of action is technically "Wiki-legal" per say, I just thought it was a good idea and highly unlikely to result in difficulty down the road. But, again, it's seemingly moot now so no point in worrying about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"SQ cum SQ" is my bad latin. What I meant was viewing the status quo not just as a particular state but as an idealized form. Normally the phrase would be something like "actor cum director" to mean an actor and/as a director. So in this case the literal status quo and/as the idealized status quo. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all other questions aside, your edit summary has made this entire affair worthwhile for me since it caused me to re-watch that scene from The Life of Brian after googling that bit of (incorrect) Latin. If only police in the United States had taken that attitude toward graffiti in the 1970s and 80s, we'd have a lot more cool public art and an entire generation of urban graf writers with top-notch spelling and grammar skills. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked this account after reviewing the comments made on the talk page by editors and administrators and noting Dreadstar's past comments about lifting the block. You should be free to edit. However I strongly urge you to steer clear of making edits which could be interpreted as violating the biographies of living persons policy. I also have no problem with another administrator reblocking this account should sufficient cause arise per WP:SOCK or any other content/conduct policy. I do object to any administrator reblocking this account on the basis of the original accusations alone without any new evidence as I feel discussion and investigation have thoroughly vacated the reasons for the original block. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Protonk. I am assuming that since the lewinsky article has been restored my previous contributions were not in violation of any rules, so while your warning is appreciated, it is unnecessary. KayBee (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, to my mind the warning was very much necessary. You should be aware that future problematic behavior will likely result in a swift re-blocking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with bigtimepeace. I added the warning because while your block was not justified on its merits alone, an account that immediately creates a BLP article of the style you created will draw attention. Apart from a warning my advice to you is to find an uncontroversial subject to edit and try that out. You may find you like it. If you don't you can obviously continue to edit the Lewinsky article but be aware that doing so is a high-wire act. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the DRV showed the article wasn't an "attack page" (as we define it) and the SPI showed no evidence that you were a sockpuppet. Neither showed that creating the article in your first few edits was a wise idea. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that "problematic behavior" would result in any editor being blocked. I am not aware of having broken any rules or having done anytime wrong here at all, but almost since my first edit here I have been treated with outright hostility. I would like to think that this is not politically motivated, but I can find no other explanation. KayBee (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then I humbly suggest you look some more. Here's the breakdown. A new account produces this on their first edit. Wikipedia editors like Dreadstar have been through the interminable debates of Campaign for "santorum" neologism and so view the new article with heightened suspicion. Their suspicion need not be motivated by bad faith or any other malign influence. They simply have a different perspective than you. The article is deleted and the deleting admin looks at the editor who made it. They see a potential sock where you see a new editor (or a clean slate, whatever). Their immediate decision is to protect the wiki from harm and they block the account based on those suspicions. I disagreed with the block, as did many other editors. However I can understand why it was placed. You need to understand why it was placed or you will probably find yourself in a similar situation. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my first edit. The "lewinsky" article was created in a "sandbox" which has been deleted. I have asked for it to be restored. I do not understand this obession with "sockpuppets". I created a properly formatted article on a subject which has an abundance of sources to support it. If that article was about a different subject, would I have been blocked? Would the article have been deleted? I suspect not. It was deleted because of its subject matter and I was blocked because of it. Then I was accused of being a sockpuppet. If I had been a sockpuppet the article would have remained deleted, wouldn't it? And I would have remained blocked. Yet you maintain that this was not political? I thank you for unblocking me, but please stop adding insult to injury. KayBee (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to stop. The warnings are for your benefit, not mine. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. KayBee (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username Question

Hi Kiwi Bomb - I notice your user name is very similar to "Wiki bomb". Why is that? Is it a reference to the essay on wikibombing? Cardamon (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it similar? I suppose it is similar for the same reason that your name is "similar" to "Rand Coma". KayBee (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it also just a coincidence that your first article has some similarities to the one for which Cade Metz recently coined the word "wikibomb" (both are about politically charged sexual neologisms based on the name of a living person) ? Cardamon (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't think it is unexpected or unreasonable for an IP editor to read over Wikipedia controversies and develop opinions (or faint references) to them before creating an account. I don't think that veteran editors poking at maligned newbies, nor exaggerated and somewhat implausible defensiveness is really what we need right now. I just hope that Kiwi Bomb can get back to work and get himself started here.
Speaking of which, I should just say that while the draft on Bernard Lewinsky looks like it's off to a fair start, and should meet WP:GNG when fleshed out to a basic degree, do not be surprised if it ends up getting proposed for deletion anyway when you roll it out. That's not because of this dispute, but just because there are a lot of people who are eager to delete stuff they don't think sounds very important (I don't know why). I think it would advance the cause of peace if those of us on either side still hovering around this page could hold off being sucked into any such discussion until after some neutral parties have had a chance to talk it over a little. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, your reading of the user name "coincidence" is, shall we say, credulous in the extreme. I'd insert a joke about land in Florida or the Brooklyn Bridge were those not a bit overplayed.
And Kiwi Bomb, I'm going to strongly, strongly, strongly advise you to move away from this topic. The first article you created was an incredibly contentious BLP related item, and now you have moved on to create an article on Lewinsky's father largely using sources that don't meet out guidelines or sources which do not have Dr. Lewinsky as their main subject (lots of doctors have hospital bios, for example). I've boldly redirected this to Monica Lewinsky's article, meaning some additional material can be merged there or to the article on the scandal. This is a step below deletion and basically lets readers find the material you put in by searching on Dr. Lewinsky's name. If necessary I would take this to AfD because frankly the details you have included are not remotely important— we don't need them and we certainly don't need the article.
It was for precisely this reason that I did not want to see you unblocked, because I was fairly certain you would jump right back into stirring the pot, which is exactly what I think you are doing. Why don't you prove me wrong as to your intentions for editing here and go work on something else unrelated to Lewinsky or political scandal or sexual neologisms? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unwilling to stomach any more of this nonsense. Bernard Lewinsky is well known and well respected oncologist. He is only tangentially related to the Lewinsky scandal and not a controversial figure. The sources used are of high quality and for the most part Lewinsky is the main topic. It is not for you to decide what Wikipedia does or does not need and it is certainly not for you to decide what topics are of interest to me. Please restore the article immediately. KayBee (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the article should exist, but it isn't up to Bigtimepeace to decide which topics Kiwi Bomb may or may not edit. You're free to restore the article. If Bigtimepeace wishes to challenge the article's creation, then he should start a AfD discussion and allow consensus to decide. These decisions shouldn't be up to a single person. Kiwi Bomb, my advice is to keep the article in your userspace and work on it until you feel that it's ready to face a tough and contentious AfD discussion; don't face off against the users who would love to have your work deleted until the article clearly establishes the subject's notability. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well to be blunt, KayBee, you are going to have to "stomach this nonsense" if you want to edit Wikipedia. Editing here involves the stomaching of a great deal of nonsense, and ballyhoo, and claptrap. You started an article, I changed it so that it is no longer an article. It was a routine edit as articles get redirected all of the time. You are in no place to make demands--really none of us are when it comes to legitimate content disagreements. I did not "decide" what topic is or is not of interest, I edited the article you started. Further edits are always possible.
The points you make about Dr. Lewinsky are simply incorrect. He is not "well known," or at least wasn't prior to the scandal with his daughter. Whether or not he is well respected is irrelevant—we don't have articles on doctors just because they are "well-respected" and they have a bio on a hospital web site. Practically all of the sources you cite are either non-reliable "primary" type sources, articles which talk about Dr. Lewinsky in the context of the scandal, or minor articles/blog posts which discuss his photography. This does not in my view remotely add up to notability, particularly given that almost none of this would have been written were it not for the scandal with his daughter.
You're welcome, technically, to continue pursuing this in an effort to keep this as a standalone article, but I would ask why it is a problem to simply include these details in the article on Monica Lewinsky, or on the scandal? Most of the details are already there—about the only new thing is the photography stuff, and I suppose you could be put half a sentence about that in his daughter's article if you think it's particularly important and encyclopedic. Because it is not a redirect, anyone searching his name would go to the Monica Lewinsky article and be able to read about him there. That seems to me a good compromise between a standalone article and me taking it to AfD, where there's a good chance the whole thing would be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your self-serving rationales hold no water. You are attempting to impose your decision on me while simutaneously implying that I am unwilling to compromise. I will being restoring the article, as suggested above. Please leave it for other editors to improve. KayBee (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly you are unwilling to compromise, since you are simply restoring the article, but whatever. And you did not respond to the substance of what I said, but rather made unfounded accusations. I am not trying to impose anything, we just disagree. Hostility is not necessary. Perhaps AfD is the way to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bernard Lewinsky

The article Bernard Lewinsky has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable BLP, no indication that a full bio can be written. Notability is not transfer through family ties...

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RxS (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bernard Lewinsky for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

You may wish to incorporate these ([1] [2]) into the Bernard article. I don't think they're used yet. Focusing on his cancer research (and photography) and minimizing the amount discussed about the Lewinsky scandal in the article is the best way to go. SilverserenC 04:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added them to the article and did a bit of re-organizing. This guy is quite the accomplished man. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You appear to have had a hard time as a new editor. Pet the kitten!

Bearian (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your kindness is appreciated. KayBee (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked again?

I am unable to edit any articles. Can someone please let me know the pretense for blocking me this time? KayBee (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of block message are you seeing? Your account isn't blocked, so I'm assuming that the means you use to access your account is blocked. If you're using an open proxy, it may be blocked. If your proxy is blocked, then you may be seeing a block message resembling Template:Blocked_proxy. Alternatively, you may be affected by an autoblock meant for another user. If so, then you may be seeing MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext as your block message. Autoblocks don't generally last long, but you can use Template:Unblock-auto if you wish. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pink box at the top of my screen that says "This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 03:04, 4 July 2011 Protonk (talk | contribs) unblocked "Kiwi Bomb (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Detailed on talk page)". I am not using an open proxy. KayBee (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use Template:Unblock so you can attract a sysop's attention. A sysop can offer better assistance. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I logged out and tried to edit an article. There was a more detailled message saying that Coren had blocked my IP because it is listed in spam blacklists. This seems to be the latest method of trying to prevent me from contributing here or speaking up on my own behalf against the falsehoods which some editors are spreading. KayBee (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Coren has blocked my IP because it is listed in spam blacklists. Since the IP does not appear to have made any edits recently it appears that Coren has deliberately targetted me with this block. The earlier accusation of being a sockpuppet was dismissed yet I am still being subjected to these kinds of games. Please unblock my IP.

Decline reason:

It appears you are editing behind a proxy. Please see this page for information on why Wikipedia generally does not allow editing from behind web-based or HTTP proxies. TNXMan 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Um, you have a named account here, so why would you want to logout and try to edit via IP? Just because an IP address is blocked doesn't mean it has anything to do with you; I have been caught in other user's autoblocked in the past as well. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup; well, the only entry in Coren's recent block activity is to place a 1-year block on an open proxy of a Hong Kong ISP. If that is you then that really isn't "your" IP, now is it? Tarc (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not "my" IP in any sense other than that it is the IP that I am using. The same can likely be said for 99% of people here. It is safe to say that no one else is using this IP to edit Wikipedia. It is not an open proxy although I presume there are reasons for it to have been listed in spam blacklists. Since you ask, the problem is that I can not edit articles. Can you please unblock me? KayBee (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This IP is not an open proxy. How did you arrive at that conclusion? KayBee (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an ISP proxy, this is a hosted server range (which, incidentally, is seemingly compromised by a spambot). The proxy may not be open, but it's certainly both anonymizing and very unlikely to be legitimate. Given that there are serious concerns that you are an editor attempting to evade scrutiny while making a disruptive point, I see no reason to turn a blind eye on this proxy. — Coren (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I find this to be very strange. If it's not an open proxy, then it shouldn't be blocked as an open proxy? What does it mean to say that it's "anonymizing" if only Kiwi Bomb edits from it and he can only edit from that IP? I found one allegation that a spam server was running on this from July 4 [3] - but frankly, I find it easier to believe that someone in the anti-santorum faction posted a bad faith spam report to a third party site than that Kiwi Bomb is running a spam server while he gets into a Wikipedia argument from his one sole solitary IP address! I would like to hear what the spam allegations actually are - and if any precede the checkuser run made against Kiwi Bomb. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, on further searching I found [4], which seems to indicate prior spam reports. Though I don't see their primary data, or how reports are submitted, and so I'm not sure that backdated reports couldn't have been entered after July 2. Kiwi Bomb, is 112.213.102.69 definitely your static (unchanging) IP address, and is there any way you can picture that it ends up on that page from June 28 for spamming products? Wnt (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in control of the network so I could not say if it is a static IP. I have never needed to pay attention to what my underlying IP is. Clearly it has not changed in the few days that I have been editing here or it not be blocked. I am also curious about what Coren means by "anonymizing" and why this would be a problem. I am not using an open proxy (although the page about proxies says that users "may freely use [open] proxies" and has suggestions for editor based in China to use closed proxies). KayBee (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these admins are as much at each others' throats as everyone else, and when that happen, they tend to do nothing to oppose each other to avoid so-called "WP:wheel warring". And Coren is as high-ranking as they get. So I think that if you want to continue here, you'd better see about changing that IP address if it really is dynamic - they've only blocked the one number, not a range. But what troubles me is that that link I found above says there's spam coming from your IP address even up to July 7. Are you sure you're not sharing an IP somehow based on IPv6 translation? Assuming you're not the spammer I don't think your ISP will mind you asking about where that stuff is coming from! And they might give you advice about switching the IP (though Google "get a new IP address" gives a lot of good answers). But it also isn't a bad idea to run some anti-virus software in case the spam really is coming from your computer! Wnt (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use very good anti-virus software and keep it up to date so I am confident that I am not the source of the spam. Spam does not factor into my participation in Wikipedia in any way so even if I were the source of the spam it is not justification for blocking me. And it is clear that I am the target of this block, not my IP. A "high-ranking" Wikipedia sysop has blocked my IP as an "open proxy" although they admit that it is not an open proxy. The fact that I have broken no rules here seems to be irrelevant. I created an article that is apparently at odds with the dominant political viewpoint here. I was foolish enough to try and reason with people who were quite clearly trying to drive me away from Wikipedia. I am disappointed to learn that Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I really do not know what people here are so afraid of that they feel the need to prevent me from participating in discussions about deleting the articles I have created. Coren, would you agree to making a statement in each of those discussions on my behalf? I can write it here and you would simply have to cut and paste it to the discussion. KayBee (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They threaten to block people for doing that also - though in a less hostile climate, one might argue that you are not blocked, so that doesn't apply. Though if one or more of your arguments appeals to me, I see no reason not to use it on my own. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sources for Lewinsky (neologism)

It seems apparent that people discussing deleting this article have not looked at it since there are a few suggestions that the sources are poor or that the neologism is no longer used. Neither is true as can be plainly seen simply by reading the article and looking at the sources. In a few cases I chose sources that were less than ideal but contained commentary which illustrated the widespread understanding of this neologism.

Here are some simple uses in books. I do not believe I used any of these in the article although I collected them for that purpose.

O.J. Simpson (neologism)

You may be interested in starting this article. There are plenty of sources, especially after the Casey Anthony verdict, that use this neologism, see e.g. here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you out of your mind, suggesting something like this? I'd do what I could to see that not only the creator of such but also anyone anyone that instigated said creation (i.e. you) was swiftly blocked. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.J. Simpson is used as a neologism and that means it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, staying clear of creating such articles due to sensitivities like BLP issues, would amount to censorship. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you really understand what a neologism is, if you think a stray, offhand use like the one you cited is somehow proof that an article should be written about it. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship, not just of articles, but of creators of articles, and now Tarc is threatening even people who advocate creation of articles ... that is all Wikipedia can expect ever after if his side wins this war. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that O. J. Simpson is a neologism so much as it is an allusion to the Simpson trial and verdict. On the other hand, "lewinsky" has definite meaning and has been widely used. KayBee (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think they're both nonce words - and I can't really say that moving "Lewinsky" to Wiktionary would be that terrible a thing. But it infuriates me to see good editors threatened simply for trying to make an article worth keeping, over some absurdly expansive notion of BLP which is then thrown to the wind when they want to go after Cirt for not including the same sort of stuff. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prevent myself from being blocked with a new IP

Although I am presently unable to edit articles my account is not blocked. The IP which I am using has been blocked by Coren as an "open proxy" although Coren admits that it is not an open proxy. It has been suggested to me that I contact the ISP involved in order to get a different IP. If I can do this will I be allowed to resume editing? KayBee (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked - your IP is. Supposedly for spamming or for being some kind of anonymizer. I still don't understand where the spam is coming from, or how you're sharing the IP, but what should be clear is that if you're using another IP, you're not blocked. Even people with WP:checkuser access (which Coren has) are supposed to log their accesses, so in theory the only way that your IP became known was through that first sockpuppet allegation; Coren then presumably searched that IP in some as yet unspecified set of spam blacklists or other databases. (I should tip my hat to outstanding gamesmanship from the anti-santorum faction) So in theory, without another case at SPI like the last one, they shouldn't be able to get at your IP, so they shouldn't be able to block it. Unless someone comes out and blocks the whole range, but given that there's more than one user even on your own IP address, I think that will lead to trouble.
To be clear, if the issue is getting past the Great Firewall of China, you may have to decide whether you want to make this clear, or to abandon Wikipedia as too hazardous an activity. Wnt (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it should be allowed to edit Wikipedia via your talk page. So, you could write whatever you want to edit on your talk age and ask e.g. Wnt to perform the requested edits. Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for an answer from that Coren or one of the other sysops involved here. I am not aware of any reason why I would be blocked for getting a new IP but I do not wish to find out after the fact that it was considered a violation of some rule. Would someone be so kind as to let Coren know that I would like a reply here? Thank you. KayBee (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as that IP isn't a proxy, you'll have no problem. I'll be honest with you: it seems clear that you are using proxies in order to ensure that this account isn't linked with your real account. Your protestations of ignorance are not credible: you are editing from a Windows workstation through a proxy that runs Linux and which hosts a web server (alongside other public services), that server is in a segment that the owning company sets aside for dedicated hosting. This kind of setup does not occur by accident or without the user's knowledge. — Coren (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Coren, but there is no reason for me to be aware of the technical details of the network that I am connected to and I would not understand most of them even if I knew them. You appear to know far more about it than I am ever likely to. What difference does it make how someone connects to Wikipedia so long as they are creating properly formatted articles with good sourcing? The level of xenophobia and paranoia here is mind-boggling. A short article on a respected oncologist Bernard Lewinsky has been taken as some kind of subversive plot to bring down Wikipedia. Is there a list of forbidden topics that I might refer to in case I am able to edit again? KayBee (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Still not credible. Please edit directly through your ISP, without going through a proxy or — better yet — use your real account to edit. — Coren (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, how can you possibly know that Kiwi Bomb owns the Linux machine and not his ISP? Wnt (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you doubt? Do you think that I am a network engineer and I am lying about my understanding of technical details which most people do not need to know or understand? What else have I said that you can judge? You have already shown yourself to be a liar when you blocked my IP knowing full well that it was not an open proxy. You see things as you wish to see them. KayBee (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that he owns or controls it (if he did, he'd better take it off the net now and reinstall, it is very thoroughly owned and under control of at least one spammer), only that he is using it to proxy his edits. I can tell you that he does not get his Internet access from that business, however, and that his editing through it cannot possibly be done unwittingly or as part of a normal network configuration. — Coren (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell he doesn't get his access that way? I mean, it seems hard to predict something like that in the U.S. where I'm living, let alone in Hong Kong. God only knows what kind of strange internet accesses and companies people have set up to avoid political problems. Wnt (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to understand these sort of technical issues, but I believe Coren very much does, so I find it highly unlikely that he is evincing incompetence or, even less likely, being untruthful. Also I haven't read through all of this and am not sure exactly how Hong Kong enters into the picture, but due to "One country, two systems" Hong Kong is not under the Great Firewall. I'm certainly not an expert on the region, but Hong Kong is most definitely not mainland China and from what I understand internet users there do not at all deal with the same kind of "political problems" that are common on the mainland. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the two systems; but my untutored impression is that Hong Kong is a place where anything goes in business, so that a company might let people online without being a formal ISP; and also that it might be a likely place for users to tunnel through from the mainland. (i.e. using encrypted traffic to access their private web server as cover for unrestricted browsing outward) But since Kiwi Bomb didn't claim this issue, I don't know what to make of it. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I know he isn't getting his internet access this way because that's a hosting company that does not sell internet access to end users. That server is one of their customer's, who is also not an ISP, and whose only relation to all this is that their system administrator apparently doesn't keep a close eye on their servers' security. That server was used as an open proxy as recently as 06:31 UTC today, and is part of at least one IRC-controlled botnet (i.e.: hopelessly compromised).

These arguments are pointless and circular. This IP will remain hardblocked. Kiwi Bomb will have to edit from his ISP or, as I recommended above, with his real account. — Coren (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a stronger argument than I expected. Though I suspect many strange things happen around the edges of the Great Firewall, I don't see how to begin proving you wrong. And one thing everyone should recognize here is that there's basically zero chance that IP will be unblocked. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this simple

Where are you editing from, Kiwi? I don't mean a location like a town or anything, but a physical location. Are you editing from your own home with a router? Or are you editing from some coffee internet shop? Or a library? Where? Locating what type of place you're editing from should make it simpler and if the place isn't your home computer, then I would advise you don't edit from that place anymore. SilverserenC 06:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I thought users are able to edit if they have an account, even if their IP address is blocked for various reasons? Can't you just log in to edit? Or does the IP block also block the account or the log in process? SilverserenC 06:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, my second question is stupid. If you're able to edit on this talk page, then you should be able to edit with your account in general. What's the problem again? SilverserenC 06:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Block#Blocking_options – It depends on whether the "Block anonymous users only" box on Special:Block is checked. If it's unchecked, then the user can't edit anything besides her or his talk page while logged-in. It's checked by default, so Coren must've unchecked it. I was unable to edit with my account due to a block on IP address used by a public location at one time, so I requested IP block exemption. Would granting Kiwi Bomb IP block exemption be appropriate at this time? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we grant an exception to an IP address that has been flagged as a botnet victim? This user should simply stop using this Hong Kong proxy server to login to the Wikipedia. Problem solved. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the exception would be granted to Kiwi Bomb's account, not the IP address. The IP address would still be blocked, and Kiwi Bomb would be able to edit again. Isn't this a compromise where both parties benefit? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's say I want to edit via an currently-blocked IP that is known to be somehow problematic...botnet, spam, open proxy, whatever...I can make a request to be given an exemption? Is this sort of request something that is routinely granted to editors? Tarc (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Kiwi Bomb is not eligible for an exemption. The provision for editing through a rangeblock specifically exclude use of a proxy, and the rare proxy exemption requires "highly exceptional circumstances" (which have not been demonstrated here), a history of valid non-disruptive contributions, and cannot be used to circumvent scrutiny. — Coren (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the only option available for Kiwi Bomb is for him to change his IP address. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not his IP address in his first place. He is using a proxy to hide his real IP address. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kiwi_Bomb/Archive – With so many sysops fishing for sockpuppets without a proper justification, I wouldn't condemn Kiwi_Bomb for being smart and protecting his privacy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry on AfDs

Hi KayBee, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiwi_Bomb"