Ian Streeter

November 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• You've only just come off your third block for disruptive editing, and you go and take another user's sub-page clearly called "draft" and move it into an article in article space! I have serious concerns over your competence here, and I think we'd need to see some major efforts to sort it out before you should be considered for unblocking - perhaps mentoring might be your best way back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, he has had enough chances. He still continued to disruptively edit after his block was lifted. He had been verbally warned about things several times, and ignored them. Plus, he is extremely rude, look on my user talk. I'd advise against lifting the block. Not everyone gets as many chances as what he has had. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've just read the rest of the Talk page above, and his actions seem truly bizarre, especially the nonsense with Dan56. I have no idea what he's been trying to do and, sadly, I don't think he has either -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• He also blanked this page a few days ago, which contained a lot of warnings and numerous blocks. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but once blocks have expired, that's allowed - it's easy enough to see it all in the history -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I know, I was just informing you. I don't think this block should be lifted now, as I said, most people don't even get a second chance. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment But the page didn't say NOT TO MOVE IT INTO AN ARTICLE SPACE... Ian Streeter (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't say "Don't stick your finger in your eye" either - but you don't need to be told not to do that, do you? Basically, you don't take it upon yourself to move other people's obvious user drafts around - and not being able to work that out for yourself is part of your lack of competence. But it's not just that, it's other things too - what was that Utente:Dan56 nonsense all about? You also appear to have been editing other people's comments too, and is that a suggestion of sock-puppetry I see at the top of this page? Basically, your approach here is just mind-boggling, and is too disruptive for you to be allowed to continue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• And you've created a whole load of bad redirects and nonsense articles, including Σινγινγ, redirected to Singing, and the articles Ha. wiki said and Hha. wwii sai niin, and RihRelease as a redirect to Re-release. You know, I'm starting to wonder how much of this is deliberate trolling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will NO LONGER MAKE DISRUPTIVE EDITS EVER AGAIN — and even if I want to, first I will leave a note to the talk page saying what I want to do. Ian Streeter (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request doesn't really address the concerns which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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 would oppose any unblock without at least some sort of mentoring process. I'm sorry Ian, and I don't mean you any ill will, but your truly bizarre editing suggests to me that at best you simply have no idea what you're doing around here, and at worst I don't know what - you haven't even tried to offer any explanation for the weird things you have been doing, for example -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Things that I will not do ever again that were mentioned about the block:

• Be rude to registered users
  
• Move user subpages into article space
  
• Blank user talk pages
  
• Create inappropriate redirects
  

And some other things:

• Move pages that has a large history
• Remove featured artists
• Violations per WP:REDIRSAND, WP:WARNSAND and others per sandbox.
  

I understand the reason for the block, but I'm apologizing.
-- Ian Streeter (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Look, with all respect and honesty, you simply don't seem to understand half of what you're doing on this website. Some of your decisions have been, to put it mildly, baffling, and until you have researched how to do these things correctly (or indeed realise that these things need to be researched) unblocking you will only lead to more of the same, and be followed shortly after be another block. I simply don't think you're quite ready to head back into the editing fore just yet, and that some time spent looking up guidelines and actively working out what you're doing wrong would be extremely beneficial. I would also recommend a mentor of sorts for when you are ready, just to cover. Thanks, and I do hope this doesn't discourage you. — Joseph Fox 09:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Just saying you won't repeat the specific things you did wrong does not seem very satisfactory to me, as you seem to have great creativeness when it comes to thinking up bizarre new things to do wrong. So rather than just saying you understand, I think you should at the very least explain how and why you now understand, to try to give us some insight into the way you have been thinking. For example, you could try answering the following questions...

• What was Utente:Dan56 all about? Why did you think that was a good idea?
• Why did you think Σινγινγ was a good redirect?
• Why did you think RihRelease was a good redirect?
• Why did you create Ha. wiki said?
• Why did you create Hha. wwii sai niin?

What I think we need is to understand whether you had honest, if mistaken, reasons for thinking they were good things to do, or whether there was any deliberate disruption or stupid pranking behind them - and right now, I don't think the benefit of the doubt is with you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your reason for moving User:Dan56/draft into article space, by doing so, you created a new article with genres, something it was explicitly stated you should not do as part of your last unblocking. I now believe I was incorrect to unblock you, as you just don't seem to "get it". Because of my involvement earlier, I won't review this request, but "I won't do it again" is nowhere near enough. — An optimist on the run! 06:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have a better reason now and hopefully it will be accepted:

• Utente:Dan56: All I wanted to do is that I've had several experiences with Italian Wikipedia and if you type in "User:" as the prefix on a search bar, it automatically translates it to "Utente:" and I thought it was a good idea because I wanted this to be alike.
  
• Σινγινγ: I'm Greek, I have a Greek keyboard to use so I created this redirect.
  
• RihRelease: On the article for We Found Love Rihanna said on one of the sources "RihRelease".
  
• Ha. wiki said was actually a copy of one of the vandalistic edits in the history for Untitled Nas album.
  
• Hha. wwii sai niin: Exact same thing, but with typos and the last swear word (I wouldn't actually say it, so instead I said "niin")
  

I understand not to do this again because I know other administrators and strict users wouldn't like it. Ian Streeter (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ian, every time you're unblocked you seem to find a new way to disrupt the project. Simply addressing that handful of specific examples of problems with your edits isn't going to satisfy people that it's safe to unblock you, and this really request doesn't really do that anyway. You've told us where you got the ideas from to create those articles, but not why you thought it would be a good idea to have a redirect for a Greek term on the English Wikipedia, or why you felt the need to create a redirect for a phrase a vandal used. I think you need to go away, do some growing up, and then come back when you can edit responsibly, but experience has taught those of us who have been following this that unblocking you is simply inviting more disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

• Then what would be the only way that anyone could unblock me? Ian Streeter (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Come back when you're older -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• :: I used to be a good editor in September. Then I started making disruptive edits. And I just CAN'T WAIT MORE THAN A COUPLE MONTHS --Ian Streeter (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

* I guess I might come back in about ... a few months until I think I KNOW I'm not going to be a disruptive editor? Ian Streeter (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the community says so, then you'll have to wait - and from what I've seen of your performance here, I'd say we're looking for something more like 6 months to a year. (And no, you were not a good editor in September - you were genre-warring and creating unnecessary redirects right from the start). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What kind of bad redirects did I do in September? Ian Streeter (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to detail them all here, but there are more of your Greek transliterations (eg Αδελε (σινγερ) -> Adele (singer)), implausible spelling differences, phrases that are way too ambiguous for your chosen target (eg 10 minute). Redirects are for helping people typing stuff in the search box in the English language, and so they have to be something plausible rather than just any weird variation you just happen to think up yourself. And they should only be there if there is a clear and unambiguous target - for example, not everyone is always searching for music or songs, so generic English phrases should not be redirected to song titles just because they happen to be similar. Anyway, the point it, you should not be editing Wikipedia until you are mature enough to see these mistakes for yourself. Now, I'm off to delete more bad redirects -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand this now. THAT'S why I think I should be unblocked. Ian Streeter (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're just not listening. It isn't specific errors that are the cause of your block (though you have made many). It's the general assessment of those who have reviewed your actions that you do not yet possess sufficient maturity, judgment, or competence to be editing Wikipedia - and that will only come with time. I would strongly suggest you stop arguing now, and come back in six months - or you might get your Talk page access revoked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I need to be unblocked just in case I really NEED to make an edit (which is not disruptive under any means or anything mentioned up here) and for most and MOST and probably most of my time, take a break for about 4-7 months? Ian Streeter (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are abusing our good will now. Your Talk page access is now revoked. Email one of the admins on this page in no less than 6 months time and we might reconsider, or take your appeals to WP:BASC -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Mentorship

This section is about mentorship. But what do we need to do in order to start mentorship? Ian Streeter (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick - you managed to get in a request even before I'd told you I'd restored Talk page access :-) Anyway, as agreed in our email conversation, I have restored Talk page access to allow you to seek mentorship, on the condition that you do not request unblock until you have such mentorship in place (really because I think there would be no chance of an early unblock without mentorship). You are free to contact likely mentors by email, or I'll be happy to try to help find you a mentor - leave it with me until tomorrow and I'll look around the appropriate forums -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also starting to wonder why you always capitalize the first letter of "talk" — it really shouldn't be. Ian Streeter (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to follow up seeking mentorship yet - but most people will be too occupied by the New Year weekend at the moment anyway. I'll follow it up as soon as I can. (And how I choose to capitalize things is not relevent - stick to pursuing mentorship/unblock here while you have the access to do so) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So you won't be able to help me find a mentor is what you're trying to say? Ian Streeter (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to assume bad faith like that, I'm not even going to try to help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But I won't post that again. So can you at least help? Ian Streeter (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/How to Hate

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/How to Hate, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Nothing useful exists on this page.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this for me ... it wasn't an actual afc page anyway... I didn't need it. Oh, and I also want to mention that I also want Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Close to You deleted because it wasn't an actual afd discussion. Ian Streeter (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jessie push it.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jessie push it.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fixer23 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add it back and say not to remove this image to avoid deletion. By the way, it is used in User:Ian Streeter/Push It (Jessie and the Toy Boys song), so that is why I added it to an article name space article. Can you go and add it back for me since I'm blocked? Thank you. Ian Streeter (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't use non-free images in user space - so you can only add it back after that user draft becomes a proper article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So we would have to move all the contents of User:Ian Streeter/Push It (Jessie and the Toy Boys song) and put it in the actual article of Push It (Jessie and the Toy Boys song) and then delete my user-draft. Or we can place {{db-move|User:Ian Streeter/Push It (Jessie and the Toy Boys song)|it charted on the Hot Dance Club Charts , Jessie Malakouti has an article, no need to get this page deleted or redirected}}, and then be very sure erase all links that point to User:Ian Streeter/Jessie and the Toy Boys and change the link to Jessie Malakouti (e.g. [[Jessie Malakouti|Jessie and the Toy Boys]] rather than [[User:Ian Streeter/Jessie and the Toy Boys|Jessie and the Toy Boys]]. I would suggest copy-pasting from my article and then follow my link rule rather than placing {{db-move}} and then follow my link rule. Can you do that for me since I'm blocked? Oh, and please, please read my new e-mail I sent you. Oh, and I also want you to delete User:Ian Streeter because it's not needed. Please see this and reply as soon as you can. Ian Streeter (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{admin help}}. I need help to find a mentor! Otherwise I may have to make an unblock request!

--Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not an admin issue. I will assume that you have not followed the advice already given you regarding this matter. I will see what I can do about locating someone that will mentor you. Threatening to post another unblock request and posting admin help templates that do not require an admin's attention can be construed as disruptive. Please consider this before you act. Regards Tiderolls 03:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In looking over this list I see several folks I trust. Before contacting anyone in particular, do you have a specific editor you'd want contacted? Tiderolls 03:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that this user might use the {{admin help}} template to seek help without actually posting an unblock request, in order to attract admin attention to working towards an unblock, so that's my fault - he was not being disruptive there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What was your fault? Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info, B!sZ. Tiderolls 14:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start our mentorship: right now. Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship start

Now, let's start it. Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked out the list of active adoptors? Do you have a preference as to which editor you want me to contact? Tiderolls 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you could be one — if you would not like to, I will contact User:HJ Mitchell as he is great in this area --Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence. As my online time is limited, I think you would be better served by an editor that could respond to your requests for help in a timely manner. Feel free to e-mail HJ with your request; if you'd rather I post to his user talk on your behalf I would be glad to do so. Tiderolls 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you may post to his talk page. Because I e-mailed him, but he didn't reply — which is kind of strange --Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only been 20 minutes :) I'll leave HJ a message, though. There's no harm in being thorough. Tiderolls 17:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning

I just noticed that you struck the unblock review that I did and replaced it with a different template, making it look as it I had used that template instead of the one I actually did use. You should NOT ever edit anyone else's contributions in a Talk page to make it look like they said or did anything they did not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that you had tampered with another of my messages, to change the layout of the template. I have reverted both of your changes now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have thought before doing that. It's just that you should have set the paremeter to {{uw-block}} instead of {{uw-block}}. It was just my mistake though, I suggest you remove all the revisions from the change-template so the change of the template doesn't show. Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem - there's no need to remove any revisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please place {{blocked user}} on my user page and I will remove it once I get unblocked? Because at this moment I am blocked indefinitely. Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I originally chose to go back to the mentorship, but I've changed my mind because HJ Mitchell hasn't e-mailed me yet. Tide rolls: please do not re-impose the no-talk block, as I was unable to work out the mentorship. Anyway, I have changed my ways when it comes to editing on the English Wikipedia, which is why I'm retiring on all other-language versions of Wikipedia (I have done disruptive edits and have been blocked for them). I can give you some examples of edits I plan to make in the future (on en.wiki): Post at "Talk:Cannibal (Kesha song)" to say that the page should be re-created Requested move - "Love is Move" --> "Love Is Move" Fix capitalization mistakes on articles "Everything Is Beautiful" Requested move - "Everything Is Beautiful" -->"Everything Is Beautiful (song)", "Everything Is Beautiful (album)" --> "Everything Is Beautiful" Create new article - "Read Your Mind" Add links to "Bizounce" Place multiple issues template and ask Dan56 to help improve on "Superwoman Pt. II" Make user drafts on Talk That Talk (Rihanna) songs ("We All Want Love", "Drunk on Love", "Roc Me Out", "Watch n' Learn", "Farewell", "Do Ya Thang") Tell User:Calvin999 that I have gained a new signature Ask him why he redirected "Red Lipstick" and "Fool in Love" to "Talk That Talk" on January 9 "Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion": "Show Me Your Tan Lines" (and files that belong to it) Redirect multiple articles to "MDNA (album)" ("Turn Up the Radio (Madonna song)", other songs to be on the album) Confirm that "Girls Gone Wild" will be Madonna's second single from MDNA following source in the article Hopefully these edits don't seem so bad. I could probably be unblocked because of these edits I plan to make in the future

Decline reason:

Most of the suggested edits fail the WP:MOS and simple grammar/spelling. Lack of mentorship is appalling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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 will most certainly make good on my statements here. Tiderolls 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will clarify; remove this unblock request and pursue mentorship or I will remove your ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the unblock request, it said that mentorship didn't work. Plus, those edits are such good edits to make in the future, I can't understand? But please do not re-impose my no-talk block — let's discuss this unblock request first --Jerome (Ian Streeter) Just my contribs! 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your ability to edit this page. Your block conditions were modified by Boing! said Zebedee explicitly to seek mentorship. You have not held up your end of the stick. I will leave your unblock request live so another admin may review my actions here. Tiderolls 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

This is to let you know that I have received your e-mail. Based on your refusal to comply with the conditions under which the previous block was modified, I will not entertain any requests for alteration of your block. Tiderolls 04:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just to keep people informed, I have been receiving emails from Ian Streeter too. I advised that he should follow the mentorship route that Tide rolls was trying to help with, but that if he did instead choose to try another unblock request, I would leave it entirely to others to decide. It is still my view that unblocking at this time without mentorship in place would be a mistake, and my suggestion now would be to wait perhaps six months, reconsider mentorship, and perhaps approach one of the admins here who has tried to help. But I exclude myself. I am not going to make any further decisions or take any admin actions on this issue now, and I would prefer to leave it to the judgment of others - but should another admin want my thoughts in the future, please do feel free to contact me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I've also received an email from Ian, and agree with Tide rolls and Boing! said Zebedee's comments above. I don't think that anything would be gained from allowing him to edit this talk page given a) the results of the previous discussions around being unblocked and b) the fact that in his email Ian did not state that he would comply with the unblock conditions - quite the opposite in fact. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • For the sake of procedural fairness, I should note to Ian that he can appeal this block and/or the talk page being locked by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org However, I really don't think that this is likely to be successful given the above discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal and has declined to unblock at this time.

You may re-apply to have your ban reviewed again in six-months' time. There is no automatic entitlement to an unban, however, so you will need to provide us with good reasons why we should do so. Additionally, we would expect to see evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behaviour. Clearly, six-months trouble-free editing on another wikiproject (for example, Commons or Wikiversity) would count in your favour at a later appeal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your emailed unblock request

I fail to understand why you emailed me requesting an unblock, only three days after Arbcom stated you should wait six months before reapplying. This only goes to show me that you are incapable of understanding everything that's been said to you, and therefore you should not be editing. At present, your ability to email is the only privilege you still have; be careful not to lose this as well.  An optimist on the run! 09:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ian, your repeated attempts to get people to unblock you early will not succeed - as ArbCom has comfirmed your block and will not reconsider for at least six months, no admin is going to unblock you! In fact, this latest attempt will almost certainly delay the day when you are finally unblocked by at least a further three days. You need to wait SIX MONTHS, with NO attempts to get yourself unblocked by any other means, and no activity related to en.Wikipedia at all. I would strongly recommend that every time you try a trick like this, the six month clock is reset, and that no admin should consider unblocking you until at least six months from your last activity here. Should further evidence of your emailing other admins to request unblock come to light, I recommend that the six month period be again reset to start from the date of that email. In the meantime, I have revoked your access to the Wikipedia email facility, as you are clearly abusing it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The WAV.s listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The WAV.s. Since you had some involvement with the The WAV.s redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

TEMP:INFOSINGL listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TEMP:INFOSINGL. Since you had some involvement with the TEMP:INFOSINGL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

斯科特 · 凯恩 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 斯科特 · 凯恩. Since you had some involvement with the 斯科特 · 凯恩 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 03:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disco pop listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disco pop. Since you had some involvement with the Disco pop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Disco-pop listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disco-pop. Since you had some involvement with the Disco-pop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Crazy in Love (Be...ncé Knowles song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crazy in Love (Be...ncé Knowles song). Since you had some involvement with the Crazy in Love (Be...ncé Knowles song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Saul Paul listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saul Paul. Since you had some involvement with the Saul Paul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Davey2010^Talk 19:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Music's listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Music's. Since you had some involvement with the Music's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Luc Carl listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Luc Carl. Since you had some involvement with the Luc Carl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ihanna listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ihanna. Since you had some involvement with the Ihanna redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganplease (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Elvis Pres listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elvis Pres. Since you had some involvement with the Elvis Pres redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

J-Zay listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect J-Zay. Since you had some involvement with the J-Zay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Seventyfiveyears at 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hip- hop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hip- hop and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Hip- hop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Blueäs Clues" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blueäs Clues and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Blueäs Clues until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Ángel (Akon song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ángel (Akon song) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Ángel (Akon song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

""John"" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "John" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#"John" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hip- hop music" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hip- hop music and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Hip- hop music until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"R&B/Gospel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect R&B/Gospel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#R&B/Gospel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Cupid.27s Chokehold" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cupid.27s Chokehold and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#Cupid.27s Chokehold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"5o Cent" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 5o Cent and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#5o Cent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"Calvis Harris" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Calvis Harris and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Calvis Harris until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"Tupac (rapper)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tupac (rapper) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11 § Tupac (rapper) until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)