User talk:Likebox

Archives

1

Don't bother, I'm gone.

Dude...i came late. Much love. You are awesome. -De Ferns Hans, Martha's Vineyard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.56.31 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit of yours, I've removed the vote for two reasons. One, Brews ohare is specifically banned from posting in Wikipedia space. That is a decision of ArbCom. Regardless of our feelings about the decision, nobody has the authority to override that decision. Two, Brews Ohare's comments already exist, in struck form, between support votes 148 and 149. Your posting replicated his posting. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's suggestion that you be banned from commenting on Brews is phrased tactlessly and disrespectfully. I understand your frustrations in this unfortunate situation, but as an outsider I was myself very nearly put off from trying to disentangle the threads and making my hopefully constructive suggestion regarding Brews. This was due to your (and a few others') frustrated but unhelpful contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, I believe that the atmosphere you are contributing to encourages facile "solutions" like Ryan's, which are not fair but just strive to limit disruption any way possible. With that in mind, regardless of your frustration, would you consider voluntarily disengaging from the discussion for a few weeks? I don't think my own suggestion is brilliant in any way (nor as a non-admin could I in any way enforce it), but unless you disengage I don't see anything happening other than most noninvolved observers scrolling through to the next thread, leaving it to one of the hardline enforcers to just "clean up the mess" and eventually archive it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Likebox, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have moved your comments to a new discussion section. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

This was most probably trolling, but the restriction was quite clear - don't discuss Brews ohare. Your post to my talk page was merely an attempt to antagonise the situation and test administrators willingness to act on the motion, so have 24 hours off. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No--- you see, I am just an opposite sort of person, which means that I always do the opposite of what people tell me to do! So the only thing I will ever talk about is Brews ohare from this point on. That and, also, I don't like you very much, and ArbCom members have a low intelligence.Likebox (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, Brews OHARE! I won't stop talking about BREWS OHARE! It's like TOURETTE's SYNDROME! Wow, you're going to have to block me forever and ever and ever. Gosh, folks, BREWS OHARE. I LOVE THAT GUY.Likebox (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I was thinking about this? I was thinking BREWS OHARE! Wouldn't it be great if he could chip in!Likebox (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you need to block me here too, to stop me from TALKING ABOUT BREWS OHARE (which I most assuredly promise you will be the only thing I will ever talk about here from here til eternity).Likebox (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving them what they want. prove to them they are worng. It's the only way anyone can win right now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit what "they" want--- I don't want "them" to have the benefit of my participation on Wikipedia, and I want it to be on the record that they banned me for talking about Brews ohare, which I will continue to do until they ban me.Likebox (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohare, ohare! Oh where the Brews ohare is the Brews ohare?!! Why Brews.Likebox (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. AniMate 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Considering you've expressed a desire to continue trolling over this, it likely won't be too hard to get this bumped up to indef. AniMate 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it.Likebox (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.Likebox (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked you as you've stated your intention clearly that you're going to carry on breaking the arbitration sanction against you. Should you decide that you're willing to work within the sanction, then put up an unblock request. Should you decide on doing that however and subsequently go on to break it further, you'll be reblocked for an indefinite period again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry--- I will never ask to be unblocked. I think ArbCom members have a low intelligence, and I do not like you very much.Likebox (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case I didn't make it clear above, when you've had chance to calm down and think about things, create and unblock request or send me an email and I'll unblock you if you decide you're going to work within the restriction. Indefinite does not have to equal infinite in this situation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really get the concept of "never".

This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ethics. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are bad people, and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object.Likebox (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious about thinking thatArbCom members are agents of Satan? Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a metaphor. You don't need to act with self-aware evil to be an "agent of Satan", just an administratively minded person with no feeling for the bigger picture, you know, the banality of evil and all that.Likebox (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, the arbcom ruling said a maximum block of one week, yet you have blocked Likebox indefinitely. Why is that? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.Likebox (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably not around anymore but im just checking in just Incase you’re around Maestrofin (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox made his intention very much clear that he was going to disrupt the project and disregard the sanction. There has been a commitment to carry on violating the rules, which just about always results in an indefinite block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet banning someone from even debating an Arbcom matter could hardly be caiculated to enrage someone more, could it? Just because the result was inevitable does not make it just. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is concerned with building an encyclopedia. Likebox has stated clearly that he's not here to build one, he's here to disrupt. Let's not shed tears for losing trolls. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you good look at [1] and comment? Seems to imply that photons can pass through a blocking filter. (I'll copy your comments into my talk page if that helps.)--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like you Michael, but I cannot contribute to this project in good conscience. I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror.Likebox (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda thought you might say that, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Your input will be sorely missed.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am appealing the sanctions on our gagg order. I haven't included you at this point since you have appeares to have walked away from the madness. If you would like to be included though please email me and I'll add you to the case and see about unblocking as it wouldn't be nec anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_light

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!