| Revision as of 02:12, 8 March 2007 editSumple (talk | contribs)5,530 editsm Your user page banner← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:32, 20 November 2018 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2018 election voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (705 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] in 2018 ]}}]] | |||
| <div class="usermessage plainlinks">Would you like '''<font color=002BB8>]</font> (<font color=002BB8>]</font>).'''</div> | |||
| <br> | |||
| == Public Announcement == | |||
| <br> | |||
| == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
| This is most likely the last time that I address to fellow wikipedians. For some of you who have been following my contributions closely, you may have noticed a significant drop in recent edits. Yup, you're right, I'm officially outta here. I wouldn't rule out some occasional, random edits if I'm in the mood but you probably have seen the last of Bonafide Hustla. | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Certified Gangsta. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| I gotta admit I'm not the best editor on here "temperament-wise". But it should be noted that many Taiwan-related articles are gang-patrolled by Chinese editors, some of them admins. Sadly, no one is willing to take on the case. The other issue is User:Centrx disregard official blocking policy and abuse of admin power. He also move page without consensus and block me for 1 second (unjustified). Both of these are definitely no-no for admins. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Recently, Bish and Giano both left the project. This only emphasizes obvious flaws of the project. I don't blame Jimbo. His idea is great but it just doesn't work anymore as more and more editors join in. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| Anyway, 'nuff said already and this is poorly-written anyway. Jiang and RevolverOcelotX have fun POV pushing all you like. (get a life y'all) I got better things to do. holla--] 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=866997930 --> | |||
| ==Have one on me== | |||
| ] | |||
| Sorry to see you go, Boney. :-( Me, I haven't left, I've only determined I'm leaving ]. You know, iff Giano's pushed out. This is not a demonstration on my part, it's simply me not wanting to work in an environment that'll do such a thing. ''Definitely, absolutely'', not wanting to. Have one on me, and here's hoping we all get to stick around no matter how dark it's looking right now. ] | ] 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Really appropriate? == | |||
| Is it really appropriate to accuse other people of POV-pushing in a declaration of departure? Not in the general sense of "there are too many POV-pushers here" but specifically by name. Strikes me as at best incivil and at worst a pointed personal attack. If you are leaving, then tell us you are leaving, don't use that departure as a platform to disparage others from. --] <small>]</small> 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Warning blank and sockpuppetry accusations== | |||
| :Er, Guardian Tiger, what are you doing? It's absurd and inappropriate to add a <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki> tag to the page of an established user, especially without even telling him what it's about. ] | ] 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| Apparently, I deleted those unjustified accusation on my talkpage. This is the reason why I'm outta herre. Too many editors are gaming the rules and playing around with semantics.--] 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I glanced through both Guardian and RevolverOcelotX's contribs, and though they do seem to be on similar subjects nothing in particular seemed to scream SOCKPUPPET at me, though I suppose it's possible. But there's an easy way to resolve this one: Certified.Gangsta provides some ] proving that he is grounded in his suspicions that Guardian Tiger is a sockpuppet. If he's right, then he was justified in blanking the warning, Guardian's been giving out vengeful talk page warnings and needs blocked as a sockpuppet, etc. If Gangsta can't provide the specific evidence, then Guardian's warning was justified, and Gangsta's just continuing his pattern of disruptively blanking warning messages. --] <small>]</small> 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Great, someone's here. I'm not gonna fish out diffs. It's just too time-consuming. I'm leaving this place anyway, just don't want ppl messing with my talkpage. Anyway, look at ]'s history and a whole bunch of other japan, taiwan, or china related articles. It is just too obvious. Look at, Nlu's talkpage, Guardian just implied his a sockpuppet. Wow, new updates, Guardian just started to spam every single involved user's talkpage, it really reminds me of another user, wait it's the same guy, same method.--] 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having an edit war about comments and templates on a user's talkpage makes no sense, especially when there's no live dispute going on anywhere except on the page itself. Whether active or departing, unless there were some serious abuse going on, an editor is entitled to leave or remove whatever he or she wants on the editor's own talkpage. ] 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would just like to add that I agree with Certified.Gangsta. The "allegations" are obvious beyond a doubt. All somebody has to do is '''look at the evidence''', and ignore the tantrums by the Gaurdian Tiger user. I put up a User Check based upon the fact the page was totally reverted (yes I do mean totally) to a banned users edit. The user Paper Tiger "defended" himself by doing a user check upon me. Although I hadn't done an edit in about a months time he accused me of vandalism and stuck a 3RR on my page. It is a laborious project to compile diffs of edits and personally I felt I was brushed aside without real reasoning. After my request was ignored, I realised by taking part in the endeavor was a lesson in maturity and responsibility. I can't blame the owner of this page for his decision to leave. I don't know about anyone else but I don't have the time to try to win an immaturity contest with a 16 year old H4X0r. I hope everything works out for you and good luck. - ] 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I left a message on Guardian Tiger's talk page about two or three days ago. He removed it and I reposted it. He stopped editing for at least two days now after making margin edits on a few of the pages I regularly edit. Here's the message I left on his/her talk page: | |||
| '''"''' | |||
| Do you also control the user accounts ] and ]? I kind of grew suspicious when the accounts started editing each other pages. For example, your very second edit was to remove a sockpuppet report for Apocalyptic Destroyer and RevolverOcelotX . | |||
| Also, both you and RevolverOcelotX file the same requests for checking on Certified.Gangsta multiple times with various admins. | |||
| Guardian Tiger: | |||
| RevolverOcelotX: | |||
| There more, but that's going to take some time to find them all. ShuckyDucky filed checkuser requests, for the same reasons. | |||
| Sorry if this sounds rude, but I had a growing suspicion for a while. | |||
| '''"''' | |||
| He/she has not responded yet, so I can't hear his side. Either way, I think it's bad practice to go around tagging accounts as sockpuppets. Find the diffs before making allegations is a good rule to practice.<br>Anyways, I hope you decide to stay with Misplaced Pages. Take a wikibreak to get rid of some stress and come back when you're ready. Misplaced Pages is suppose to be fun, so make it fun! =D ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I find it virtually impossible that a checkuser will be accepted if "I" am the one filing the checkuser because Revolver will likely bring up those disrupting tactics to the checkuser page. (see , which was rejected due to Revolver's disruption on the page) What I need is someone, hopefully an established editor, to file the checkuser after doing some investigation. I mean, it isn't that hard to notice these 4 users are the same person and the evidence is apparent. One thing Revolver doesn't realize is his sock, ], is banned, which means any future socks/sleeper socks are ban-evading socks and should and would be block on sight. Anyway, I will appreciate if an admin make a decisive decision to block him indef. based on his contributions (this way a checkuser needn't to be filed) or an established, respected member of the community request a checkuser after some investigation on the issue.--] 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's obvious, then it's not for CheckUser. Forget about CheckUser, Boney. I have now reverted some further posting by Guardian Tiger on this page and talked with him. He won't post here again, but he asked me to, in turn, make you stop adding the sock template to his userpage. Well, I hereby request you to stop that. Even if you feel sure you're right about the puppetry, it's a poor idea to keep unilaterally re-adding the tag. Get more eyes involved, please. I suggest you ask Nlu, that I see you've already written to, to specifically review whether or not the sock tag is justifed on the ] page, and to be the one to add it if he thinks it is. As an admin, he also has the power to protect the page, if he thinks it appropriate. ] | ] 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| I did stop. I mean, that's what Bunch told me to do. Just because the template is there while he's not blocked doesn't help anyway. There's no point putting the template there if y'all admins don't do anything about it. And as for Nlu, he doesn't wanna get involved. I feel defeated, all of my edits are reverted my that fucking sockpuppet (I"m gonna use that word 'cause that what he deserves) and no one gives a fuck about it. If there's no checkuser, admins won't block him. When I seek help from Nlu, Bish, or other admins, he go around spamming their pages and then people gonna be like both of y'all gotta calm down. Well, that's fucked up because I'm trying to report him and get him blocked since he's a ban-evading sock then people thought it's just another dispute between 2 idiots. I've said I'm outta here but I'm not gonna go quietly. As far as I'm concerned he is a sock of ], a ban user and should be block on sight. As long as justice is not done, I'm gonna be here. This is a disgrace on wikipedia that a ban-evading sockpuppet can be here for this long and admins just standing idly watching him destroying others edits. In case you didn't notice, he just wrote a whole bunch of personal attacks against me on the checkuser page. I told ya I don't wanna go against him by myself but no one listens. --] 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Guardian Tiger Timeline == | |||
| The following timeline does not include previous misconducts by ] and ] (who is indef. blocked), who is the same person as Guardian Tiger. The events are in chronological order. This link shows the abuse of RevolverOcelotX ] | |||
| January 3-Announced I will be leaving wikipedia shortly in response to ] unjustified 1 second block, unadmin-like conducts, and the lack of response from other administrators. ]. | |||
| January 3-Discovered the newest sockpuppet of ], ]. Contacted admin ] and urged him to block this ban evading sock (it is ban-evading because one of the socks,], is banned from editing indefinitely) without checkuser. ] | |||
| January 4-] suggested ]. I wanted ] to investigate and be the one who file the checkuser. ] | |||
| January 4-Another sleeper sock, ], discovered. Contacted ], providing some evidence for my reasoning such as the extensive edits in ], hostility toward Japan and Taiwan, etc. Again ] wanted me to file the checkuser. ] | |||
| January 4-] promised to take a look at this. I thanked him and reminded him of ], who was notorious for sockpuppet abuse. A dispute ] was actively involved in. ] Note that until now, ] seemed to be away and no spamming took place. I also did not revert any of his POV edits while waiting for him to get blocked. | |||
| January 4-Sockpuppet tags were introduced by me on the userpage of ] and ] for the purpose of bring admins attentions into the issue. ] ] | |||
| January 5-6 No activity | |||
| January 7-I did not log-in that day. ] returned from his break and noticed the sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He responded by posting several warnings on my talkpage. ] accusing me of a "blatant" vandal. Admin ] asked him what it is about. He interpreted the sock tag as vandalism when it is, in fact, factually true.] ] | |||
| January 8-I returned from my short-break, discovering those accusations. My position was clear right from the start. I did not wish to have ANY interaction with this user whatsoever. My experience with him in his previous accounts contribute to that. I don't even wanna checkuser him, the situation isn't that complicated to escalate into that level. I just want admin to block him so the issue can be over and done with. It's just that simple. I deleted those accusations and provided an explanation for doing that. ] | |||
| January 8-Discovered several articles on my watchlist have been move or distort by ]. A page move without consensus ] was reverted by me. | |||
| January 8-] said he couldn't understand the situation since the whole thing is a big mess. ]. ] found the thread on ] and make personal attacks toward me also indirectly admit that he is a sock. ]. I tried to persuade ] to block ] without checkuser since the contributions speak for themselves. | |||
| January 8-] stepped up his harassment campaign by re-inserting his unjustified warnings, which was again deleted by me. ] | |||
| January 8-Several politically motivated edits by ] was reverted by me since the admins were unwilling to label him as a sock without checkuser and the only way to protect articles is to revert his edits. ] ] ] ] | |||
| January 8-] re-added warnings on my talkpage and again I removed them several times. ] | |||
| ] | |||
| January 8-I decided to seek help from the community. ] ] | |||
| January 8-More harassment from ], starting to run out of patience ] ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| January 9-] still is NOT blocked | |||
| January 10-] began stalking my edits and revert everything I edited based on personal vendetta. Some of them totally out of his usual scope, trying to stimulate edit war so he could make me look bad] ] ]. He also moved a page without consensus and was reverted by me. ] ] | |||
| ]. POV pushing: ] | |||
| January 10-Seek help from the community ] and User:Guardian Tiger spammed the page ]. Persuade ] to block ] or file a checkuser, he refused and wanted me to do it. I refused and told him the likely consequences (checkuser page gets spammed) ]. ] once again disrupted an constructive exchange between me and ] by spamming ] ]. | |||
| January 10-re-add sock tag until told to stop ] | |||
| January 10-Frustration, no admin was willing to do any investigation, checkuser, or blocking. I had to alternatives but to file a checkuser (which is something I desperately not wanting to do right from the start) ]. Just like I predicted, he spammed the checkuser page with unjustified personal attacks against me ] | |||
| January 11-] still not blocked, more stalking occured and I reverted his edits based on personal vendetta ] ]...a sneaky, deceitful edit summary ] | |||
| Anyway, it's still an ongoing behavior. I guess no one knows how pissed off and frustrated I am. Please, put yourself in my position. The list will be edited if I have time.--] 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow...that's a detailed diff report. It looks like checkuser is going to pass, so it'll all be cleared up rather soon! Guardian Tiger left a message for me, but he didn't deny my sockpuppet allegation and listed some negative stuff regarding your edits. Thanxs for sticking with Misplaced Pages even when it got tough. =D ] <sup>]]</sup> 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Glad you like it. Unfortunately, the checkuser didn't pass. I guess wikipedia just isn't ready to take a stand against obvious ban-evading socks. (similar case see ]). As for Guardian Tiger, that's his usual tactics, I just noticed he is now questioning admin ]'s capability as an admin, which is a disgusting, unjustified accusation against her. The same has happened to ].--] 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Saddened == | |||
| Just like the way I predicted, the checkuser I requested was turned down despite the support of 2 admins. The reason? Because "I" am the one filing it. Apparently ] thinks it's just a dispute between me and ] which is wrong. It really depresses me that admin/checkuser don't look at the merit of the checkuser request but to look at the editor who requested the checkuser. What's even worse is ] now begins to launch a harassment campaign against admin ]. Unfortunately, authority (checkuser) refuses to make decisive decision.--] 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It wasn't turned down because it was you filing it, but because Revolver's editing was too old for CheckUser; no technical comparison could be made between the two accounts. I have reviewed the behavioral issues and agree that ] is an abusive sock of Revolver. An uninvolved admin, ], has endorsed my call. Guardian Tiger has been blocked, and invited to seek further independent review by means of the unblock template. ] | ] 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| Thanks, Bish. Hopefully he's not gonna come back again, but apparently he chooses to ignore his ban and created a new sock.--] 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent Developments == | |||
| Apparently, ] chooses to ignore the ban placed by ] and before that, ]. I'm having a hard time believing ] really lost all those passwords on every single account. The same argument was made when ] was indef. blocked. And now miraculously, he lost the password to both ] and ]. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is lying. Similar cases can be view on ] and ], both are main account of disruptive user who are indef. blocked then proceeded to create more sockpuppets to maintain the original block was unjustified. | |||
| Sadly, I don't think he is ready to accept the consequences. One of the edit the new sock ] made is an groundless accusation of sockpuppetry against the blocking admin, ]. ] I did some investigation and this account, ], which Guardian Tiger accused to be a sock of Bishonen, seems to be extremely out of character for Bish especially this edit. ]. In fact, I'm begining to wonder if ] is created by ], himself, a despicable attempt to attack Bishonen of sockpuppetry. (or it would be highly unlikely that he would find that account given the lack of interaction Isberg made with wiki community as a whole) A classic example of the behavior of other troubled users, especially ]. (see arbitration case]) | |||
| As far as I'm concerned, this user is banned. And the ban apply to the editor, not just an account. We shouldn't allow this kind of double-standard because if we ever create a bad example out of this, the lost of password will become a convenient excuse for the creation of ban-evading sockpuppets. That being said, we seriously need to take a hard-line against this user. If he continues to refuse accepting the consequences and defy the regulations on wikipedia, then I'm guessing this talkpage should be protected instead of wasting the community's time. The only way for him to be unblocked is to go through the proper channel, meaning either the community decides to uplift the ban OR sympathetic users decide to appeal to arbCom. Otherwise, this is a violation of ] and just another attempt by this user to prove the original block is unjustified.--] 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded to you ]. Certainly if he offends again he should be punished, but I'm not a great fan of punishing people over and over again for the same mistake. He's promised publically to use just one account from now on. Maybe he will break his word in the future, but I'd like to give him a chance now. All the best, ] 07:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cg, calm down, compare on ANI: the user has been blocked indefinitely. Ben, I'm still not sure how you arrive at your conclusions there. The user has hardly been punished over and over (when?) but rather left free to harass Certified.gangsta for far too long. Please try to empathise with both sides. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of such attentions. ] | ] 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :::Ben, when did I "harass" that user? (You claimed I harassed the guy on AN/I) I've been saying since day 1 that I do not wish to have any direct interaction with that user. Another thing is that ], who was banned couple of months ago, is a "proven" sock of RevolverOcelotX. Obviously, he's on community ban, which means he has forfeited his right to edit on wikipedia unless the community, one day, decides to reinstate him.--] 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Gangsta, Sorry not to have replied earlier. Too many pages on my watchlist and I didn't notice this edit. By harrasment, I mean that you have been campaigning to have him indef blocked ever since you met him. You have accused him of vandalism and personal attacks <s>and you've told a few untruths. (For eg, claiming that RevolvingOcelotX was indef banned when it wasn't.)</s> In addition, you have been edit warring and POV pushing. | |||
| ::::I've spent a great deal of time going through Tiger's contributions, and your timeline, looking for evidence of the things you've said. In the main, I have not found it. Can I trouble you to have a look through the ], which is (I hope) a neutral presentation of your own timeline, with some comments and discussion. I've tried to be fair to everyone, but maybe I've missed something, or misrepresented something, and I would like your input. I also want to know if you have any questions for Tiger, and under what circumstances you might accept his being unblocked? Thanks, ] 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I didn't "campaign" to have him blocked since I met him. The only reason I contacted ] about ] is because he is obviously an abusive sock of ]. I was just shocked that it was so apparent that they are the same person/editor yet no admin bother to perform the actual blocking. It's not campaigning. I have been doing similar stuff in the past ie. discovered sock of ] who has been banned by the community and report them to ], since he is a big-time sockpuppet fighter. ] and met no opposition ]. As for campaigning, the only user I contacted is Nlu, Bishonen got involved because Guardian was harassing me on my talkpage. I know ] is not indef. blocked, I never claim he is. I resented your accusation that I was lying. My accusation is based on the ground that ] is indef. blocked by the community, therefore making ] a ban-evading, not to mention, abusive sock. To be fair, basically not one single Taiwan-China-Japan related article is NPOV. (the balance generally tends to tilt toward the pro-Chinese side with the support of a few somewhat nationalistic admins, but not one of them tend of make such drastic, blatant POV as Guardian, others are mostly small tweaks) I admit my behavior is not always optimal (however generally constructive after a bumpy 2 months) but again, this case isn't about me, it's about Guardian. It's a simiple case of ban-evading sock, he is block by the community once, therefore forfeited his right to edit. (]) Guardian choose to violate the ban. And as for the timeline, it is only a timeline not evidence against Guardian. The diffs. provided is only for 1 week, it's only the tip of an iceberg. The main reason to block him is not because he is POV pushing, stalking all over the place, it's because his unwillingness to deal with the consequences of the creation of (]) by creating ] and User:Guardian Tiger after the indef. block. The indef. block for User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH send him a clear message not to edit unless one day the community is ready to reinstate him. He chooses to ignore it. Basically, the only way he could get unblocked is for the community to uplift the ban and I don't see that to be anytime in the near future. Lastly, "I disengage, I go Zen, I take stuff off my watchlist." (quoting Bish) I gave up discussing those articles, opposition is too strong and people refuse to change their view. In the end, all of my edit is reverted anyway, even if they are good-faith edits. It's like "it's from Bonafide.hustla so it must be wrong and POV pushing". I don't think I'm going to follow the discussion on the new sock of Guardian, what's the point of my input? I believe wikipedia has enough sensible admins out there to handle that. Anyway like I just said (and the announcement on the top of this page), I'm going to gradually disengage from wikipedia, so I'm out. --] 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <small>← reindent ←</small> | |||
| My apologies, I confused myself over who made the false claim that Revolver was banned. It was ShuckyDucky, not you, and I've struck out what I wrote above. But I wasn't refering only to your most recent request for checkuser, so much as to the original ]. | |||
| Probably you're right that he should have appealed his case a lot earlier, but to be fair, he tried to, until his talk page was protected. Think of this as his appeal. And bear in mind that none of his accounts overlap. | |||
| 04:35, 19 May 2006 ] (Talk | contribs) New user account | |||
| :01:59, 31 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (you (and bonafide hustler) have ended my patiences with these edit wars and attacks on one another) | |||
| :10:15, 28 July 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease) | |||
| :06:11, 5 June 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Mao: The Unknown Story) | |||
| :01:42, 22 May 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV and warned other user in dispute about 3RRV so need for cautionary talk warning.) | |||
| Most recent contribution: | |||
| 04:37, 7 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of cities in China | |||
| 23:09, 31 October 2006 ] (Talk | contribs) New user account | |||
| :04:44, 1 November 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of user:RevolverOcelotX) | |||
| Most recent contribution: | |||
| 05:51, 2 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH | |||
| 07:52, 9 December 2006 ] (Talk | contribs) New user account | |||
| :08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apocalyptic Destroyer (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template) | |||
| Most recent contribution: | |||
| 00:27, 21 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 6 (self rv) | |||
| 02:36, 27 December 2006 ] (Talk | contribs) New user account | |||
| :01:10, 13 January 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Guardian Tiger (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusive sock of User:RevolverOcelotX) | |||
| Most recent contribution: | |||
| 22:31, 13 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Guardian Tiger (?Requesting review of unjustified block) | |||
| 20:33, 14 January 2007 ] (Talk | contribs) New user account | |||
| :08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "ApocalypticDestroyer's (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template) | |||
| Regards, ] 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Updated with block logs, ] 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I would like to make a couple of comments in regards to what Ben Aveling has said and I hope Certified Gangsta doesn't mind. I posted on this talk page once in the past month, but other than that I've never crossed wiki paths (so to speak) with Certified Gangsta. I do recall seeing he was having problems with Revolver OcelotX about the same as I was. I first noticed Gaurdian Tiger when he deleted a comment of mine about Apocalyptic Destroyer on a talk page. As a matter of fact if you look at the user contributions it is the first edit made. It doesn't take a jump of logic to realise it is the same editor. Apocalyptic Destroyer made a bunch of hit & run edits, making large reversions to pages. This is what my deleted comment was about. The fact that the editor reverted the page back to a banned users edits was kind of a tip off that it was the banned user. Or maybe this is my mistake in calling him 'the banned user' instead of saying the 'editors sock is banned.' Whatever...the guy got banned for his antics and is now at it again. As a matter of fact looking at his recent User Contibs he is doing mass reverts. I was happy to see Bishonen took the time to actually look at the activity of the editor and came to a decision about them. I'm all for fairness and letting people express themselves constructively and all that, but I think I'm not alone when I say it is a bit frustrating to see someone as deviant as the Paper Tiger run around ruining other peoples work. I'm glad that Certified Gangsta took the time to see that ban evading sock got what was coming, I also have no doubt in my mind that he'll be back. ] 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's clear it was the same user, but Tiger was not banned until 01:10, 13 January 2007, long after he last used that account. If you look back, all of his blocks were for avoiding blocks on accounts that were not (at the time) blocked. I think that's unfair. Regards, ] 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, it's obvious to me that you and ApocalypticDestroyer, or whatever he's going by these days, have way more time to waste arguing about this. I would like to beleive that you were fairly objective at one point about this, but I can't help but see that you have been fishhooked by the banned editors arguments. The sock keeps retreading these same arguments until somebody listens. One: Nobody cares whether he uses the accounts at the same time, '''it was the disruptive behavior that got him banned'''. Two: '''He did edit up until the 13th of Jan''' by just looking at this User Contribs. Three: Looking at my User Contribs '''I filed a CheckUser On Dec 28th'''., two full weeks before somebody got around to banning him. I just realised I could go on and on about the ridiculous things the banned editor has done, but I also don't even know how to respond to your last statement. He was blocked for avoiding blocks that were non-existant...really? I think the sock is all about shucking and jiving, obfuscating the point until somebody thinks otherwise. You know what, EFF it. All I can do is throw my hands up, have fun. I will say that I will keep you in mind Mr. Ben Aveling when the sock starts to be disruptive again, I will gladly point out to you when he starts trolling again. ] 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think we need to keep in mind that the banning of suckpuppets is to ensure that basic Misplaced Pages policies are followed and disruptive editing don't occur. It is ''not'' to prevent the registration of alternate accounts - which many users do and legitimately so. | |||
| :::: On this issue, despite certain misgivings about certain behaviour of RevolverOcelotX and his socks, I am firmly against what seems to be a decision to ban all of his alternate accounts, regardless of the truth of his protestations. | |||
| :::: The reason for this is because User:RevolverOcelotX to my mind is not nearly disruptive enough to warrant a permanent ban - which is what it amounts to by banning all of his alternate accounts when the origin is (so he claims) inaccessible and in any case is (in fact) inactive. | |||
| :::: For example, to my mind User:Certified.Gangsta's edits have been more disruptive than User:RevolverOcelotX (and I sincerely apologise to User:Certified.Gangsta for making this adverse comment about him on his own talk page), yet no one has seen the need to ban him. --] (]) 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah "in your mind" . Obviously, everything Guardian edited is something you agree with. If NPOV policy doesn't exist, those are the exact changes you want to make. Your accusation is very biased. Please stop attacking me everywhere and definitely not on my own page.]. I'm not god on here. I can't influence the admins to get someone blocked. Also, I got no dispute with Guardian since August. This ain't a content dispute, so it got nothing to do with me and my behaviors.--] 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just wanted to leave one last note. Even while the guy is banned, other editors aren't happy with edits he made → ]. ] 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hahaha funny...Wow, more groundless accusations against me. ShuckyDucky ain't my sock. I ain't got no sock. ]--] 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's == | |||
| I just want to make it clear that I don't have the power to block this user, so building a case against me seems rather irrelevant. In addition, Ben claimed a harass the guy, I didn't.--] 23:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wikiproject Podcasting== | |||
| I've noticed that you are a podcaster. Well, recently I've proposed a Wikiproject for podcasting. If you're interested go to ] and list yourself under 'Interested Users'. Thanks, and hope to talk with you again soon...and nice practical joke...btw. ''']]''' 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sure, thanks for the invite.--] 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==WikiProject Podcasting Started== | |||
| The ] has been started. Check out the site, and help to get this thing set-up. Thanks! ''']]''' 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Taiwan supporters== | |||
| I've notice that there are lots of Chinese editers, but there are way more people that support Taiwan, I think.--] 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] appeal == | |||
| Hi, Just letting you know that I have lodged an appeal at ] on ]'s behalf. Regards, ] 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Joke banner== | |||
| Hi, Boney, long time. I think you're within your rights restoring the joke message banner, but you may want to check out the current addition to the ] guideline. it is. Note ongoing Village Pump discussion . I just weighed in there. Best, ] | ] 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC). | |||
| Contrary to the above, you are ''not'' within your rights to deliberately disrupt Misplaced Pages. If you restore the phony software message again, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. —] 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="clear: both"></div>]'''You have been {{#if:one hour||temporarily}} ] from editing Misplaced Pages {{#if:one hour|for a period of one hour}} as a result of your {{#if:{{{2|}}}|disruptive edits to ]|disruptive edits}}.''' You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that ] (including page blanking or addition of ]), ], deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, ]; and repeated, blatant violations of our ] policy will not be tolerated.<!-- Template:Test5 --> —] 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am definitely not a fan of the "practical joke" banners, but consensus on their status seems not to have been reached at this time and would not support blocking for having one unless and until a more formal policy is reached. Any disagreement between admins on this issue should if necessary be discussed on ANI rather than have anyone act unilaterally as has been suggested previously on this page. Certified.Gangsta, having said that, it would not be considered an act of weakness to remove the banner which is proving divisive, and David Levy, it would not be an act of weakness not to carry out your threat of blocking if CG leaves the banner up. If someone doesn't back off on this, I forsee the silliest drama to hit the site since the "Santa Claus Wheel War" on Christmas Eve. ] 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) Too late. ] 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brad, I will appreciate if you or someone else undo this unjustified block.--] 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to act unilaterally, which would start a war, but if you want I will take the issue to the noticeboard. ] 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, you should do that. Thanks. As a compromise, if you unblock me, I won't revert my userpage to prevent further edit war. Even if a discussion were to start, I will want to participate. Please unblock ASAP. It's unjustified anyway--] 03:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Given the above promise, I would urge the blocking admin now to unblock. I'll start a thread at WP:ANI. ] 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The promise is only for the next 24 hrs. There is no need to get him involve. He wants to shut me up on the discussion page.--] 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've already unblocked you (and hit about five edit conflicts attempting to reply). —] 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see clear consensus regarding this issue, and the insertion of "deliberate misinformation" has long been viewed as vandalism. Certainly, common sense should be applied, but this is a clear-cut case. —] 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ANI discussion started ]. Certified.Gangsta, I think you should honor David Levy's request to leave his warning messages as he wrote them, at least while the discussion is going on, so anyone reading doesn't have to waste time hunting through the page history. ] 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As of now, the banner of the archive will go back. I will leave my userpage alone until tomorrow. David Levy, your accusation in my block log and the warning above are misleading. I will remove them after the discussion is over.--] 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're entitled to express the above opinion, but it isn't appropriate to excise the warning and block notice from the thread (while leaving everything else intact). This distorts the context by making it appear as though I blocked you without warning or notification. —] 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with David about this, Boney. You're making it frustrating to try to piece together what went down. I'd appreciate it if you'd put back all the messages in this thread. (I've unprotected your userpage, btw.) ] | ] 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC). | |||
| Thanks, Bishy. You can put it back on if you want to 'cause I'm not really good at formatting and those kinda stuff.--] 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I can't... I tried to figure what had been removed, but I have no idea what, when, or in how may goes—it got too complicated, I'm too sleepy, sorry. I have an idea, though: if you put them on the page, I'll format a nice thread from them. (When I wake up.) ] | ] 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC). | |||
| Haha g'night, sweet dream!! But seriously, you're working too hard on this. Get some ] and go to sleep. I'll take care of the rest. And dont bother to format until tomorrow morning.--] 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===The warning label=== | |||
| Is this what you want? | |||
| <div class="usermessage plainlinks">You have '''<font color=002BB8>]</font> (<font color=002BB8>]</font>).'''</div> | |||
| If so, then there ''is'' consensus that it mustn't confuse bots, so if you ''must'' put it back, please make some change to it. Eg | |||
| <div class="usermessage plainlinks">You have '''<font color=002BB8>]</font> (<font color=002BB8>]</font>).'''</div> | |||
| As I've said, I believe you have the right to put it on your page, but it would be to your credit not to exercise that right. | |||
| Regards, ] 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Cost/Benefit=== | |||
| CG, leaving aside the question of whether you have the right to use a joke banner in this way, I would like you to consider whether it is truly worth the hassle that has ensued. | |||
| I'll grant you that the block was an overreaction on David's part, but he was within his rights to request that you remove the joke banner. There are disputes on Misplaced Pages about content, there are disputes about format, there are meta-disputes about how people behaved in the resolution of previous disputes. Since you know about Giano and Bishonen, I feel certain that you're aware of just how badly things like this can deteriorate. | |||
| The point is, you deliberately spoofed the user interface for reasons which you considered harmless, non-malicious fun. I will grant that it was certainly non-malicious; whether it is in fact harmless is a subject for some debate - as is the question of what is the antecedent for that pronoun. Are we talking about ''your specific'' spoof banner? Or are we talking about spoof banners ''in general''? If we allow yours, does that set a bad precedent? | |||
| Some things are worth arguing over. Some things are worth getting ''very'' angry over. Some things are not. We must choose our battles. I advise you to not choose this one; it does not benefit anything other than your sense of whimsy. If you would like, I will see if I can get David to apologize. ] 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI, I've apologized repeatedly at ]. —] 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I really think after so many abuese all in a matter of hours, David should re-file RfA and re-confirm community's confidence in him as an admin. IT's quite apparent that, in this case, he failed the responsibility we handed to him. Of course, I have no intention of violating WP:POINT but I definitely want my userpage to be the way I want before a resolution between the 2 sides is reached, which obviously is heading toward no consensus. I consider David's repeated reverts without communication or attempt to compromise abuse of admin power and userspace harassment. Anyway, 24 hrs time frame had passed and the banner is going back to its place before David decided to mess with it. I will remove it when I think it's ugly or when clear consensus shows me that it shouldn't be there. Peace out--] 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :1. "Without communication"? I provided detailed edit summaries and left a message on this talk page. You reverted mostly without edit summaries (sometimes ticking the "]" checkbox) and removed the message from this page. | |||
| :2. Why should I have "compromised" with you? There was a guideline against your behavior, and you sneakily violated it without even attempting to contact me. | |||
| :3. Why do you need "clear consensus" to stop doing something that you know adds no value to the encyclopedia and upsets many people? Why can't you simply choose to be considerate (even if no rule forces you to)? | |||
| :4. Will you remove the banner if Jimbo hands down a new policy prohibiting it? —] 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Please either stop re-inserting the unsourced comment that Ms. Marsh is "noted for her large, natural breasts", or find a citation for that statement. Regarding your statement in your edit summary that "not everything needs a cite," and referring me to the Keely Hazell article, I feel compelled to point out that the similar statement in the Hazell article ''has a supporting citation''. | |||
| Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to publicize your personal opinions. Please honor our policies. ] 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == So you want to be a sysop? == | |||
| Drop by my user talk and let's chat. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New message == | |||
| Just like to tell you that on your practical joke orange bar pretending users have new messages is spelt wrong, it spells: '''you have new massages''', as you probably realise the messages is spelt with an A instead of an I.Regards - <font color="0066FF">]</font><font color="66FF33">]</font> 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's intentional so that he has some excuse for keeping it up. --] <small>]</small> 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wtf?? Excuse?? It's none of your business.--] 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This is bullshit == | |||
| Okay sorry to cuss out like this but the whole thing about ] is bs. That guy is claiming now there wasn't strong consensus for his community ban. I never seen anyone wikilawyer like this. Get a life, stop creating those f*cking socks and stalk me. (]) ]. If admins don't step in and stop this newly-created socks (after so many episodes already), I'ma go crazy. --] 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your user page banner == | |||
| As you are no doubt aware, there was clear consensus expressed at ] regarding banners which are identical to user interfaces. That is, that they are inappropriate. While there was no consensus that such a banner attracts a ban, I encourage you to act in accordance with the spirit of community consensus and maintain your previous "massages" version. | |||
| I like your Swedish Massages banner. Why not just use that? --] (]) 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:32, 20 November 2018
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Certified Gangsta. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)