User talk:Gerbelzodude99

Welcome to Wikipedia
Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 21:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:SOCK
I just posted the following in the ANI thread you initiated:


 * Suspect is too weak a word. A brand new account created yesterday, whose first edit was to (properly formatted) nominate an article for deletion, and then launch an ANI complaint against a user, is clearly a sockpuppet of one form or another.
 * From WP:ILLEGIT (illegitimate uses of sockpuppet accounts, under WP:SOCK) -
 * Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.
 * Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
 * "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.
 * Gerbelzodude99 - If you would like to come clean as to your other account, and agree to abide by WP:SOCK in the future and not act disruptively, we can wrap this up without further sanction. Please cooperate here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said there - you are obviously violating the policy at this point. If you come clean as to who you are we can just wrap up the extra account and not further sanction you for this. But this type of behavior is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have gone quiet rather than answer the question, I am indefinitely (but not permanently) blocking your account. You may still identify yourself and clear this up if you like, without further consequences, and if you want to use this as your new primary account going forwards and you communicate that you will abide by policy, we can unblock this one.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have filed a SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) / Checkuser request Sockpuppet investigations/Gerbelzodude99 to investigate and disambiguate this situation. If you would like to comment, you can make a statement here and I or another admin can copy it over to the SPI page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * checkuser results indicate that there is no other apparent account involved on the IP. I have just unblocked your account.
 * I would like to apologize if we overreacted. Your actions were amazingly sophisticated for a new user, and given the particular edits you made raised significant concerns.  We strongly prefer if people focus on the encyclopedia contents, and brand new editors who focus on administrative stuff is rare and troubling.  However, if you were participating as an IP for some time, that would explain it to some extent.
 * The IP editor you filed the ANI case about had a point, however, that when you claimed he was stalking you, your contributions were brand new. Whatever you were doing under your IP address, your account is "new to us" and you can't be blaming him for stalking you.  He and everyone else had no idea who you are or were.
 * FYI, due to privacy concerns, only the checkusers who did the check on you have access to your information and IP address. I have no idea what it was.
 * Good luck in editing in the future. If you can establish a bunch of article-focused editing on the record it will help your reputation on line etc.  This note here and the Checkuser report establish that the sockpuppetry fears were a mistake and unfounded.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD
I have just speedily closed two of your AFD nominations. Please be aware of the deletion pre-requisites detailed at WP:BEFORE. In particular, if you have concerns about an article, please discuss them at the article's talk page before taking the matter to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed several of your nominations on the WP:AfD were speedy kept. I recommend you find specific points in Wikipedia policy under which grounds would warrant a deletion, instead of POV statements like "Wikipedia is not an antiquarian" (we also have a policy that states what Wikipedia is not). Mkdw talk 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Gerbelzodude99 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__ NW ( Talk ) 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)