User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 007

WP:Harassment
Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I haven't looked at Wikipedia in a while. It seems that in the meantime User:Logoi's talk page has turned into a venue for making personal attacks against me, including posting information about me outside of Wikipedia (a blog), regarding the apparently still controversial Asian fetish article. Does this seem like a violation of WP:HA (Posting of personal information) to you? If so, I would kindly request that this information be removed from his talk page and the page histories. --Wzhao553 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll keep an eye on WP:AN/I. --Wzhao553 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam fodder
If you're able, please add http://www.ezekielbearsports.com EBsports.com to the spam filter. A user has been repeatedly spamming articles with links under several unregistered IP addresses and a couple of accounts, particularly Gregorius77. Thanks! Gorilla Jones 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's still at it under the Gregorius77 name. Gorilla Jones 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know how it works. Gorilla Jones 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Last warning" and User talk:72.83.111.169
Ok. Thanks. Apparently, that user resorted to vandalizing Buchanan-Hermit's user page after receiving the warning. G . H e  23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

re: spamming?
--Gregorius77 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)it's odd that you should pull me up for supposed spamming when there's other links across the different NBA teams that could be classed (by your definition) as the same thing, 'dabullz' for example.

perhaps you could enlighten me as to the basis and severity of my crime?

gregorius77

i understand, if thats the case you should remove 'dabullz.net' also.

here's another example of their spamming:

http://forums.espn.go.com/espn/thread?forumID=103&threadID=4024528&lastPostID=26113189

cheers

gregorius77

very good, i appreciate it. it'd be unfair to have one rule for one and one for another

ours is an NBA site and not a team specific website

would it be possible for me to add it to, say an NBA page?

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nba

ok, the site already has over 2000 members and has only been active for approx 2 years..

and yeah its already way up on google and yahoo search.

i'll look into the steps you suggest

thanks again

gregorius77

http://www.bullscast.com/

ok thats another fledgling Bulls website that under your terms should'nt be allowed to feature in external links.

and is there any chance we could add our site to external links for 'NBA' or 'NBA Basketball'?

many thanks

gregorius77

alright...i'll get back to you...or them.

gregorius

Rely
OK, I did what you suggested and put the Leyasu/"Vandalism Correcter" case up on WP:AE. - Deathrocker 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

request to delete account
You recently admonished me about wikipedia policy. I wish to leave wikipedia and would like to request that my account be removed along with the user and user talk page; I believe that I can ask an administrator to do this under the policy "right to vanish." Thank you. Logoi 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the Deathrocker affair
Hello. I am having problems with the user Deathrocker. I have noticed that you have posted about me on their discussion page. I would like to know what i have done to warrant the defacement of my userpage, or the reason i am being accused of being symonous with the user Leyasu.

I do not understand why i am being persecuted in this manner. I have violated no policys, having used them as a guideline for my editing.

I understand the policys of vandalism, and i do not understand why you are in support of this user deleting large sections of the gothic metal article without warranty, and also deleting refrences.

Please explain to me what i have done to make myself a target of spite, and how i may go about resolving this issue.

After making this comment, i have found that the user has deleted a polite request i made for them not to deface my userpage and not to blank articles. I also looked at a page for how to request adminstrator help, but found it very confusing, and instead left a template request for the user to not delete others work. The user has since then deleted these, claiming i am a vandal, when i am simply following your dispute resoloution page.

I request help in this matter.

This user has now gone on to revert and deface all edits i make, changing words and blanking sections i write. This is vandalism and harrasment, and i ask that something be done. I signed to Wikipedia as i thought that the community would be friendly, not that i would harrased for reinserting sections of blanked text. VandalismCorrecter.

re:VandalismCorrecter
Sure, although I (and probably DeathRocker) am going to monitor that user quite closely. Circeus 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a user
Hi there. I have a problem with a user called Deathrocker. This user was recently banned for removing sourced information from articles, and for making personal attacks at people who do not have accounts. This user is also on revert parole from an arbirrition case that led to him being banned for three months. This user is using a serious of ip adresses to revert any user, anmynous or registered that change anything on articles he deems as 'his' claiming it as vandalism or restricted user changes, , , , , ,. He also just used an ip to delete someones post from my talk page and instead leave a personal attack.

I ask if you can check these ips against his. I also ask if this user can be banned from these articles, as he has grown into a habit of calling admin abuse when he is banned, and removing large sections of text written by others on article discussion pages, claiming they are banned users. He has even done this to an admin, claiming admin abuse when the admin reverted him. This is on top of the persistant violations of his parole regarding personal attacks and using sockpuppets to perform massive reverts, which he openly admits to being his by signing them as himself.

Please help the community with this user who refuses to follow policy or respect that he does not own Wikipedia, and that articles are not just his, they are to reflect the opinions and points of all people, and that he cannot refuse to let others edit articles because he said so.

Here is his user contributions to show what i mean. He also states here on his userpage he is a sockcatcher, even though he was banned for making this account and posting this personal attack against another user. .

Of note also is while i was writing this, he used two more ips again to blank an admins comment who praised me for my edits, leaving a personal attack, signing it as himself,. 86.143.124.233 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However. Reverting admins, other registered users and other anomynous users that are not me isnt allowed. Nor is blanking talk pages, running a sock farm, or evading his own bands and parole using socks in his sock farm allowed. Ill take this to AE using an account as well. You and me both know full well what the policys are, you even have a comment under this one from someone else regarding Deathrockers behaviour, so this should already be fixed by you.

Regardless of my editing priveleges, that doesnt give him the right to harass other registered users or anymnous users that arent me, and you and i both know it. And you know full well that i will only revert his changes WHEN he blatantly violates policy. We both know as well that running a sock farm is against policy regardles, which is what he has openly admitted to doing to revert others edits by signing the edits as himself. Hence why i took it to AE. Because your not taking actions against the things he is doing.


 * Dear Idont haveaname
 * I se you got the same unsigned request at your talk page that i did, And as I uderstand from your comment on my talk page, I wandered smack in the middle of a feud between two blocked users, while doing some WP:RCP. The two users are User:Leyasu and User:Deathrocker are they both operating anonymos or is it just Leyasu? Are the both blocked indef? Do you have any idea if it was Deathrocker that did this [|changed my edit on a talk page]not logged in or if it was an another anonymos user?
 * Kind regards Angelbo 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that cleared it up for me. Angelbo 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ermmmmm
will you please stop the vandal deathrocker from removing everyones edits on football and music pages because he is doing it to force his pov and thats not good and he shouldnt be allowed to do it with the number user names or with his original one

User:Edipedia
I would like to ask you please to take a look at this: Suspected sock puppets/Edipedia. Edipedia has made multiple sockpuppets in order to get around 3RR bans. His main account as well as his sockpuppets have been through 3RR bans before, but he does not stop his behaviour. He also has a habit of removing warnings from his talk page, as well as removing the sockpuppeteer tag and sockpuppet tag from his user page and that of his sockpuppets. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

reply --- Hong Qi Gong 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposing vandalhunting, are we? == ==

Pardon me for being critical, but On the ignore all rules talk page, you said:

''Strong oppose. It encourages admin abuse and allows trolls to get away with anything and everything. It's a policy allowing other admins to do actions based on essays instead of based on community-established and -approved Wikipedia policy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)''

Don't you mean that a small group of people trying to form a tyranny of the minority on some obscure wikipedia: namespace page cannot overcome the rest of the rest of the community, whether that's just the administrators, or in fact everyone?

As for trolls and vandals, aren't you actually opposing because of the incident where someone was using ignore all rules to hunt down those self same vandals?

Kim Bruning 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed how your view of how our guidelines work has somehow managed to get you to end up siding with proven vandals against a well trusted user?


 * Kim Bruning 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realise who Sam Spade is, right? He's a nice guy, sure, and I consider him a friend, but most wikipedians didn't really agree with how he applied the rules ;-) Thus you're proving my point even further. :-P


 * Another word for "trusted user" is "admin", I believe you were opposing Cyde in favor of several blocked vandals?


 * Kim Bruning 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia
Hi there, I'm another user trying to clean up the mess Edipedia is making. I saw your comment on User:HongQiGong's talk page, "He's been here since July and has over 500 edits, so an indefinite block might be too controversial at this point." I must remind you that from the look of his contribution history, about 95% of his total edits are reverted. To be honest, this user has the factual contribution of a typical 3-edits user, and has done far, far more harm than good. Take a look at his last 100 contributions. I assure you that all his main space edits in his last 100 contributions have been reverted. Basing on the quality of his edits, his contribution is best not to be regarded when taking action against him. Rather, think of the mess his 500 edits made and the time it took to keep track of every one of them, revert them, discuss in talk page while he is really not bothering to listen, request for page protection, leave dozens of notes and warnings on his take page, file about 10 reports against him, et cetera. It has taken three of us spending day and night trying to solve the Edipedia-problem for two weeks, and I certainly hope it won't be any longer. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is not a mere dispute resolution now, though I have tried. I have left quite a lot of notices on his talk page, to be deleted dozens of times. Then when it failed I brought in an "outside editor", Sumple, to solve the dispute. Sumple tried to discuss in the article's talk page and in his user talk page, both of which failed. The discussion soon grew large as, you can see from Talk:Han Chinese, 5 contributors have tried to discuss with him about his edits after seeing the discussion, but ultimately failed since he was not bothering to listen to what others are saying, merely repeating his POV again and again - and edit warring in the meantime. Soon he did not bother to give any reason at all, and started reverting without edit summaries, vandalism (disruption in Administrators' noticeboard, vandalizing three users' talk page and one user's user page) and trolling. Since it was no longer a dispute but pure vandalism and lots of 3RR violations, I reported him in the Administrators' noticeboard, giving him a 48 hour block. He then began to use three sockpuppets to repeat his vandalism and edit warring. After violating a large variety of other rules repeatedly, he is finally blocked now for a few weeks. See here for one of my reports against the users. Aran|heru|nar 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Make that four sockpuppets. A new one has just been made yesterday, Inose. Four socks and dozens of 3RR and vandalism. Tough guy, isn't he? Aran|heru|nar 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A checkuser has been requested. Please check if there is any problem. Aran|heru|nar 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aranherunar, thanks for doing all this work with the report filing. --- Hong Qi Gong 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed the use of sockpuppets. Can I request that his main account and his sockpuppets be banned permanently? (To add - one of his sockpuppets came back several hours ago to once again blank out the suspected sockpuppet tag, as well as to attack another editor.) --- Hong Qi Gong 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice until I checked the logs, but it appears all his known socks have been blocked permanently. However, his main account has not been blocked permanently.  --- Hong Qi Gong 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * An indef ban on his main account is unnecessary, I think. Even if we put all the offences of his sockpuppets onto his main account, and counting the sockpuppeting violation, it still doesn't warrant an indef ban. The user has engaged in a LOT of revert wars (10 violations of 3RR, for god's sake), 4 sockpuppets (which he denied), incivility, talk page vandalism, blanking, disruption, etc. but I believe he did not really mean to "destroy" Wikipedia. More likely he is trying to help but could not behave himself. I think a two months block on his main account is enough - at most half a year. If he doesn't behave himself again after the block, or if he continues to use sockpuppets to evade his block, then it could be an indef. Let's give him a chance. Aran|heru|nar 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)