User talk:Kikbguy

See also sections
Please don't add redlinks and external links to the "See also" sections of articles. I know your additions were in good faith, so please take this as some advice on style guidelines to a new editor and not as a warning. --GraemeL (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FireGPG
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article FireGPG, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable software extension; unsourced

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 08:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Signing
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Killing" information?
Regarding your comments in this edit: you seem to think I'm trying to stifle information to protect these countries. I would have you know that I improved the Re-education through labor article to Good Article status and I am preparing resources to do the same to the Laogai article, which should be enough to demonstrate that I am certainly not trying to hide information from people. Please immediately stop accusing me and others of trying to "kill" your information. This is not about censoring information, it's about Wikipedia policy and verifiability. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, assume good faith and do not personally attack other editors. Continuing down this path could lead to a block. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information, I am not a Wikipedia moderator and I am not the person who will be choosing whether or not to delete your article. That is up to an administrator who will read the discussion and make a decision.  Any "killing of information" that goes on will not be carried out by me, but by an administrator acting according to community consensus. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FireGPG
I have nominated FireGPG, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/FireGPG. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Zim Zala Bim talk  02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Zim Zala Bim talk  03:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your latest comment at the AfD discussion was not removed to "protect" administrators, but because it was wholly irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about FireGPG, do it at the FireGPG afd discussion, because no one at the other discussion cares.
 * Also, please be advised that your latest comment constitutes the second personal attack against ZimZalaBim since you received your final warning, and there is currently a pending request to have you blocked for incivility. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. -- VS talk 04:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnote to the above - this edit was the last straw .-- VS talk 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer block
__NOINDEX__-- VS talk 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "mysterious" about your indefinite block, Kikbguy; you were blocked for operating multiple disruptive accounts, as documented here.
 * I don't know what "false statements about your content" you're referring to; if might help the administrator if you could provide examples of false statements we have made. As for the rest of your comments, I will leave it to an administrator to decide whether ZimZalaBim and I acted with unacceptable conduct. If you wanted to be amicable, you probably should have avoided making comments like these   . &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you, Zimzalabim, or VirtualSteve haven't deleted the evidence yet, check out your original claim in the discussion section of: Articles For Deletion:Incarceration and Surveillance in the US, Russia, and China. that my article/stub was basically based on 1 source that was critical of Laogai. My original article, which was based on 4 referenced sources, was not based on criticism of Laogai, it objectively used the Logai Research Foundation to estimate the number of people in Laogai camps. You also claimed that I would be commiting "vandalism" by undeleting the "See Also" sections of articles linking to my stub that you deleted. This is not vandalism when the "see also" section links to an article that is related to the subject matter. You threatened me that arguing with you was not the best way to avoid deletion of my article. I just don't respond well when people threaten me. Lastly, the only reason that I used another account is because I was incorrectly blocked in the first place by an administrator that was abusing his power and had a time sensitive deletion proposal that I needed to refute. Kikbguy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to administrator: By "threat," the user is referring to the following comment from me: "Also, please note that insulting other editors and calling the AfD process "bogus" is not a good way to get your article rescued.". &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you were not blocked by ZimZalaBim, therefore he was not "abusing his power" because he did not ever use his administrative power in this matter. You were blocked by VirtualSteve, who was an entirely neutral outside party whom I had never even met before this issue. ZimZalaBim was not the one who reported you to be blocked; I reported you when you repeatedly left insulting comments about ZimZalaBim after having been warned not to make personal attacks. Neither of us abused any powers to block you, we simply reported you to neutral, uninvolved moderators. And the administrator who blocked you was not abusing his power; he left a specific note regarding the reason you were blocked, and a link to a personal attack you had made that was the reason for the block.
 * As for your use of multiple accounts, you weren't using those accounts to refute the deletion proposal, but to repeatedly make inflammatory and insulting remarks about myself and ZimZalaBim. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 02:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lies again, I never made a personal attack on Zimzalabim. I simply mentioned that either he or you kept deleting my posts in the discussion section and that he got VirtualSteve to ban me without hearing my side of the story. I love how your pretending to abide by the rules in this discussion, yet in discussions that were not as public you and your friend Zimzalabim did everything you could to discredit me from altering my entries to deleting my arguments in the proposed deletion section. Moderator, please keep in mind that these two guys feel threatened by my free speech because they have attempted to supress my arguments in the past. Kikbguy (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: You can go through and look if you want, but what was deleted was personal attacks, not arguments. Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks and they can be deleted on sight.  When you made arguments that didn't attack editors, we left them untouched. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why I'm even giving you these links, since you know full well what you did, but anyway, here are some of the personal attacks you made (just against one user; I'm not listing the ones against me):
 * Calling an editor "pissed off" and accusing him of censorship
 * saying an editor "has issues"
 * again calling an editor "pissed off"
 * There you go. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of unblock process
Kikbguy - I have protected your talk page because you are breaking the Unblock Process. You may consider you have not been rude and uncivil to either ZimZalaBim or Politzer but this edit alone - where you admit being so rude and apologising will give any administrator reviewing cause to consider that opinion wrong. In any event you are blocked as a sock-puppet and you are now engaging in disruption through your talk page in contravention of the Unblock Process. You have put in a request to have your block reviewed and you should wait now until that occurs. I have left a message for the reviewing administrator to consider unprotecting your page after the first review. If you return at that time to again breach the unblock process I will again protect your page.-- VS talk 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have set the protection length to one week; hopefully, you'll calm down by then and will be able to address the situation objectively. You have been rightfully blocked for disruption and personal attacks (e.g. accusing other users of ulterior motives for nominating your article for deletion); afterwards, you escalated the situation by avoiding your block using IP addresses and a sockpuppet account, which led to your current indefinite block. I don't absolutely rule out unblocking you, as long as you don't continue avoiding your block, and agree not to engage in this kind of inappropriate behavior any more. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see Kikbguy your protection has been shortened (thanks to Mike for his input) - but despite this you have still used another sock here to blabber on with comments like (Politizer, Zimzalabim, and VirtualSteve) have had me blocked for "sockpuppetry" which is code for using a proxy when they wrongfully block my original account. Please take the time to read about sockpuppetry and you will see that this is not a wrongful proxy action - but the legitimate action for dealing with very disruptive editors.-- VS talk 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet another sock here for which you received an immediate block by another administrator. Look carefully at what Mike has suggested also above - take a week to calm down.  With that in mind can I ask you once again to refrain from using socks and consider whether you want to be here at all.-- VS  talk 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again for attention of any future reviewing admin (although your chances of ever being unblocked are getting less by the second) - as per here.-- VS talk 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems this fellow is quite persistent despite a number of polite requests and offers of assistance. Further evidence of continuing sock activities of this user here via creation of new account Kikbguy2.-- VS  talk 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you have continued to avoid your block, I am restoring the indefinite protection of this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked, please e-mail me or the blocking administrator for further instructions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)