User talk:Vhgk3z5b/Archive 2

CheckUser Filed
I've filed a CheckUser at Requests_for_CheckUser using all of the evidence I could dig up. If I left anything out, please feel free to add it. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck. You have my moral support on this. E    Asterion  u talking to me? 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

21&diff=prev&oldid=56158113]  :

Unchecked administrator power is Wikipedia's main problem
It is Tim who should be disciplined, but he is an admin so he can get away with anything and he knows it. He arbitarily ignored consensus and made personal attacks on me. I have made thousands of valuable edits, but will not make any more. Bhoeble 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee
You should start a RfC against InShaneee. You would then have my support; and probably the support of others. --Candide, or Optimism 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman's User Page
Since apparently you believe I defamed people, perhaps you could also provide the same lengthy BS warning to the 3 or 4 users who redirected my talk page to the "QUEER" article. Thanks for the lecture. Oh and...the truth isn't defamation, Magic Johnson has AIDS. Batman2005 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally perhaps you can warn Cuthbert11 about his defamation of me in his edits and the use of derogatory language...or is it ok when he does it? Here's the proof.  Batman2005 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then template his page too. Batman2005 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No I will not give them the same warning because all but one had been warned (I've warned the other). As for the defamation, I do apologize about changing the Magic Johnson link. I will give you a civility warning instead. As for the others, they are defamation. The link you provide was for user 69.234.9.135, not Cuthbert11. However I did warn Cuthbert11 for another edit that was a personal attack against you. Vhgk3z5b 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That IP is Cuthbert! The same one redirecting my talk page to pedophilia Batman2005 03:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then place a sock puppet tag on his page. Vhgk3z5b 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because, it is considered vandalism to remove contant from a users' page that is perfectly allowed. If hes wants to link Kerry like this, hes allowed to. Wikipedias not censored.  The King   of Kings  03:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I suggest you read WP:NPA. Comments that insult someone else are personal attacks.  As for the Magic Johnson link, although it is not a personal attack, it is incivil.  Lastly, quite clearly since I was discussing the matter and justifying my edits, it was not vandalism.  Even if you felt it was inappropriate, it is also incivil of you to place a blatant vandal warning tag on my talk page for something that is not blatant vandalism.  Once again, I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and civility. Vhgk3z5b 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * NPA only goes for Wikipedia users, not real-life people. Is John Kerry a Wikipedia user? NO. The he's allowed to say anything about him that he wants. I've been here for a long time and know policy like the back of my hand. Oh and legal threats are a no-no.  The King   of Kings  03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you cared to read WP:NPA you would see that the first line says Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Seems straight forward to me.  As for your appleal to authority, I suggest you read up on logical fallacies; your length of time here does not mean you know more about the policies than me, especially since I am one of the few people maintaining the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard.  And what is your reference to legal threats in regards to? If you still disagree with me, don't bother posting a long reply as you will have to repost it on WP:AN/I. Vhgk3z5b 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you didn't want me to mention my length of time here, you shouldn't have written a paragraph response about policy. Don't make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia is in referance to your peers here on Wikipedia. If he was to link your name instead of Kerry's, then it would be a personal attack. Linking Kerry's name is not a personal attack. The King   of Kings  03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can talk about policy all I want, it's no excuse for fallacies. And I guess I must be missing something because I could have sworn Wikitionary defines anywhere as In any place.  Doesn't seem to have any conditions to it; maybe that's why it's bolded.  Vhgk3z5b 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you shoud read the sentence after the bolded one. It says:
 * Comment on content, not the contributor.
 * Meaning, we shouldn't make attacks on users. Point out where it says we shouldn't make comments on people in real life. Now, unless you're John Kerry, you should have no problem wih it. The King   of Kings  04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it means what it says. You are making implications.  Vhgk3z5b 04:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, it's really not all that important, i'm gonna keep it on there, so if you wanna keep arguing with each other...then I guess have at it. Batman2005 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about importance, its about right and wrong. Vhgk3z5b 04:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, right or wrong, i'm leavin it on there. Batman2005 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll say right now that if you want to leave it on there, I am powerless to stop you. However, administrators are.  I've posted the issue on WP:RFI. Vhgk3z5b 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't believe me about the John Kerry thing, ask an admin. I'm sure they could clear it up. The King   of Kings  04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you. WP:RFI. Vhgk3z5b 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I sure hope you left a similar message for Batman2005, who initiated the whole thing by personally attacking me.Cuthbert11 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you think the mess above go started? ;) Vhgk3z5b 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EnthusiastFRANCE
What exactly is the procedure for dealing with editors of this, er, calibur? Arbitration? I realize I've jumped into a quagmire, but it looked like you could use some help. Supadawg - &#91;&#91;User_talk:Supadawg&#124;Talk]] 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just place a notice on WP:AN and an admin will block them. Vhgk3z5b 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * please don't redirect the userpages I tagged with socks. It messes up the category and makes them hard to trace. pschemp | talk 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? I was still able to see the categories. I've seen other pages done like that so I figured it's the right way to do it.  Can you explain why it's not? Vhgk3z5b 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It redirected everything to the "proven" category that was not created yet (red link) and removed them from the "suspected" category that was already created. The socktags need to go on the user page, not the talk page so that it is clear where the evidence is, and what socks are involved. Redirects are unnecessary and confusing. If you look at list like this and this, you can see socks and imposters are taggged on the user page for easy reference. Also, you can't use the proven socktag template unless a checkuser is run. Other people may have done what you did, but it isn't the correct procedure. Really, in this case it is quite obvious they are socks, and the suspected tag is just fine. Checkuser is hardly needed. pschemp | talk 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruption
Users Ghepeu and Zivan56 make disruption and personal attacks against me: needs blocking them!--PIO 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right. Report them on WP:PAIN then. Vhgk3z5b 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User 62.77.181.16
See Suspected sock puppets/Bazzajf. Cheers. -- FRCP11 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Namechecking deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Namechecking, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Tevildo 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

195.167.240.5 vandalism
Apparently, someone doesn't like you. ;-) -- from The King   of Kings  00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging from the contributions, it's either Pantherarosa or another sock of EnthusiastFRANCE. The style of posts makes me lean towards Pantherarosa, but then again EnthusiastFRANCE has been using socks lately to evade his block. Oh well, hopefully a check user will figure it out. Vhgk3z5b 07:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He did edit the User talk:EnthusiastFRANCE page.... on the other hand I would have figured that he'd have given up by now. =D -Aknorals 08:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.95.223
Vhgk3z5b, do I understand that you think this matter is resolved by you putting a warning on the IP page? I presented evidence that this is a particular, active user, who has said nasty things about me in the past. I have more evidence of his identity if that is in doubt. Warning the IP address from which he edited seems to me to accomplish nothing. I'm trying to avoid directly confronting him with an accusation myself, but if that is my only way to proceed, I will do so. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Users must be warned for petty attacks before a block is justified. His ISP uses dynamic IP addresses, so the next time he comes to Wikipedia he should see the warning. Vhgk3z5b 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

24.147.37.116
Vhgk3z5b: legal threats and general abuse are continuing even after your warning. ,,. Time for a block? Tearlach 09:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am not an admin, so I am not able to block users. However, I will post the issue for you on WP:AN.  Given the continuing legal threats, the user will likely be blocked for a while. Vhgk3z5b 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked for a month. Vhgk3z5b 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for passing that on (sorry - I assumed members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit were admins). Tearlach 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Test?
I do not know what test you are referring to when you said "...your test worked.".

Removing Warnings
"Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Vhgk3z5b 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)"

Can you please refer me to the Wikipedia page which explains that I am not allowed to edit my user pages? --GreedyCapitalist 04:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - the same user who called me a vandal also called me a fascist and a cult member (I'm the descendant of Holocause survivors). And I'm supposed to let him write all over by user pages? --GreedyCapitalist 04:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PPS - he vandalized my comments too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=57649409&oldid=57649023 --GreedyCapitalist 04:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PPPS - and check out his rants - he's out of control! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#If_you_are_going_to_call_other_Wikipedians_.22fascist.22.2C_at_least_have_the_balls_to_defend_your_claims_instead_of_trying_to_erase__the_evidence.

I'm finished dealing with him or that article, but he's using wikipedia to host his personal vendetta and accuses anyone who gets in his way of vandalism --GreedyCapitalist 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How does one go about getting someone banned for that?


 * Ever heard the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? You did not only remove that user's comments, but as well another user warning you for making personal attacks - WP:VANDAL: users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.  If another user attacked you report them on WP:PAIN. Vhgk3z5b 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, he's been warned several times for attacking others: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AObjectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=57625583&oldid=57624849 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AObjectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=57402724&oldid=57401501
 * And that excuses your personal attacks how? Vhgk3z5b 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't attacked him. I've given a factual description of his views - they are stated on his user page for all to see.

"WP:VANDAL: users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors. If another user attacked you report them on WP:PAIN. Vhgk3z5b 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"

Ooops, I didn't know that. Sorry. --GreedyCapitalist 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't trust Greedy. He thinks that an accidental deletion was vandalism (look further down on that page and you'll see I apologized for that accident), and he thinks that when I give my opinion on Randism I'm giving an opinion on him. He also accused me of things I never did, as he is obsessed with getting me kicked off Wikipedia because I've been working on the Criticism section of the Rand-related articles. He's not trying to deal with real problems; he's trying to censor opposition. -- LGagnon 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ontario
I thought Ontario was in the United States. --Dark Tichondrias

Question Regarding WP:PAIN Removal and Your Status?
At first, I followed your instructions and moved the discussion to WP:AN/I. I was then told that you're not an admin. I checked and did not see your name on the list of administrators. Given that that page is for users to obtain administrator attention ("[t]his page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks"), I reverted your removal and placed my request back on the page. If you feel I've acted in error, or if I have somehow been misinformed, I would appreciate your response. I've added this page to my watchlist, so please feel free to respond here if you wish. &mdash; Mike &bull; 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm working blind here &mdash; if there's some sort of internal politics that makes it cool for you to handle WP:PAIN stuff, I'm just not aware of it. So don't take my query as a personal slight, as it's not meant that way. &mdash; Mike &bull; 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. The actual policy is WP:ADMIN which states: In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions.  So yes, even you may do things like close Articles for Deletion debates or maintain report boards (such as WP:PAIN) as long as you do it with the same level of reasoning expected from an admin.  WP:PAIN does say not to relist if an admin removes it, and since an non-admin did remove it, I have no problem in principle with you restoring it.  Although if the situation does grow even farther outside of the scope of WP:PAIN then I may remove it again.  In any case, thanks for asking for clarification! :) Vhgk3z5b 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Thanks for your input. I'll try to be more careful in the future. I'm considering coming up with a template response that I can use in the future to avoid accidentally speaking too sharply. Nandesuka 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I Haven't Engaged in Personal Attacks
I have not done any personal attacks on the wiki, you have probably been lied to by users Alienus and LGagnon who have been attacking me for the past few days due to our disagreements on edits on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). An example of this is when I requested that they both stop using the words "Randroid" and "Randian" when speaking to me because I find these words offensive, instead they steamrolled over my request and practically spat in my face.

If you want to warn ANYONE about personal attacks, warn these two vandal. Have a nice day! The Fading Light 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason you have said this is because the vote didn't swing to your view of "I hate Ayn Rand" would be a personal attack. Vhgk3z5b 04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is a statement of what I considered to be a fact, not a personal attack, and considering the fact that LGagnon has refered to me as a "Randian" despite the fact that I'm not even an Objectivist and ignorning my request not to call me so would count even more so as a personal attack.

Nandesuka NPA
You requested some diffs, but I was briefly held back by an unfair block that has since been removed. Anyhow, here's a link that covers everything from my placement of a warning, to his multiple accusations of trolling, up to when he started deleting my comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANandesuka&diff=59064121&oldid=58948448

As I pointed out in the now-deleted entry on ANI, repeatedly calling someone a troll is specifically listed as an example of a personal attack. I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a lot of bad blood and hostility on his part, as he was the only user who spoke out to support the block by Tony Sidaway that has now been removed for lack of basis. He also chose to vote on an article involving a subject he has never shown anything but apathy about, coincidentally voting against me. Despite my attempt to AGF, this looks a lot like wikistalking.

Frankly, my concern here isn't just with his personal attack, but what might look like a pattern of hostility. He's an admin but he doesn't seem to be having much success at separating his personal feelings from his sysop responsibilities. I feel that if this is not headed off now, it will turn into bigger, uglier issues in the future, including his support for other unfair blocks.

Am I wrong to be concerned? Al 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On a side note, he's continued to censor his talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nandesuka&curid=3199574&diff=59121872&oldid=59120805  Al  23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header
Regarding your edits to WP:PAIN/Header: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. TheRealFennShysa 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)