User talk:Zigzogger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Big P's complaint

You've been on Wikipedia for about 48 hours; maybe you should propose actually meaningful edits to Kiwi Alejandro Camara and learn a thing or two about how Wikipedia is run instead of blowing off at long-time administrators like RasputinAXP. Cool your jets. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I have been editing the wikipedia for more than a year.

2. I wrote about 20% of the Kiwi Camara article myself, which is more than you or Rasputin can say, and have made other minor improvements to the rest of the article. This is why I was annoyed when it was deleted.

If anyone blew anyone off, it was Rasputin who deleted an article that many people spent considerable time writing, and who "blew off" the views of the large majority of those polled who wished to keep the article he deleted. Why even have a poll if it is going to be ignored? Zigzogger 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Zig, can we practice civility? Yanksox 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I have been. What did I say that you consider uncivil? Zigzogger 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous posts rubbed off that way to me, maybe I read too quickly. Yanksox 22:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Well no offense taken. Now if you want to see someone going to far, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big.P&oldid=53795208

I don't personally object, it's his userpage, not mine. Zigzogger 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You went too far by reversing RasputinAXP's decision. RasputinAXP is a Wikipedia administrator, and that alone gives his decision more weight than yours. However, if you feel his decision was a poor one, you should contact other administrators for their opinion directly through their talk pages or even request arbitration as a last resort. You should never take matters into your own hands by restoring articles that were called to be deleted.
The article has been redeleted and protected against recreation. For more details, visit Kiwi Alejandro Camara. If you have meaningful edits to the article, go to User:SpuriousQ/Kiwi Alejandra Camara and try to improve the article there.
Also, I speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community when I say that everyone's hard work is respected; however, if an article is deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia, then it is best that it goes. You also mention that the majority of people voted to keep the article, but if you actually read the comments, most "keepers" really wanted an article that was about the controversy, and not about Kiwi Camara. An article about the controversy has to be different from an article about the person, so a deletion would go along with those votes. When the poll is viewed in that perspective, a lot less people actually supported the article.
-- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I read your comments on RasputinAXP about your recreation of the article. I had assumed you just copy/pasted the original and saved the page, but in fact you had indeed made slight improvements. I'm sorry I did not notice them before and made that assumption.
Nonetheless, there should be a complete overhaul before you can present a draft for article recreation. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please try to remain civil

Zig, I understand you're overheated regarding the Camara article, but that's no excuse for violating WP:NPA like this. Please keep a cool head.  RasputinAXP  c 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (first warning)

Actually, that wasn't Zig's original statement, if you go to Big P's talk page, that is some that HE said. Yanksox 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter. I never added that to a public article talk page. That's on my user talk page, at my own discretion; not to mention, I took it off too. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page isn't yours, it belongs to Wikipedia. You need to show more discrection. Yanksox 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page before Zigzogger decided to advertise it on the article's talk page. This means that he purposely wanted to defame me even as the wrong was already corrected. He has perfect motive to do so because we have conflicting opinions about the legitimacy of the article. That fits under a violation of WP:NPA. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You're both wrong. Big P, posting that in the first place wasn't very civil, nor was Zig being civil in posting it to the talk page. I think both of you need to take a large step back and away from the page.  RasputinAXP  c 14:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I know it was uncivil, that's precisely why I took it off of my page. I acknowledged that already by referring to it in my previous message as:
the wrong [that] was already corrected.
So, Rasputin, you aren't stating anything that we already didn't know.
In regards staying away, I have no problem with stepping away from the deleted page as long as it stays deleted likes it's supposed to be.
-- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical liberalism

Zigzogger, please respect the other editors of Classical liberalism article and revert the redirect. There was no consensus to merge these articles. The article was created at 16:08, October 12, 2001. This article is the oldest one that I have ever worked on. How many different editors do you think have worked on this article over the years? How can unilaterally redirecting the article be appropriate? FloNight talk 03:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the personal attacks

Stop quoting my "biatch" comment every chance you get. The comment has been rescinded a long time ago and bringing it up over and over again, such as on User talk:Drini, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Fruitless comments like "Please note that Big.P has a personal stake for some strange reason" should have nothing to do with your desire to have the Camara article recreated, and as such, I interpret such negative references to me as personal attacks. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. (second warning) -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


User:Zigzogger: Please do not add obscenities to Wikipedia, like you did in User:Zigzogger. Injecting unnecessary swear words, racially or sexually abusive comments, or provocative pictures to articles or user pages offends many people. Wikipedia treats such actions as vandalism and blocks people from editing for such repeated vandalism. FloNight talk 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repost of Kiwi article

It's not permitted at this web site to deface pages with {{{1}}}, either in regular text or images. If you continue to violate our policies, your account will be blocked. Jachin 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on User_talk:Jachin

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Jachin 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defacement of User_talk:Jachin

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Jachin 06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

I have blocked you indefinitely for your vandalism, lack of civility, inability to assume good faith and unwillingness to work with others. BrokenSegue 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


excuse me, but I have NEVER commited vandalism. it appears that someone signed up using the name zigz0gger with a "0" and vandalized pages to frame me. Please review the IP addresses of whoever comitted the vandalism, and you will see that it was not me. Zigzogger 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the vandalized pages. Someone created a username very close to mine, and then posted similer arguments to the ones that I was making, but did so using profanity, which you will see that I never have used.

Now who might have done such a thing? I suggest looking at "Big.P's" page. I asked him to not call those who disagree with him "biatches." I cannot think of who else would have such a vandetta against me, especially because I have not used wikipedia long. Zigzogger 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Big P's attempt to frame me and get me blocked

from 04:34 to 04:54 on may 21 Big.P was editing wikipedia, including posting on my userpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Big.P


From 04:50 - 06:54 may 21 the vandalism for which i was banned was made by someone using the username "zigz0gger" Note that NO vandalism/obsenity occured using my actual username. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/zigz0gger


If you look at my contributions page, you see that I did not use wikipedia at all after 02:19 on may 20th, until I logged in today.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zigzogger


It seems awfully clear that Big.P created a fake user name to frame me for using obsenities and vandalism, both actions he has frequently done himself.

I would really like someone who has access to the IP addresses users post from to get to the bottom of this. There is no one else here who has a motive to defame me other than Big.P, who unlike me has a history of using obsenities on wikipedia (see above).Zigzogger 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more evidence against Big.P

Look at this strange message posted to crzrussian's talk page, posted about 12 hours after the "zigz0gger" vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&oldid=54387929#Camara_AfD

The message includes this attack

"If it's any indication, your demeanor also drives me crazy- if you read anything I've placed on your talk page lately, you can see that my tone is one of consensus building, or trying to solve this problem between us, while little barbs like these from you demonstrate your lack of ability to work with others, especially those who have different opinions from you. In my months of editing on Wikipedia, I have never a more pompous editor who has such terrible faith in others and one who will stop at nothing to let their opinions prevail"

and concludes with a threat:

"This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. I'm tired of you constantly harassing me on Wikipedia, directly and indirectly. I told you if you left me alone, I'd leave you alone. Please consider those words wisely."

Note that this came about because Big.P was criticized (correctly) for sockpupptry, exactly what I am accusing him of doing right now. Zigzogger 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Big.P's other vendetta against a Kiwi Camara editor who took my position

Here are some of the other obsene and/or bizzare things Big.P posted on crzrussian's page

"I am offended that you assume telling you to go to hell is something bad. My religion believes hell is a good place. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- "

"You seem to have a big problem with me. First, you strike down the CSD on Kiwi Alejandro Camara without even so much as contesting it on the talk page first, as if you had the authority and your opinion was the end of it. I find it highly elitist and offensive that you didn't even talk to me about the CSD and just struck it down. Then, after people without accounts made legitimate votes on the AfD, you exploit the fact that I can't afford a static IP by accusing me of sockpuppetry. Only pure malice or dirty agenda could explain shenanigans like these."

[[1]]


As the description of his edits on the Camara page, Big.P wrote "crzrussian needs to know his damn place" for one edit and "this guy is full of absolute crap" for another.

(scroll to May 4 2006 in the link)[[2]]

he also wrote on crzrussian's talk page: "You keep threatening me and rubbing WP:NPA in my face, but you should realize that I'm pissed off at you because you're being incredibly stubborn about the AfD votes"

and finally he posted the following text on crzrussian's talk page on May 4th "This 'Spinning Disc of Shit' Barnstar is awarded to you because you're full of shit. See, it's spinning! Enjoy!!!"[[3]]

[edit] it's now clear what happened

It's clear now to me what has happened. I didn't "know my damn place" by disagreeing with this guy (to use his words), so he vandalized pages in order to get me blocked. Please unblock me, note on the page where I was blocked that I was framed by someone with a history of abusive language and sockpuppetry, and finally ban this guy for these malicious attacks against me and crzrussian and his many other abuses of wikipedia.Zigzogger 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, yes, User:zigz0gger is User:Big.P. Check out Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zigzogger. However, being incivil doesn't help you. I feel for you, however, having someone create a sockpuppet to get you blocked, while simultaneously trying to act like the 'good person' on your talk page would make a person quite angry. If the admin follows the policy on suckpuppets, your timer is reset. Unfortunatly for you, you had two timers going at some point in this, one on each account. Just, try to be calm, for now. Using a sockpuppet to impersonate and defame someone isn't a good thing either, so have some good faith that the admins will take care of that matter. Kevin_b_er 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zig, I'm sorry I haven't responded, I've been on wikibreak. I've unblocked you based on the Checkuser, and I'm currently contemplating what to do with Big.P with respect to his repeated socks. Thanks for your patience. Oh. Also, I've blocked Kitteneatkitten indefinitely.  RasputinAXP  c 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back.

Welcome back. : - )

RasputinAXP unblocked Zigzogger account and indef blocked User:Kitteneatkitten. Do you want it done like that? Kitteneatkitten is the older account with more edits. Plus you gave evidence in arb com case with it. I thought you might want to keep that account instead of Zigzogger. Let me know if you want to reverse it.

Also, I want to say that I'm very sorry that you were falsely blocked. I saw the messages that were put on your user page by Big P. Big.P likely mentioned me in the messages because I was mediating the content dispute on the Classical liberalism article. I think Big.P was trying to cause me to block you and have bad feeling towards you. That was very wrong! Now that you are back, I hope that you can have a calm editing experience at Wikipedia from this time forward. Take care, FloNight talk 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

.

Thank you! to everyone who looked into this, in particular for doing so very quickly and over the weekend. FloNight, please do freeze this username and unfreeze my old kitten username. The reason that I made this account is that I did not specify an e-mail address when I first signed up as kitten, only on Friday did I realize that you could add an e-mail address to an old account from the user preferences page. Zigzogger 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of that for you. Kitten's been unfrozen.  RasputinAXP  c 04:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another admin request

Well now that I look at the multiple account policy, I don't think the pejoritive "sockpuppet" tag should be placed on my userpage here, nor should either account be blocked. A second account should only be blocked if used to violate a policy. I never did this. I did once get a "three reversion rule" tempory block on a page, but I did not edit that page using my oat the time we were unblocking. ther account during the block.Zigzogger 01:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Zigzogger, I think one of them needs to be blocked. The way you used Zigzogger account on Classical liberalism is a little problematic. I was trying to be extra nice and supportive of you, so I did not bring it up before now. Would be fine by me if we skip the big sock template and just put a redirect (you are good at those, LOL) to the Kitteneatkitten account. Would that work? FloNight talk 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be OK, but I still don't think I violated any policies. For a period of few days I edited the same article with two nicks, but not in a way that violated any policy. I did not have the two names "talk" to one another, for example, and I think it was clear from the context in the talk page they were both me, that is I had zig respond to people talking to kitten and vice versa because for a few days I had one log-in saved at home and one at work.Zigzogger 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be better for you to choose one to retire.  RasputinAXP  c 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Zigzogger, I'm willing to assume good faith but I can not speak for other editors. You should not use two accounts on the same article unless you announce that you are doing it first. You have left yourself wide open for accusations of wrong doing. I think we should leave this account blocked and do a redirect to Kitteneatkitten. We can take the sockpuppet tag off for now. If another editor objects then we will need to discuss it more, okay? --FloNight talk 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

Flonight, I was not aware of the policy when I did this, and I promise not to do this again. Furthermore, I will happily agree to on talk page of the one article I used two nicks to edit to clarify that I was both users. I cannot do so now, however, because my IP has been blocked from editing wikipedia. Given what happened to me shortly afterwards, and that I have made many useful contributions to wikipedia, would not a complete pardon for this minor offense, if it even is an offense at all, be in order? If someone wants say why they think my these edits were in bad faith, let them actually accuse me of it rather than penalizing me without even allowing to defend myself against an actual accusation.

I note also the only reason I was blocked in the first place is that Big.P viciously impersonated and framed me.

I feel like I have been punished for someone else’s misdeeds. I read the continued blocking of this nick as a decision of the editors to hold me partially culpable for what Big.P did. There are many reasons one might want to have two nicks, and I have my own. Is it really the policy here to ban a nick for a single possible infraction that was in in no way intended to deceive?

I also am offended by the fact that Big.P was only blocked for a month for what he did, and it appears by looking at his contribution page the block as not even effective. This guy, please remember, during a period in which I was not editing wikipedia, created a fake nickname very close to mine, then attacked other users using obscene language in order to get me banned and discredit the edits that I had been arguing for. And besides this, he has a very long history of using nasty obscene language and personal attacks on other users and had been blocked from wikipedia before.

If you want to impugn my honor by continuing to penalize me, however minor the penalty may be, my motivation for continuing to improve the wikipedia will be greatly diminished, and I think the quality of the project will suffer as a result. Wouldn't you feel the same way? It seems I was permanently punished, while he was given a temporary and seemingly ineffectual slap on the wrist. Flonight, can you please take a moment to imagine someone doing this to you, and how you would feel? Also are you aware that user RJII, who continously undid my edits to classical liberalism and goaded me in other ways, has now been banned for attacking other users and for admitting to being part of an organized and paid plan to inpose a POV on wikipedia?

Finally I respectfully request that RasputinAXP that if he is not willing to unblock me to recuse himself from this matter and refer it to another admin.

All these troubles came about when I objected to a Request for Deletion proposed by Big.P and agreed to by Rasputin because there was a large majority vote against deletion and because the article proposed for deletion did not fit the criteria. Thus in a very contentious Request for Deletion, RasputinAXP sided against me (and the majority of those who voted) and with someone who maliciously attacked and impersonated me, and I do not think he can make an objective determination of what proper way to deal with either the question banning Big.P and this nick.

Also, please don't forget, at minimum, to remove the sockpupput label and tag as you proposed above and replace with a redirect. Even that, however, I still feel is punative.

Zigzogger 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


One more point to make. Today I used Kitten to edit an article, then made edits to this page. Now I can not continue to make edits to the article on inflation I was editing earlier today, because my IP is blocked.

So I continue to be penalized, to the point I cannot use wikipedia at all today, because someone impersonated and attacked me. And this guy has not been effectively punished at all, and continued to make edits just a few days after he was supposedly blocked!

I strongly feel anything short of an unblock of this nick, even the compromise of a redirect proposed by FloNight, together with a permanent ban of Big.P, would still be very unfair to me.

Zigzogger 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been established previous to my involvment here, that you have another account at User:Kitteneatkitten. That is the reason that this account was blocked indefinitely. I am not certain why you want to use this account again. Is your IP currently blocked? If so please let me know exactly what your IP is and I will look into it further. If that is the case, using a different account will not allow you to edit as the IP blocks take precedent over username blocks. For now, I have denied your request to be unblocked. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Having two accounts does not violate any rule, only using the two accounts in a dishonest or abusive way. I did not do this. Both my home and work IP's are blocked.

The issue is not that I can't use both accounts, but that after being framed and banned for something, even after the framing was recognized all of the penalties were not lifted, namely the blocking of this account and the label of sockpuppet attached to it.Zigzogger 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to the fact of having multiple accounts. However you have at one point edited Classical liberalism with both accounts. That is before one of which was blocked. While you may believe that your intentions are not malicous, one person using two accounts is at the very least misleading to other users, as well as being the essential definition of a sockpuppet. See also Wikipedia:Username#Using_multiple_user_accounts and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put your request on AN/I for review.

Sorry that I didn't see your reply sooner. I put your request on AN/I for review. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WPKitteneatkitten requests their sockpuppet Zigzogger be unblocked. You can explain your situation there as well. Take care, --FloNight talk 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/i/g/User_talk%7EZigzogger_8841.html"