User talk:Sportsguru9999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Sportsguru9999 (talk • contribs • block log)} from introducing vandalism to it, posting abuse and nonsense or using the {{unblock}} template after the denial of a previous request . If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. MichaelHenley 01:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am better than everybody on wikipedia put together! BITCH! Sportsguru9999 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Blocked 2 Re: Danny (Tourettes Guy) 3 Further personal attacks 4 Nonsense 5 Blocked for continued personal attacks 6 Further personal attacks 7 Indefinitely blocked 8 Evidence of sockpuppetry 9 Continued personal attacks 10 Please, let me have a fair case!

Blocked

I was goign to block you for vandalism and defamation at Castro Valley High School and then I saw the above personal attack, so now that's three reasons. Do feel free to start contributing to the encyclopaedia in some meaningful way when the block expires. Guy 10:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack? Its my talk page. I do what i want! Whateva! I think you just wanted to block me so I wouldn't contribute to Tourette's Guy deletion review. I know you wikipedia admins, a group of pompous people that like to mess with new users. I did not deserve a block at all, so please stop messing with me, i know what you are up to. Sportsguru9999 07:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Danny (Tourettes Guy)

The article was deleted in keeping with CSD G4, because the page has already been deleted following a discussion at articles for deletion. If you like, you're free to make a request at deletion review. Have a nice day. Luna Santin 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I brought it up on IRC -- consensus seemed to be that I should suggest you "let it go." Mainly, it doesn't seem likely that a new AfD would produce a different result. If you would like to keep pushing, you could always make another request at DRV, but bear in mind that doing so perpetually will probably affect your ability to get a fair hearing. Not sure what more I can personally suggest for you. Luna Santin 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Luna Santin. 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. Gwernol 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policy on personal attacks. Comments such as "Have you no brain?", "You Wikipedia admins are a joke" are inappropriate personal attacks. Please comment on content not editors. Thanks, Gwernol 23:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:JzG, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly well aware of how you vandalized both my talk page and JzG's page. In addition, edit summaries like the one on this edit are entirely inappropriate and yet again constitute a personal attack. If you are not interested in making constructive edits, please try an alternative venue like uncyclopedia.org or MySpace. Thnaks, Gwernol 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You called JzG a Dildo while adding the ridiculous statement "i love you marry me" which you also left on my page. Stop leaving stupid messages on people's talk pages or you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

here is your edit. Note the edit summary. So stop denying what you've done, every edit you make is recorded and available to everyone in your user contributions. Your "i love you marry me" edits are supremely ridiculous in themselves. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia and trolling. Gwernol 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The slang "dil" is short for dildo. If you don't know what a word means, don't use it. And your claim that "My edits saying "i love you" are from the heart and i mean it" is clearly a lie since you also made this edit at the same time. You want me to talk to you like a human being? You obviously read the disgusting vandalism that User:82.110.109.212 left on my user page. You agree with that kind of squalid and childish vandalism? Stop leaving patently ridiculous messages on my talk page and stop vandalizing Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for continued personal attacks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Gwernol 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Further personal attacks

You know, I ignored the fact that you made a series of personal attacks against me in your message to Luna Santin, but since you insisted on making the same attacks against me on my talk page too, I am formally warning you to stop. Wikipedia has a policy on not making personal attacks which you have been repeatedly warned about in the past and been blocked for breaching. Please do not end up blocked again. This is your last warning. Further personal attacks against any Wikipedia editor will result in another block.

As for your claim that I was "irresponsible", I don't know how many independent admins need to tell you that you were wrong before you realize your behavior here has been entirely unacceptable. If you want to make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia please do so. So far we've had nothing but attacks, trolling and vandalism from you. As Physicq said to you: "Your edits on JzG's and Gwernol's talkpages were ridiculous and childish. Your article mainspace edits consist of vandalism only. ... If I was blocking, the block would have been indefinite". Please take that to heart and understand that you are one more misstep away from being permanently blocked. Thanks, Gwernol 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not even mention you in the letter I wrote to Luna Santin. I did not attack anybody, do not even claim this. I smply stated what I felt was going on. If you have a problem, please talk to me rather than blocking me. I guess i got an EWB, Editing While Black.

Indefinitely blocked

Since this account is an obvious abusive sockpuppet of User:Widereceiver19 you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 10:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled at this behavior, pure suspicions that i am a sockpuppet are no reason to block me.

Evidence of sockpuppetry

To make life a little easier for the reviewing admin, here's the evidence that lead me to conclude that this is a Widereceiver19 sockpuppet:

My rebuttal to your accusations that I am a sockpuppet will be in bold

1. Sportsguru9999 claims to be Jeff Moita on his userpage [1]. Widereceiver19 created the page Jeffism (since deleted) that read: "Jeffism is a religion that worships Jeff Moita, a middle aged man that lives in Castro Valley, California...It is better than Scientology, because Jeff Moita actually exists and no idiots like Tom Cruise worship him"

   As I have stated, Widereceiver is a friend of mine, howerever, we do not use each other's accounts at all, AT ALL! Jeff Moita is our God, we worship him, as do many of my friends that I know, so we created the article.

2. Widereceiver19 edited Castro Valley High School as did Sportsguru9999

   We both go to this school, of course we edit this

3. Widereceiver19 edited the deletion review for the Tourettes Guy article. Sportsguru9999's first edit was to that deletion review

   He told me about how wikipedia is rejecting this article right when I signed up for wikipedia. He told me in order to fight for this, that I should start arguing Tourettes Guy's case. It is completely a coincidince that my first edit was that.

4. After receiving an initial block, Widereceiver19's reaction is to post "I love you" messages to the blocking admin [2]. After Sportsguru999's block he does exaqctly the same to JzG and myself: [3], [4]

   I saw him post this, so I decided to do the same thing. Jeffism, and again I AM A JEFFIST DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME, teaches love and we decided to show our love to you.

5. As a last desperate measure when blocked, Widereceiver19 pulls the race card [5]. Sportsguru9999 does exactly the same thing in response to the same situation [6]

   Well we are both African American, and both feel discriminated throughout our lives. We often use this so called "race card," because people often do discriminate because we are black.

   How on earth could we know you are black? The only time you (or Widereceiver) have revealed you are black is after calling someone a racist... Gwernol 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't know, but when you go through your life, and bad things happen to you because of the color of your skin, you get sort of used to the fact that people know you are black. But this is beside the point. Can we please just discuss this. I haven't seen you rebuttal my rebuttal yet, meaning you may finally believe the truth, that I am not a/do not have any sockpuppets. Sportsguru9999 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Widereceiver19 receives his 1 month block on October 6, Sportguru9999 starts editing on November 1 while he's blocked as Widereciver19

   Note that Sportguru9999 has also been caught using another block-evading sockpuppet [7] though he denies it in the face of clear evidence.

   I'd be happy to take all three known accounts to Checkuser if another admin feels this would make any difference. For now I believe the above is overwhelming evidence of the sockpuppetry. Gwernol 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   Again just a coincidince. You may find it odd if the day after widereceiver gets blocked, that I start editing. But why would Widereceiver create a new account 6 days before being allowed back. Honestly.

   And again, that guy is no sockpuppet of mine, I have expressed this many times, yet nobody listens. See in my unblock requests if you haven't already.

• Endorse the above summary. Sportsguru9999, you are cordially invited to find another project to disrupt. Encyclopaedia Dramatica, I understand, welcomes people just like you. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What the heck is that supposed to mean? People "just like me?" Do you mean Black people? I find that racist. You are very rude young man. Read below to find that I am not a sockpuppet. You just won't listen to a brothah!Sportsguru9999 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Pulling the race card will not help your case; it only serves to show that you are not willing to see reason. We tell you this not because you are black and we hate blacks, we say it because you are being disruptive. Period. We frankly don't care what race you are. So stop falsely accusing everyone who is against you racist, because you're not getting anywhere. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Ohhhhh, OK, so when you guys say things like "people just like you" in quotations like that, it kind of sounds like y'all be discriminating against me. I'm sorry if I took that obvious rude behavior as racism. And fyi, i've been trying to talk it out and solve this case, but every time I try reasoning with y'all, y'all just respond by blocking and being rude. I want us to really talk. Sportsguru9999 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a discussion going on, I want to be part of it, because it seems that most of you are against me and will endorse a block. I'm just saying.

We are discussing. But whenever we try to ask you to do something helpful, you call us racists. Do take your own advice first. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, no, no, the only time I have played the so called "race-card" is when you have actually done racist (at least in my mind) things. None of you have helped me at all. I want to be a part of the discussion, and I want to be a part of the revolution. We need to talk. Instead of blocking me when I have something to say, please let me speak. Thank You. I want a solution to this as much as you do, I am a human too. Sportsguru9999 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove we are racist? We have not gone around spewing anti-black epithets. Only when we blocked you did you start playing the race card. Enough lying and trying to hide under the nonexistent discrimination-accusation blanket. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot prove you are racists just like you can't prove I have sockpuppets or whatever you think. When "Guy" used "people just like you" I sort of overreacted and thought he was discriminating, because my whole life I have had to deal with that type of talk. I'm sorry. This is beside the point though. I want to talk with you somehow about this whole issue. Sportsguru9999 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We can prove you are a sockpuppet. We just did it above. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to speak, just say it instead of accusing us of being racist first. Say it below. We're not stopping you. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this "above" you are talking about happens to be titled "Evidence of Sockpuppetry." Not proof, but evidence. Plus, I have given a rebuttal to each of these evidences, that happen to disprove this evidence. (Again it is evidence not proof. Once again, I feel you are being extremely rude to me. I have told you countless times that I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET! Why won't you believe me or even talk to me about it. Sportsguru9999 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not proof, but evidence." Does evidence not support proof? We have drawn a conclusion judiciously that you are a sockpuppet. Your rebuttals, or shall I say excuses, are not persuading any of us, because they seem to be based on "coincidence." Sorry, the world isn't so cruel as to have such a perfect storm of similarities. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, physicq, you are as stiff as a board. Do not insult my intelligence (which, I happen to take as a personal attack) by asking me if evidence supports proof. Of course I know that, I am not an idiot! The evidence above however, does not support the truth. The truth being, that I do not have/I am not a sockpuppet. "Proving" a point means you have proven your impression of the "truth." You have listed evidence for proof of something that is untrue. To sum it all up, proof cannot be simply accomplished by listing evidence that two different parties do not agree on. Sportsguru9999 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insulting your intelligence. It was to be a rhetorical question, until you decided to accuse me of personal attacks using personal attacks. See it as you please, but I am not retracting my statements. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So asking rhetorical questions is going to help everyone find a solution, huh? Gosh, you admins are making me extremely frusterated. It must be real nice to have the ability to mess with people like me. I bet your response to this will be "We admins do not mess with people, we only try and help." BS! Because this is the most frusterating thing I have ever gone through and I am deeply disappointed. If you really "help" people, you would have helped me. Sportsguru9999 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not be rebutting your "rebuttal" since I believe my evidence stands and is overwhelming. Nothing you have said is, in my opinion, likely. Do not confuse silence for assent, it would be a grave mistake. Its up to other admins to review and see which evidence is believable. Gwernol 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Gwernol, what a pity it is that YOU have actually made the grave mistake. You have just proved my entire point! "Its up to other admins to review and see which evidence is believable." - Wait a minute... I thought admins did not really have much power over us regular users? You have once again proved that admins are a pompous group of jerks, 'cuse my language. If you want this to be fair in any way, you would include me in the discussion. But I guess I was right, admins just don't have time to care at all about us normal users. I want you all to listen to me, please. Sportsguru9999 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking this whole time! The problem is y'all won't listen, and y'all even go as far as to block me. But here goes nothing: (I posted this in Luna Santin's talk page, for her to help me out after my block expired, because I had a beef with my former blockers)

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

I know I have wronged you in the past, and all past blocks were deserved, but lately it has become completely unfair in my eyes. I need you to not only read this, but listen to this, and even respond to this. Read on if you will do this.

I am angry because the last time I was blocked was completely unfair. I was issued a warning because I posted "I love you" on two users talk pages. While they took this as a joke, I took it as my try to make peace with these people that i felt wronged me in the past. I'm sorry if "love" is considered a joke around here. While I tried explaining that I should not be warned for something like this, they decided they did not want to hear the radical idea that they were exerting their overzealous attitude towards me, instead of being responsible admins. As a result, they decided to keep me quiet by blocking me for a week. While on this ban, they decided to accuse me of having a sockpuppet, because this user claimed he was me in an edit. Everybody knows a sockpuppet would not admit he is one in his own edit. Since they foolishly thought this user was a sockpuppet of mine, they extended the block to 1 month, to further keep me quiet. I, obviously finding this as unfair, decided to request an unblock, because an accusation that has no actual evidence is no reason to extend the block. Since this was a way of me speaking out, they rejected and even protected my page, which is why you may not be able to respond on my page until the user decides to unprotect it.

I hope you can get back to me, and really help me out. I feel mistreated, and, as a person that cannot stand unjust people and a person that fights for what is right, I want to fight this, so that this whole mishap is solved. If you can help in any way, that would be appreciated. I know that I might even get blocked again for writing this letter, since it involves me speaking out against the almighty admins, even though what I am speaking out against, is wrong.

With all due respect, Sportsguru9999 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks

If you continue to make personal attacks, I will protect this page to prevent your further abuses. Gwernol 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely angry at you Gwernol. Let me ask you, how can I talk to you all if whenever I try to talk, the result is threats for blocking or protecting?" HOW? This is incredibly unfair. I did not attack anybody in that article, and if you think I did, please show me how. I really want to talk to you all and get a resolution. I am not going to stop arguing my point just because you are tired of listening to me. Sportsguru9999 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, let me have a fair case!

With all of the things you admins have said to me, I am sure there have been personal attacks in there too. I have found some, but I know I cannot do anything about it, since I am a weak little normal user in your eyes. Nobody gives me much of a chance. I am sure if it were the other way around, I could have many of you blocked for personal attacks, so let us stop the threats. Sportsguru9999 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are persuading no one. We gave you numerous chances to prove yourself, and you have spurned them, instead attacking us. And I find it extremely ironic that, in your above statement, you told us to stop threatening you by threatening to have us blocked. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WRONG! You haven't given me the chance to persuade anyone! All I feel is going on is me trying to speak, and you and Gwernol degrading me and not taking the time to consider me, like I am not even a human being. I want you to tell me why you do not do so much as CARE about what I have to say. Sportsguru9999 04:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More fallacious accusations. If you're just going to point fingers at us ad infinitum, go ahead. Notice that you're just ruining your own case in the process of pouting for recognition. I suggest you change that attitude first. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)