User talk:Stevensons88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User_talk:Stevensons88, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Note: As I am blocked I cannot do the above, therefore:

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Take part in mediation"

Decline reason: "[1]"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Contents

First and last warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Szvest 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how can we tell that he was deliberatly trying to undermine Wikipedia, he may really of believe what he wrote on Islam. Homestarmy 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be true, but it's no reason to delete such a large amount of material. BhaiSaab talk 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced and Citecheck tags

When placing {{Unreferenced}} and {{Citecheck}} tags on an article with 67 references as you did on the article Muhammad, please explain your reasoning on the talk page. These tags do not seem to belong here.

I noticed you say you will removed any comments or changes to this page. I am sorry, but you do not own this talk page, the policy WP:OWN describes the ownership of pages on wikipedia. User talk pages are left intact, or archived, but never destroyed as it is usefull to see the users history of interaction with other users. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am recommended your account for blocking due to your persistent vandalism. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

also, seeing that you (a) engaged in blatant vandalism with this account from the beginning, (b) some of your vandalism apparently had a racist motivation and (c) your username contains the numerals '88' (which in connection with (b) suggests a fascist background), I will block this account indefinitely without further warning if you should pursue this sort of behaviour after your block expires. dab (ᛏ) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Blocking is unjust and unfounded and a personal attack on this user by other users"

Decline reason: "Per WP:BLOCK#Disruption, "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project", especially your recent edits to Islam where you attempt to use Wikipedia [2] and [3] as your own soapbox for religious intolerance. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
concerning your email: no, you do not get blocked just for the '88' in your username, that's just the icing on the cake. You were warned and blocked independently by several administrators, and you did indulge in blatant vandalism in spite of the warnings. So my recommendation to you is to sit out your temporary block, and try constructive editing after it expires. If you do that, nobody will give you grief over your numerals. dab (ᛏ) 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
For attempting to evade your current block using the account Joker789 (talk • contribs) in violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, your block has been reset and extended for another 2 days. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not set up the account Joker789 (talk • contribs) to attempt to evade my block. I am not in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Stevensons88 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "I did not set up the account Joker789 (talk • contribs) to attempt to evade my block. I am not in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. I set up the alternative account simply to have a fresh start on Wikipedia and also because User:Netscott accused me of impersonating his username. Why have I been blocked for trying to avoid conflict?Stevensons88 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "As someone neutral to your case, for the wikilawyering below (=attempting to argue for how rules do not apply to you based on the alleged vague phrasings of some comments or rules) I'm tempted to add another week to your ban. However, I'm prepared to assume good faith here and think that you weren't looking for loopholes but were just disappointed to be unable to edit. Since that is the case, you'll be prepared to wait a few days to join us. Further wikilawyering will, of course, lead to my suggested increase of a week being inforced. Look forward to seeing you around when the block has expired. Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Evidence:

  • 13:22, October 23, 2006 MONGO blocked "Stevensons88" with an expiry time of 1 week
  • 14:54, October 23, 2006 Joker789 (New user account)
  • 15:27, October 23, 2006 Joker789 (unblock-auto)

Timestamps are in UTC. The fact that you made an unblock-auto request is a clear sign you tried to edit Wikipedia despite a 1 week block specifically prohibiting you from doing so as Stevensons88. That is a clear indication of block evasion and blatant violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You current unblock request also does not address the reason behind your original block: deliberately disruptive and provocative edits to Islam. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I made an unblock-auto request is not a clear sign I tried to edit Wikipedia despite a 1 week block specifically prohibiting me from doing so as Stevensons88. It is not a clear indication of block evasion nor blatant violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Do you try to interpret the facts in the most contorted way possible or do you do it by accident? If you look at the contributions for User:Joker789 I attempted no edits. Of course I doubt you bothered to look.
My current unblock request does not address the reason behind my original block beacuse it is not appealing against Mongo's block, it was appealing against your unjust block which was apparently for "using the account Joker789 (talk • contribs) in violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy." I would expect you to know this Netsnipe, you wrote it. Also, my edits to Islam were not deliberately disruptive nor provocative. I intended neither disruption nor provocation.
Perhaps before doing any more damage to Wikipedia, you should realise than just because you are an Administrator does not make you an all seeing, all knowing superhuman who is always right. From my experiences quite the opposite is true - you do not properly investigate circumstances and abuse your power as an admin to make ill informed decisions affecting other editors. Stevensons88 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Threats

The following is from my blovk log:

06:59, 27 October 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Stevensons88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Death threats by email. CheckUser confirms.)

Death threats? For God's sake this is ridiculous. Please could I have some evidence of this Dmcdevit? Or did you just make it up to play with the block button? Stevensons88 10:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

X-Gmail-Received: d123e6378e7c20fc6cce1316c29c3c9e46d8ec0e
Delivered-To: alau.wiki(at)gmail.com
Received: by 10.78.173.8 with SMTP id v8cs169092hue;
        Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.236.18 with SMTP id n18mr3412847qbr;
        Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <niceguy32(at)hotmail.com>
Received: from bay0-omc1-s29.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc1-s29.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.101])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f14si1014756qba.2006.10.26.09.53.04;
        Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of niceguy32(at)hotmail.com designates 65.54.246.101 as permitted sender)
Received: from BAY108-W7 ([65.54.162.107]) by bay0-omc1-s29.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
         Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:52:22 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [217.43.240.83]
X-Originating-Email: [niceguy32(at)hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BAY108-W7198D3D99983582890C21A4070(at)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
        boundary="_1a50aa96-fd2e-42e6-8e17-61195d66f47c_"
From: Matt Adrienne <niceguy32(at)hotmail.com>
To: <alau.wiki(at)gmail.com>
Subject: A message for you
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:52:22 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Return-Path: niceguy32(at)hotmail.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2006 16:52:22.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B8E97B0:01C6F91F]

--_1a50aa96-fd2e-42e6-8e17-61195d66f47c_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You scum. You are the dirt I wipe off my shoe after walking across the gras=
s. One day I am going to come to you. I'll murder you. Then I'll murder you=
r entire family and all your friends. Just for fun. Just to see your body s=
ix feet under, where it belongs you subhuman piece of faeces. Watch your ba=
ck. My sole aim in life is to know make your life hell - enjoy it while it =
lasts - you're a dead man walking.
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=3D5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-=
4911fb2b2e6d=

--_1a50aa96-fd2e-42e6-8e17-61195d66f47c_

217.43.240.83 was traced by CheckUser back to this account. Both Hotmail and BT's abuse departments have been notified of your death threat. -- Netsnipe ► 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

{{helpme}}

So as to remove this clutter when the ban is over, could someone tell me how to archive the talk page, as deleting the comments seems to anger the authors. Stevensons88

It generally isn't a good idea to archive recent warnings; after about a month, cut-and-paste the comments you want to archive from the edit box of this page to the edit box of User talk:Stevensons88/Archive1, and put a link to the archive at the top of the page. --ais523 09:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStevensons88_f2b1.html"