User talk:Belchior90

This is Belchior90's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Belchior90.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Your warning to USER:Grade 10 Osire SS

Hello I just wanted to let you know I had reverted your edit to Grade 10 Osire SS' talk page because I had recently provided the same warning a couple days ago, and there was no need to do it again so soon or since the account has not made any other edits since it creation. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your words of warning. I wasn't thinking and I have requested a name change. Thank you again! Spoofing1 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SaguMarketing Username

This is a username created for the sole purpose of updating the Southwestern Assemblies of God University wikipedia page. SaguMarketing (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)SaguMarketing 09/14/2015[reply]

In response to Username warning message given on 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am replying to the previous message sent in an attempt to rectify the issue. The term "Spearman" in the context of how I am using it is not meant as a ethnic slur at all. It is, in fact, my actual name. The username I am currently engaging Wikipedia with is the one I was born with. I am standing by that name because I am being assigned pieces of work that are inline with my current university classes, and I would prefer not to entertain the chance of my work getting confused with someone else's in my class because the usernames don't match up. I see no reason to change it at this time with the evidence present. Dalton spearman (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of IN3O X

Hello Belchior90,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged IN3O X for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation (not yours)

You might want to add IN3O X to the ICQ ASSISTANT sockpuppet investigation here. - Brianhe (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: Thanks for the heads up. I made a mistake tagging that page, since IN3O X is not an account, but an article created by the sock puppeteer. I will, however, add the account T0XICUS. Belchior90 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add diffs that show why you think he's a sock. Otherwise the clerk will pretty much ignore your addition. It doesn't have to be super scientific, just something that shows WP:DUCK, i.for instance, that they're all plugging the same software suite. – Brianhe (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

I have reverted your removal of postings here for two reasons:

The user in question is NOT blocked from editing his own talk page.
Your removal also included text posted by editors in good standing.

— Ched : ? 09:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: Thanks for the note. The user in question is indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. WP:BAN explicity states that banned users are prohibited from making any edit, either good or bad, with only a limited number of specific exceptions. Δ's edits did not meet any of these exceptions. WP:BAN further explicitly states that the prohibition applies regardless of whether any technical block exists or not. I therefore still consider that I am right in reverting the edits. As for removing text posted by editors in good standing, I did this because it was entirely dependent on the edits made by a banned user in violation of his ban. However, I do note that this was a breach of protocol and apologize for this error in judgement on my part. I have gone ahead and removed only the text posted by the banned user. Belchior90 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, WP:BAN states: "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below." Belchior90 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I'm going to argue about. — Ched : ? 10:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking his talk page, and about his appeal on his talk page, the one expection that BAN allows for. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Masem - but I'm not active enough to get involved in anything too complex. Also, I think technically - Belchior, you are now at WP:3RR. (see also: WP:EW) — Ched : ? 14:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that removing edits made by banned users is specifically exempt from WP:3RR (exemption number 3). Belchior90 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ched is still an administrator and that one of the reverts you made was of his edit, not Delta's--well, it was a strangely partial revert, in which you removed Delta's comments but not the others; WP:REDACT and common sense suggest this isn't the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thank you for your comment. As noted above, the first of my edits did in fact remove comments by other users than Delta, an error which I have apologized for and which Ched was correct in reverting. All further edits by me only removed posts made in evasion of a ban, which is not only allowed, but required by the banning policy. Belchior90 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the posts removed were not about his ban - they were about tools he is running, which arguably skirt the edge of his ban anyway. Given that he has a long history of skirting and/or evading the ban, it's probably good for someone new to be monitoring his talk page and removing inappropriate posts. He really shouldn't be posting things like [1], which are not about his ban in any way. Moreover, Arbcom says that they did receive his appeal, so what else is there to discuss? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes on this would be useful. I have started a thread at WP:ANI [2]. I encourage everyone to comment there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I made sure to leave all posts related to an appeal in place, which reviewing the diffs will prove. All posts I removed were about automated editing and were unambiguous violations of WP:BAN IMO. Since the posts have been restored by another user, I will refrain from removing them again and leave things up to WP:ANI. Belchior90 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User names

Hi Belchior90: I'm a mostly retired admin. Arising from the AN/I, I looked at your first few edits, and found several of your user-name warnings on new editors' talk pages alarmingly bitey. Daviesbob and Sorayaraef look more like names than what you thought they were; Ishitarathore could also be a name. I note that above, a new editor explained to you that his user name was in fact his name. None of the first 3 has edited; while not everyone who registers a user name edits, I am concerned about the possibility that a newly registered editor would be put off from contributing if they received one of those notifications, especially if it is in fact their real name! Please try not to assume bad faith, note the warnings both in the instructions at WP:UAA and in the bot's reports of names including such strings that names, particularly non-Western names, can cause false positives, and consider waiting until the person edits or even giving them a welcome template instead. Of the three I mentioned above, I've replaced the first two with welcomes and added a note to the third. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: Thank you for your message. It is quite possible that some of my early username taggings may have been erroneous. The bot often makes convincing annotations about abusive interpretations of usernames, but in some cases the names may still be innocuous. If you believe those names were fine, I thank you for untagging them. (note that AvicBot had removed them from CAT:UAA, so the users were no longer in danger of blocking).

You may be interested to know that I now often tag false positives as such (such as in this edit, to avoid wrongly tagging appropriate usernames. Also, I am considering moving on to other areas of work than username tagging, which – although important – is not a particularly rewarding task. Belchior90 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

It is blatantly obvious that this is not your first account. Since WP:SOCK says "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", you would potentially be liable for a block for starting an ANI request in the first place, but creating one in order to harass another user is the last straw. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A final message

@CBM: @Baseball Bugs: @Kudpung: As you can see from the above, I can no longer pursue the Betacommand/Δ ban evasion case. I think it is unfortunate that a small number of users short-circuited ongoing discussion and basically overruled Arbcom to allow Betacommand to edit by proxy using his talk page. Once again, Betacommand's supporters are letting him weasel out of well-founded restrictions/bans. If preventing this is something you care for, I urge you to keep an eye on the developments in this case, and follow up on the "appeal" process where there clearly are some underhanded dealings going on. As for me, I will now "shtumble" into the darkness... Belchior90 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message

@Baseball Bugs: It is obvious at User talk:Δ that Betacommand's return is being planned. You might want to keep an eye on the situation. Belchior90 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]