User talk:Davesmith33

This account may need to be blocked due to abusive use of multiple accounts.

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davesmith33 for evidence and further information. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely. You have shown over the past god knows how many weeks that you clearly can't work with other people and respect their opinions, which is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. – Steel 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That blocking is a blatant misuse of power and an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Please read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Effects_of_being_blocked otherwise you may find your admin privileges withdrawn. Davesmith33 11:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Steel359 was not editing any of the articles you were editing, therefore he's not in a content dispute with you. Please don't try to quote policy you clearly don't understand, and please don't make threats against other editors. Gwernol 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken to arbitration and rejected. I then appealed and that process is ongoing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=121732683#Davesmith33 Davesmith33 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, you've stated on an number of occasions (and ina number of places) that an appeal is ongoing - but there seems little evidence of this. To be honest, I thought the WP:ArbCom was like the House of Lords and you can't appeal against their decisions, other than to Jimbo Wales who acts like the The Queen, with 'reserve consitutional powers as Head of State'. If you think an Admin has abused their powers in this matter, then I believe the appropriate place to raise it is WP:ANI. However, quite frankly, I really don't think you'll get anywhere with an appeal. DrFrench 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I don't know what this "appeal" is that you refer to, but the arbitration request was rejected and removed on April 10. Since then you have not made any edits to the WP:RFAR page nor have you made any other edits requesting an appeal. There is no appeal process other than filing another Request for Arbitration, and given the previous unanimous rejection that would be highly unlikely to succeed. Whatever you think you have done, you have not filed anything that could be remotely considered an appeal. Please stop claiming there is an ongoing appeal, there isn't one. Gwernol 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, we'll discover the truth when it all comes out in the wash. Davesmith33 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then please show me where you have appealed the closed request for arbitration. Which page did you edit that started the appeal? I ask, because as someone involved in the original arbitration request I should be notified of any appeal and be able to express my opinion there. If there is an appeal, you can be unblocked to contribute just to the appeal itself. Gwernol 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Georgie Thompson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Georgie Thompson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgie Thompson. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davesmith33 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Looneyman (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Davesmith33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked not for doing anything wrong, but simply because an administrator disagreed with the (rightful) inclusion of Top Gear Dog as a presenter on Top Gear. Top Gear Dog was introduced as a presenter on Top Gear by Richard Hammond. His exclusion from the Top Gear article is a travesty. Hopefully now with the passing of time, you have some new admins who have a bit of common sense and this ban can be overturned with immediate effect, as the admin used their powers for their own personal gain, and not for the good of the project.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for disruption and edit warring; you'll need to address those issues, rather than blaming it on someone else. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Removing this template again will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TN X Man 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page privileges have been revoked. TN X Man 21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Davesmith33! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 385 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Kate Webster - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sockpuppet

I have just undone vandalism to the Top Gear page by a user Davesmith35. (Not linked to the user page to avoid a "What links here" - if DS35 reacts to this message it is clearly because he is manually looking here.) Keep an eye open. I would appeal to admins to block asap - a lot of time has been wasted on this idiot and he has shown he has nothing to contribute to the project. Halsteadk (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]