User talk:NobutoraTakeda

Welcome!

Hello, NobutoraTakeda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some of your activity since welcome - PLEASE read more about wikipedia before getting too involved with the issues that you hava manged to to stir up Satu Suro 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for being condensending and hiding behind a talk page that can't be edit. For preaching about rules you sure act rude. NobutoraTakeda 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others comments

Nonsense. One merge vs 4/5 keeps when the AfD isn't even a day old does NOT give you call to merge anything. I also refuse to believe you're a new user, who are you? —Xezbeth 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One merge and two deletes and one person who says keep the main page and relist the others for delete. You have a problem with the truth. NobutoraTakeda 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one that brought up the AfD for the Chaos Space Mrines page. At the very least, you should wait for the final vote "tally" before changing the pages. Escpecially as the cnsensus at the moment is for keep. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For someone that's "writing about on a topic I couldn't care less about" you have a lot of reference material, and your editting style is very similar. Are you SanchiTachi by any chance? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning=

Nominating a succession of obviously notable articles for deletion as the only WP activity does not look like an intent to contribute to the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning? It doesn't take much to realize that I'm not some person who hasn't edit before just because I never had a registered name before. Aren't you supposed to be welcoming, not a condensing like the guy above? NobutoraTakeda 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per you new message on my talk page - what? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please use his talk page, not mine. Cheers.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condescending

(1) Is how it is spelt. (2) I offered a welcome when you challenged the notability of an article (3) asking you to read the welcome - simply noting you are going into areas that more experienced editors usually go - not first day editors (4) please show me specifically how I am rude and I will gladly apologise - as there is the basic issue of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - which I will gladly abide by - I am, not hiding - if you wish to continue your WP:Civility thats fine - do it here - it is your activity that has raised the above comments from other editors in the first place. Take care! Enjoy the place Satu Suro 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1. Correcting my spelling is showing that you are being condescending. 2. I never asked you to offer me a welcome. 3. First day editor? You mean first day registered. I've edited Wikipedia without an account for about a year now. 4. If you aren't hiding, why is your talk page not editable? NobutoraTakeda 01:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well - a number of apologies.

(1) If you do not like your spelling corrected - so be it - dont bite or accuse others of an action which is simply wanting to help - one should always assume WP:AGF

(2) When I ventured to challenge your notability question at an obscure west australian history list - I noted only what looked like a first day user.

(3) I never asked you to offer me a welcome is a very fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about - an assumption of AGF - with an empty talk page and new user gives any editor the right to welcome you - regardless of your subesequent reaction.

(4) Nothing to to with hiding - I had received messages from others - I have no idea about my talk page I'll get it checked. Enjoy being a registered user - cheers Satu Suro 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say one and then say two? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? 3. You expect me to be greatful about you giving me a welcome. I only registered for two reasons, one getting a message saying the features that could happen with registering and two when I saw that I could talk on the delete pages which I originally thought were just for admin. You jumped on me at the same time as the other guy gave me the same warning on three different pages and another guy was saying "new user alert" like people are second rate. NobutoraTakeda 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user

NobutoraTakeda, I see I'm not the only one with doubts about your authenticity. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was entirely factual, and I make no apologies. -- "this user's first-ever edit was 18 hours before this one, and has engaged in only deletion matters." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Space Marines

You mean have a page for 2nd edition Chaos Codex, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition and 4th edition (when it's released)? If that's what you mean, then sorry, I couldn't agree to that. That seems to have less merit than the current page(s). If that's not what you mean, then I apologise, as I've misunderstood. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of State Leaders

No, I make it a point to be rude wherever I go. I'll take your suggestion and look at the other article you referenced, but the ongoing project has a lot of contributors. You aren't going to win on this one. Mandsford 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me explain my reasoning without being rude. In response to your point about the king who reigns for 60 years, he may be on 60 lists, but there are hundreds of leaders who come and go during that time. The list of world leaders is in change almost every year. Take, for instance, the Emperor Hirohito... he began his rule when Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States, and lived until George H.W. Bush, so that was 13 different American leaders during a 64 year rule. All of the other leaders from 1925 were gone by 1989. What I like about the state leaders lists is that I can pick a year-- let's say 1776 or 1492-- and in one place, I have a list of the nations that existed in the world and who was the leader in each nation. I remember that the World Almanac used to have two pages devoted to all the current leaders. Moreover, since there are articles about nearly everyone of those nations and leaders, I can quickly navigate my way over to the article about the nation or the person. Nations have come and gone over the centuries, though at a slower rate than the rise and fall of leaders. You might not run across, say republics like Hatay, or Biafra or Aragon without, in effect, surfing this. I find it to be very useful. Mandsford 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't just go on for 21 pages solely about Natakamani, the King of Kush. Without even looking, I know that Augustus Caesar was there, and Tiberius Caesar, and lots of leaders who reigned during that period from 1BC to 20AD. Kush just happened to be stable during that time, perhaps, and had the same leader 21 years in a row. There are some years where there were no known changes in the leaders of the world's nations, of course. I find it useful to know who was "in the news" in 1 AD. -- and if I want to find out more about Natakamani or anyone else during that period, all I have to do is click and I learn more about the man than merely his name. It doesn't bother me that Natakamani is at 1 AD and 10 AD and 20 AD... it's an illustration of the march of time, the rise and fall of notable persons, etc. To me, that's what history is all about. Mandsford 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but perhaps you should ask yourself why this irritates you so much. I'll grant you, sometimes I get mad over something that's been said or done on Wikipedia, and I sometimes have to remind myself that I shouldn't worry about what someone else thinks. Once, I got in a bitter exchange with someone who lives in Australia, and I live in a small town in Kentucky... and I had to laugh when I started thinking, I'm getting angry over something that a guy on the other side of the world from me wrote. I see your point, but is it worth getting upset over? Life's too short, my friend. By the way, since I know that your name is Nobutora Takeda, I'll introduce myself-- Mark Ford, from Harlan, Kentucky. I've enjoyed chatting with you, I apologize for my earlier attack on you, and I'm going to edit the page to simply change my vote to "strong keep" without additional comment. Mandsford 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was offline for awhile, but wanted to check and leave a parting message-- it's 11:20 here and long day. One of the things about the list of years with lots of red links is that people, including myself, are slowly creating a list for a particular year. It's easy, as you can imagine, to create the list of leaders in 154 BC by copying the list from 153 BC and changing it as necessary... hence the redundancy. Still, a lot of people seem to enjoy working backward through history. It's one of the easiest ways to "create" an article-- cheating, practically-- but it has its use, because people have been creating the lists that way for quite some time, working their way from one year to the next adjacent year. I've noticed along the way, however, that this method of creating the list for year "n-1" from the list for year "n" has its own problem. As you might guess, if someone has omitted a nation (say, for instance, an Aztec king), it's not on any list. In that instance, one should update. That's what I like about Wikipedia, however, is that it can be updated as soon as one finds new information. Not only that, who's going to vandalize a list of leaders in 154 BC? Anyway, best wishes, I'm signing off, I'll see you around AfD. Mandsford 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not going to fly with me - particularly on a policy. Don't modify any policy pages no matter how trivial without taking it up on it's talk page or at the village pump first. And in your specific case, I would suggest this advice is quite pertinent considering the sheer number of people including senior project members from across the globe that you have already got offside with. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Thewinchester may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Orderinchaos 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages, from the point of view of dumping piles of numbers and random crap on them, are within user space. Further instances will be reported to WP:AIV. Orderinchaos 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos warned you and expanded that what you were adding to my talk page constituted vandalism, and i'm totally inclined to agree with him. As per my previous comment to you, I strongly suggest you take heed of the warnings and comments on your talk page, as it's plain and obvious to anyone that you have caused significant discontent in the community with your actions. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the user who gave you the warning, so I can't answer that question. As is now being advised for the third time, you need to take that up with the user who issued you the warning. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs were here and here. I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything *but* vandalism. I stand by my warning to you. Orderinchaos 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening and wikilawyering with admins is really not a good way to get ahead in this place. I'd strongly suggest that if you actually want to stay here for a while, learn how the place works and learn to work with the community. I personally find it sad when new editors go to the wall rather than listen to advice, and by reading your talk page, I can see you've had plenty of thoughtful, considered advice given to you in the last couple of days from a range of editors. I hope that you take some of it on board and can become a productive editor here. Orderinchaos 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I wasn't the one who warned you for vandalism. If you disagree with the warning, then you can take it up on the talkpage of the user who gave it to you. I just agree with their justification for the warning based on your actions. If you want to Wikilawyer then that's fine by me - but what complaint do you have against me if I wasn't the one who warned you? The answer to the question is self-evident. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on the claim of rudeness, and I can see from this diff just added to your talkpage by another user who is an administrator that you're trying to accuse someone of the same things you are being seen to do. My conversation has been nothing but polite and reasonable, the only impolite things and threats I can see have been written by yourself. You have already been reasonably advised what to do about the vandalism issue and there is nothing more worth talking about here as I'm not the one you need to be taking it up with, as has been explained. I simply wish you good day and hope you learn something from this. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that claim? I have not claimed that you have broke a rule based on a warning, that claim would have been made in template by whomever the user was who issued you the warning. If are somehow trying to imply that I sought out assistance to have you warned, there is no factual or evidentially basis for such a claim, and from what I can see the user in question who issued you the warning did so independently. If you are trying to say that my edit summary is the sole basis of this issue, then you have no basis as the content reverted was that you were warned for but chose to re-add, therefore an edit summary of WP:VAND is highly appropriate in this case as it was the re-addition of material that was already deemed to be vandalism. Again, I would refer you to my previous comments advising to speak with whoever the user was who gave you the warning and at this juncture I specifically request that you refrain from circular arguments and any further discussion regarding this matter on my talk page. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that is either condesending or snide, and the exact content being posted on your talk page by me is being posted on mine verbatim. I'm not going to post anything on someone else's talk page that i'm not comfortable posting on my own. Your last sentence tells me that you never saw this episode of The Simpsons. And remember, there is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is only a cabal if you want there to be one. As for the claim of WP:OWN, like the user you claim has acted in a cabal with me, this article is also the first ever star trek article I've touched in 1yr and ~5,000 wikipedia edits. You've just made another baseless claim which shows bad faith on your part. This is now the second time I will be asking you, please cease and desist posting on my talk page, as you are now pushing well over and above the boundaries of WP:POINT. All reasonable and fair opportunities has been provided to you to resolve whatever complaint you may have in a fair and reasonable manner, all of which is documented here and you have failed to use. Further posts on this talk page will be considered in the context of relevant wikipolicy and pursued accordingly. Thewinchester ^(talk) 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My request to ask you to stop is there, Again, I would refer you to my previous comments advising to speak with whoever the user was who gave you the warning and at this juncture I specifically request that you refrain from circular arguments and any further discussion regarding this matter on my talk page. If you read the edit summary, the AfD tag was incorrectly placed and instructions given on how to correctly list it. Again, you can't make WP:OWN. This is now the third and final request for you to refrain from posting on my talk page. Any further posts will be considered in the context of relevant wikipolicy and pursued accordingly. You can see that I don't get worn out easily, and you're not acheiving anything by making baseless claim after baseless claim. The sooner you realise this and go do something productive on the wiki other than the AfD queue you seem to live in, then you'll be better off for it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also request that you stop there. For your own sake. This editor is unreasonable, illogical and as the old saying goes: "Never argue with a fool, the spectators may not be able to tell the difference." This editor calls upon his wiki friends to enter debates and make comments when they are ill-informed and unqualified to comment. He doesn't practice what he preaches, cites and applies wikilaw at will even when irrelevant and when he lacks throrough understanding of it. Surrender now because "he doesn't tire easily". Tire from being a stain on the wikipedia bedsheet, that is. Don't argue on his talk page OR ELSE. It's done his way or you're looking at a ban due to WP:BULLSHIT or WP:IMFULLOFSHIT or WP:IMASHITEDITOR or WP:CLOSEDMINDED.Sammy lightfoot

Politeness

Hi NobutoraTakeda. Please don't be rude to people, it is not improving anthing. There are lots of ways to help, try to do so. Thanks Fred ☻ 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. I do know the editors, but would you like me to help resolve any problem? Fred ☻ 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there is a problem. As I said, they are both good editors in my view. OrderinChaos is always polite and has earned the respect of many other editors, it earned him a honour, adminship. There is an basic issue of communication, here I believe, if you would like to present an argument or contribute in some other way, I would be more than happy to help anyone do that. That is why we are here, to improve the document through a cooperative process. Please feel free to ask me, if you think that I can assist with this. Regards, Fred ☻ 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my delay in responding. I promise to have a good look at this, but it will take a little while. The discussion will continue for a couple of days, would you like to have another go at it tomorrow? This will give me time to find a way to help. In the mean time, read up on the list versus category discussions. There are a lot of different views, but sometimes it is obviously better to have a category. We might be able to show that clearly. It is an interesting topic of discussion. I am sorry that you did not think your views were being heard, that can be very frustrating. The warnings will have no affect if you are politely putting your views, you might avoid posting on the editors pages for a little while. I am here for a while, but shall we wait until tomorrow? Regards Fred ☻ 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. This is getting plainly tedious to watch - if you don't want to get blocked in the near future, I'd strongly suggest behaving more nicely towards fellow editors, who are here to help and develop the encyclopedia. Several of the people you've managed to get on the wrong side of today are very solid and respected contributors with a long history of community involvement and engagement. Zivko85 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look - if someone had posted that to my talk page I would have probably reverted it too, although I can see that it's not entirely random, as the numbers appear to be in some sort of order - but I am not seeing *why* it was posted. The warning you received seems fair, and there was no threat to block - it was more of a "cease and desist, please". Regarding civility and harassment, I've also seen you accuse people of lying and various other rather serious allegations which is why I started this topic on your talk page. Unfortunately, if you treat people that way, there's a high likelihood that you'll get something back for it. Also, the very people you insult today could be the ones reviewing your complaint tomorrow. Also, to open an RfC, you need to have certifying users and a coherent case - if you're hoping to simply repeat the vague and unsubstatiated allegations you have already made here and elsewhere against people, your case will be shut down faster than you can say "boo", and probably get blocked for disruption along the way. It's not too late to pull out of your downward wikispiral - all you have to do is just be nicer to people and be a bit more relaxed. Always remember too that Wikipedia is not real life and these people are names on a screen - stop taking them so seriously! If you feel that frustrated, have a coffee or take a walk or something. Zivko85 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutting discussions on AfD

Please, stop fighting everyone who disagrees with you at AfD. Disagreement doesn't mean they disrespect you. It doesn't have anything to do with you personally. Your constant rebuttals and repeated comments are making you look hostile and defensive, and are likely making editors think that you are nominating these articles out of some kind of spite. That is going to get editors to vote to keep the articles because they're concerned you're not doing this in good faith yourself. Simply present the article for deletion and let the community decide. It shouldn't matter to you, not in the tiniest, tiniest bit, that they disagree with you. --Charlene 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this; your points will be considered by the closing admin. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. In my opinion you need to just chill out a bit, by all means provide the community with your opinion but stop chasing every single editor who disagrees with you. It's not worth it because you'll diminish your contribution with every unnecessary rebuttal. Take it easy, The Rambling Man 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to reply to what you wrote on my talk page: there is a difference between discussion and haranguing editors who don't agree with you. If you don't see that your words appear hostile and far too pushy, perhaps you need to step away from AfD. --Charlene 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please read

Please familarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. In particular, please read:

Rember to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about the Britannica? Orderinchaos 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said there was an electronic version. It doesn't take much to type in Encyclopedia Britannica and find it: http://www.britannica.com/ What is with people unwilling to actually look on their own and just discuss based on their own ignorance? NobutoraTakeda 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An online version of a paper encyclopaedia (which I was aware existed) is *somewhat* different to an electronic encyclopaedia with the sort of interlinkages and server issues Wikipedia has to negotiate on a daily basis. This is why the above three linked policies and guidelines exist. Orderinchaos 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I have better things to do than argue with someone who won't listen to a wealth of advice from a diversity of individuals and would rather proceed towards a definite outcome of being blocked for disruption. One of those things is improving articles. Please do not post on my talk page again. Orderinchaos 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely. Taking the "Possible" connection to indef blocked User:SanchiTachi along with this account's edit history, I see a strong indication that this is a sockpuppet account. Beyond that, this account has been creating all kinds of disruption at multiple AFDs, essentially pestering various editors over their !votes. I'll be posting a block review of this at WP:ANI. you are free to request an unblock via template or email as well.--Isotope23 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a Democracy. Voting does not make rules. I have the right to ask people about their "votes" in a DISCUSSION PAGE. NobutoraTakeda 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do to an extent, but your excessive hounding of other editors that they actually don't mean the !vote they are opining is disruptive.--Isotope23 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what a reasonable person had to say on the issue: "Every user that posts to a discussion is trying to influence the outcome; there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, the user has been banned. That prevents them from making further changes; I don't think it means that the contributions they've already made should be disregarded without specific reason to do so. In this case, the argument the user made seemed reasonable. Yes, the user could no longer respond, but that should simply be noted; the comment should not be stricken. I know very well about RBI, but it doesn't say anything about reverting all changes. I'm not trying to enshrine this user, just trying to determine the cause of an action I disagree with.--Eyrian 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"

It seems that you went out of your way to block someone who disagreed with you. I don't abuse the block power to get rid of people who don't support me. I use words and evidence unlike a coward. NobutoraTakeda 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Lots of people disagree with me. My talk archives are full of comments from people who do and they all remain unblocked. At least we have something in common; I don't abuse the block power to get rid of people who don't support me either... just those who are very likely sockpuppeting.--Isotope23 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted that you probably looked it up to find out if you could find me similar to a blocked person who you could have an excuse to block someone without being challenged. What impartiality you have. NobutoraTakeda 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I came across your edits yesterday and was struck by how similar they were to Tanchi. I noticed the AFD after that from your contribution log and closed it after reading through it (and for the record, I don't think anyone is going to mistake me for a Star Trek fan given my AFD history on those articles). I then noticed the WP:RFCU where it was indicated you were possibly IP related to Tanchi. I did some more investigation. I blocked. Sorry, but I didn't conveniently find someone to tie you to.--Isotope23 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a load of BS. If you came across that, you would have seen that the other admin didn't find that it warranted a block. You went out of your way to find a ground to block me and you gave a piss poor excuse right now just so you could get rid of someone who challenged you. NobutoraTakeda 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want. Generally, checkusers don't block, they just return a checkuser result (one I might add that you contested rather vehemently). As I've already explained, the Checkuser result was one part of my decision to block... not the only reason. Your contention that I blocked you because you questioned an AFD close I made is ludicrous. My talk archives are full of people who have questioned deletions I've done (or not done) all of whom I've not blocked. If I were truly as vindictive as you seem to think I am I'd have already protected this page due to your non-stop stream of personal attacks against myself and other editors.--Isotope23 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I got the "maybe" on the list. Thats not even close to being evidence for a block. " Confirmed Likely Possible Unlikely Unrelated Inconclusive" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU

Its between Likely and Unlikely. That means it is unsure.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy

"The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."

Thats exactly what happened.

"Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access. On wikis without arbcom, the community can vote removal of access. Removal can be done by Stewards. The Stewards may not decide alone of removal, but can help provide the information necessary to prove the abuse (log). If necessary, and in particular in case of lack of respect towards the privacy policy, the board of Wikimedia Foundation can be asked to declare removal of access as well."

I am invoking my right to report a suspicion of abuse of the checkuser based on that the tool should not be used to apply pressure on editors, and Darkson reporting everyone on that page for checkuser is exactly that and should not have been grounds for a checkuser without any proof that ties anyone together. There is no proof that ties me to that other person besides a being one in over a million people who may have internet from the largest satalite provider in north america. Any admin reading this cannot refuse my claim because it says that its part of wikimedia policy and I have a strong ground for a claim of abuse. NobutoraTakeda 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Possible means nothing. The only "strong indication" is by users who are upset when OWNing a page. There is no proof to the allegations above and where is the proof that there is any connection to my edit history? And disruptions? I have done nothing different than everyone else at the AFDs, which is discussing issues and questioning people's points. AFD is for discussion and the above person is probably blocking me because I contested his claim to closing a discussion without any justification to close it. This block is out of revenge than anything else. To expand, I looked up my IP and this is what it is "75.105.13.148". The only IP blocked even close to mine is "75.104.133.79". Anyone who knows IPs knows that there is a huge difference between the two. Just because they may look similar to someone ignorant of computers does not make them equal.

Decline reason:

Please consult the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=145648200#User:NobutoraTakeda_indefinitely_blocked

relevant ANI thread]. — Pascal.Tesson 11:07, 19 July 2007 (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.

No revenge here NobutoraTakeda. You questioned my close and I directed you to WP:DRV... end of story. Anyone who is familiar with me is going to know I always welcome review of my edits and administrative actions. This is about the good chance you are User:SanchiTachi evading an indefinite block and your disruptive commenting/harassment of editors at AFD.--Isotope23 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evading? Are you stupid? I have Hughes Satalite Internet. I only get on IP. There is no possibility that anyone could even share my IP address. You are just a vindictive jerk who couldn't stand someone challenging you. NobutoraTakeda 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... are you asserting that the fact that your IP address (75.105.13.148) being from the same ISP as 75.104.133.79... which was blocked (by me) for being a User:SanchiTachi before you ever started editing here, somehow clears you of the claim of sockpuppetry? If anything that would seem to bolster the suspicion you are the same person.--Isotope23 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, are you stupid? http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?domain=75.104.133.79&cache=off&email=on "NetRange: That one point difference in the second section are WORLDS apart. Have you never read any books on the internet? How did someone even give you admin status without you understanding the basics of internet protocols? Hughs satalite internet is the biggest satalite internet company in the world and operates many of the accounts for other satalite internet companies such as DirectTV. There are 99,999,999 other IP addresses owned under the 75 IP. So that means your possibility of me being that person is 1 in 99,999,999 if you can somehow magically claim that 104 = 105 in Internet Protocols. NobutoraTakeda 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your characterizations of me will undoubtedly convince the reviewing admin to unblock... yes I fully understand how net ranges work. The fact that you are on the same ISP as User:SanchiTachi is not the reason I blocked you... there is an old saying "if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Comparing your edits to User:SanchiTachi bore that out.--Isotope23 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have an old saying about paranoia and seeing everything behind every corner. The fact that everyone who went against Darkson was posted as a possibility of that guy. Comparing your edits to anyone else shows that you are someone who makes lots of grand claims without any evidence to back them up. NobutoraTakeda 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone ignorant on what I say, here is some information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Network_Systems http://www.networkworld.com/news/2002/0204specialfocus.html

"Hughes Network Services, the leading provider of VSAT services in North America (see graphic), offers small-business users Directway, a VSAT Internet access service. Starband and Tacyon also sell VSAT Internet access services to individual users. These offerings let a greater variety of businesses, such as real estate agencies and veterinarian offices, use VSAT services, Bull says."

Its the largest satalite company and our IPs aren't even close. NobutoraTakeda 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... both 75.104.133.79 (blocked as SanchiTachi) and 75.105.13.148 (apparently yours) are on the same ISP, however, which does serve as a connection. It is true that 75.104.0.0/14 is a large range, but they are nevertheless on the same range. Add to that a clear intersection of interests (contribs for: 75.105.13.148, 75.104.133.79, SanchiTachi, NobutoraTakeda). It's also more than a bit unusual that a new user would display such familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, including AfD -- your first edit as an IP clearly displays familiarity with the project, leaping into a dispute (where, interestingly enough, there were other accusations of sockpuppetry). There are other people on that IP range, yes, but how many of them are fans of Warhammer 40K, familiar with and interested in Wikipedia, knowledgable about these few disputes in particular, and share a peculiar and rather antagonistic argumentative style? There does seem to be a case to be answered, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know how to do an AFD, that is why there is Wikipedia help. I also didn't know about a few policies until someone linked me after I asked Haemo about fancruft. I am not a fan of Warhammer 40K. Where did you get that idea? I already showed that I have no idea about it but I do know that its fan fiction and doesn't belong. Please correct the obvious mistakes you have made and you will see that there is no case. I didn't start any "antagonistic argument style", many people started antagonizing me and you can see that above. NobutoraTakeda 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before you try to pick on me, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess it is common practice to question others in the way that I have questioned! It is obvious that there isn't any policy violation or rule breaking, but one admin who is angry that I challenged his closing. NobutoraTakeda 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Isotope can claim all he wants, but it isn't coincidence that he blocked me while other people have seen that same "possible". NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Blueboy's claim on the Administrators's noticeboard that Istope is too much of a coward and bully to let me defend myself at.

" * Good block--especially since he tripped himself up by claiming he didn't know how to do an AfD, but nearly all of his contribs were to AfDs. Quack, quack. Blueboy96 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

   And something else ... may want to consider relisting any articles that were deleted as a result of his nominations at WP:DRV, for procedural reasons only. I've already found one ... Blueboy96 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"

Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion and the guide to deletion may help you understand why an article has been nominated. Once that's done, see how to list pages for deletion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion "How to list pages for deletion

This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.

Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:"

Blueboy's comment is stupid. And if its "quack quack" how many Articles for deletion did that Sanchi guy do? Huh? NobutoraTakeda 01:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also officially requesting an Arbitration Committee proceeding in light of these events and it is my right to do so. I have filed the appropriate checkuser violation and if an admin can help me perform the Arbitration request, it would be kind, especially because you cannot deny my right to one and I cannot perform one according to my current inability to edit other pages to proceed. NobutoraTakeda 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{insert case name} ===

Initiated by NobutoraTakeda at 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties ====

NobutoraTakeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Isotope (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Darkson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ending in block by Isotope so all other attempts at dispute resolution are impossible.

Statement by {me} ==== I am a new user. However, I noticed that a page had major issues. However, the prejudices of one member, starting from this page, lead to him reporting for check user on everyone who disagreed with him against check user rules. The check resulted in a "possibly" from the fact that we might both be on the largest satalite internet provider in North America, Hughsnet. I have since filed a complaint to the Ombudsman committee from the link on the check user information page. This information with vague "similarities" has lead to Isotope blocking me, which conviently happened after I complained about him closing a delete thread. Not only did he claim similarities in how I "speak", but where I write. I do not have any previous knowledge of Warhammer, as was alleged by Luna Santin, who has some sort of relationship with the admin when someone said I was like the person, nor do I know of that person spending his time checking stubs or pages that are in-universe to change or delete them. I do not know what he banned the Sanchi person for, but he seems to have it out for the person. He has also complained about the way I have questioned others in articles for deletion pages, but what I said is common practice if you look here or here. I believe that Arbitration is the only way for this user to be forced to act without prejudice. There have been many who have complained about that person, from his own admitance that he is seen as evil. This is also a big case of bite.

Statement by {party 2} ====

Clerk notes ====

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====

If as a blocked user you wish to start arbitration proceedings, you should e-mail any of the active arbitrators. --Pak21 07:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I felt this justified a second unblock because the terms that Pascal used are not part of the blocking police. persistent gross incivility; breaching the sock puppetry policy; His grounds was that he felt that I was someone's sock puppet. According to the sock puppet page, sock puppets can only be deemed wrong if they are connected to a banned user. Therefore, he must prove that I am a banned sock puppet. The check user was performed against the rules of a check user, which is stated at the very top of the check user page, and I have filed the appropriate complaint. The result was a "possible" which has no guarentee that I am even closely connected to the other person. Therefore, he cannot, as Isotope cannot, block me on the grounds of sock puppet because he thinks there may be a connection with someone who hasn't been proven to act like me with actual examples, let alone from an illegal checkuser that doesn't say anything that would claim I am the other person. For "disruptive" I must be grossly incivil according to the blocking policy. However, everyone can see that from here my comments are standard for Articles for Deletion, and that the only arguments started on this page were from people that have complaints against them for incivility and those who tried to tag team, like OrderinChaos, on my page, claiming that I was committing vandalism without any proof that listing a section of text from a catagory and listing a section of text from a list to show the two as completely redundant is vandalism. There is no grounds for my ban. The notice board has many factual inaccuracies, especially by blueboy. "claiming he didn't know how to do an AfD, but nearly all of his contribs were to AfDs" When you look at the Articles for Deletion is shows how to do the process. Its not that complicated to learn these things, especially when people keep linking you to the pages!

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence is very convincing here. I wouldn't have said "possible" if I'd run the request; I'd have said "likely". The evidence is quite strong -- about as strong as it can be without a 100% confirmation. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 19 July 2007 (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.

I have addressed this via email. If the above user wants to make such claims he did without any proof, since check user would not make such claims, then I will be forced to add him to my abuse complaint with the Wikimedia complaint that is currently filed. NobutoraTakeda 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is blueboy and why is he pretending to be an admin? He keeps responding on Isotope's listing declaring things and he isn't even one. He also struck out my comments which goes against the editing other people's comments policy, and he has done it to others too. NobutoraTakeda 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did my research and, as an employee in the IT field up in British Columbia and with colleagues backing up this information, I have prepared the following to prove that, under Wikipedia's own policy for Administers, I cannot be found as a "sock" and that my block was not on provable grounds. http://wikitruth.info/images/3/38/Do_Not_Block_the_Man.png Fellow employees pointed me to this, a picture of the screen for blocking. As the screen even states my IP changes very slowly and is usable only by one person. Since my IP is a .105 and not a .104, it is utterly impossible for me to be that person. If Jpgordon wishes to lie once again, my colleagues have given me there word that they will cosign a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove his ability to use Check User because he lies about the clarity of the results. If an admin feels that I should be blocked for aggressive arguing at Deletion review, then I will accept that, but standard practices are to limit the block to days or a week at most. An indefinate block is unwarranted, as my IP is constant and it is impossible for me to share the other person's IP. Hell, I would throw in that I would promise to limit adding pages for deletion review to just one per month, instead of the multiple reviews that I placed, two of which caused controversy.

Now, I have a case against the above two checkusers. As was kindly provided here the polices of Wikipedia forbid checkuser to be used to check for "socks". "Such claims cannot easily be verified by anyone other than the above cabal (ie. people who think Jimbo's farts smell of flowers) and must be taken on faith. Was this user's status as a sockpuppet really confirmed by CheckUser? Only The Grand Inquisitor and his cronies know for sure." But I have over 8 others in my office that are willing to provide evidence that the claims of my IP matching the other person's are absolutely absurd. But Wikimedia has already done this for me here: "This is a series of four numbers which identifies the Internet address from which you are contacting the wiki. Depending on your connection, this number may be traceable only to a large Internet service provider," which my IP is only traceable to.

Now it continues to say "When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address." Where did I commit vandalism? Where was the case that I commited vandalism heard before they could legally use a checkuser? Now, this brings forth a legal dilema which Wikimedia has expressed that it does not want. Its especially dangerous because it is international, and Canada has laws against corporations revealing private information, especially when those at a corporation have abused the power explicitly stated by a corporation. As you can see, Wikimedia's express policy and standards of conduct have not been fulfilled in the correct way, which not only violates my legal privacy rights, but Wikimedia's express rules for conduct by Administrators and those with CheckUser privledge. The only appropriate thing to do is unban, because to do otherwise is a further abuse of my rights.

Remember, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and not "the free encyclopedia where people will outright lie about privacy information collected against explicit Wikimedia policy and used in an unauthorized manner." And this is not a legal threat. I will make that explicit so no one can claim otherwise. I already read up on how someone would try that trick to get out of the situation.

Decline reason:

reason — Posting on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and breaking the rules and causing disruption despite repeated warnings, according to Wikipedia's stated rules, allows Wikipedia admins to deny posting privileges to the service. Wikipedia is like somebody else's house - you break the furniture, they can kick you out. Also your private information has not been revealed as you claim. Your disruptive behaviour has convinced various Wikipedia admins that you should have no further licence to operate here - had you not been blocked for the sockpuppetry (which appears convincing after reading the contribs of the other username and the areas in which it posted), you would have been blocked for persistent disruption after numerous warnings. Please note also that if you persist in abusing your talk page for vexatious unblock requests, it may be protected. Orderinchaos 03:54, 21 July 2007 (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.

Invalid CheckUser

I already proved that the "probable" is nothing to claim that I am even close, as there are two classes above.

After looking through the check user policy, I have found that the events that happened are in violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." The check user was performed at the request of a user, Darkson, who reported everyone on that page for check user. That is not a last resort.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute." The tool was used in order to apply pressure on other editors by Darkson. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chaos_Space_Marines "Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

"This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)." There was no serious motive, when you consider the first quote. Thus, the constant checking of all the different people is an abuse of privacy according to Wikimedia. /

So it doesn't seem at all strange to you that all of the "different people" listed for checkuser made only one or two contributions, one of which was invariably an edit to the Primarch page with the exact same changes, and all ending with some short rant about verifiable information written in the same style?

It doesn't seem that the checkuser was run for "political control" or to "pressure" anybody. There were no threats to "out" you with a checkuser prior to actually running it (or anything to that affect), so how running one can be construed as a "pressure" is beyond me. On the talk page for the AfD that seems to be your entire reason for joining, there were already suspicions about your authenticity, and so actually checking to see if those suspicions are correct is the next logical step. Seeing as how this falls into the exact same area of expertise as SanchiTachi apparently was, and the uncannily similar arguing style shared with this account and the IPs checked with SanchiTachi's (not to mention the numerous confirmed sockpuppets SanchiTachi has already), it seems like a logical and warranted step. Agharo 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot check user like that according to Wikimedia policy. Check user is reserved only for the end of deliberation and how can there be three different IPs? Your argument ignores many facts. You cannot check users based on suspicions, thats a violation of privacy. You need a legitimate reason and that is not one.

And how can you claim that my expertise is like his? I don't even know anything about Warhammer! Even the Warhammer people criticized me for not knowing that it was notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primarch&action=history And have you even looked at this page? How can you say that it looks suspicious? There are many IP addresses there, and the one put up for check user is far different. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=71.64.154.198&email=on

When you fix the mistakes you made in your above claim you would see that there is no case against me. Running a Check User case just because you disagree with someone is pressuring people, especially when you take that "probably" which is the lowest of the maybes to flash it on other discussions to discredit the other person. And if I was such an "expert" on Warhammer why would I even want to delete that fan fluff nonsense! The "experts" all seem to want to spam Wikipedia with more of that crap. NobutoraTakeda 05:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your comments are really offensive because you didn't even look at what I said for my summaries: "# (cur) (last) 04:10, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,762 bytes) (This page lacks any third party sources, is written in universe, and is written by sources many have claimed to admit as being untrustworthy and this pageshould be deleted as not notworthy) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:59, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,715 bytes) (Reverting Unverifiable information from two people that have series OWN issues and are starting revert wars on information that the majority seems to be against) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:14, 15 July 2007 Primarch (Talk | contribs) (11,255 bytes) (Undid revision 144706330 by 75.105.13.148 (talk) This is silly. Please refer to 'discussion' before more reverts.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:12, 15 July 2007 75.105.13.148 (Talk) (10,715 bytes) (Undid revision 144695431 by Darkson Abuse of Popups when there is no vandalism, 3RR, and adding in already stated unVerifiable content) (undo)"

The one is saying that there was no vandalism and that there was a rewrite war going on. The second is removing unverifiable content and the third is putting up tags about what the page lacked, which have since been removed by that other IP address. NobutoraTakeda 05:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this guy is just as new as I am. Where the hell does he get off making those claims? NobutoraTakeda 05:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been lurking for years before I actually joined up, and lack of seniority doesn't mean I don't have the right to speak.

Really though, you can throw around as much technobabble as you want, and mis-represent my words as much as you please, but it changes nothing. I know there's ways to change or mask your IP address, and it's not unreasonable to assume that someone trying to operate a believable alt would play both sides to distance the puppet from the puppeteer.

I never accused you of being an expert, only that you seem to operate solely within the realm of the puppeteer's expertise.

I'm going to leave this to others though, to protect my sanity if nothing else. Have fun. Agharo 06:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read that I was lurking for a long time also? If there is a way to mask my IP wouldn't I have used it if I was that guy? Oh please. And I didn't "operate solely" in anywhere. Look at my contributions. I only talked in one of those pages and made edits to another to merge whats good and delete whats bad on all related pages. Did the Sanchi guy like Star Trek too? Did the Sanchi guy make lists on the history pages? How about stubs about non-notable biographical people and then have them up for deletion? NobutoraTakeda 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems hopeless, if people are just going to judge things with inaccurate claims. NobutoraTakeda 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging unblock decision

I removed the block of the previous admin, because it is against Wikipedia rules for an admin to issue a block while involved in a content dispute around that block. That is clear policy and this is a clear violation of that policy. I expect that the abuse blatantly performed by the admin, Orderinchaos, be reviewed, unless Wikipedia is proving that it is biased and is run by those who do not care about truth, but care about removing those who disagree with them. Wikipedia is a business and I, like all other editors are clients. To act in such a manner as the previous admin did is breaking some of the strongest ethical rules governoring businesses. Policies must be fair and apply to all, and to be indefinately blocked for "vandalism" and other warnings, as the admin above claimed, is not how such policies are enforced on Wikipedia. Need I remind everyone that Orderinchaos, after issuing a warning, was issuing it for a frivolous warning of "vandalism" which was a blatant copy and paste comparrison of two different pages that were exactly the same and could not be defined as vandalism in anyway. I believe that Wikipedia admin could be fair and would not be biased, so I will hope that another admin will come here and do the logical thing, read my case, and either unblock me or issue a block appropriate to a new person who has potentially been overly aggressive in comments issued in requests for deletion, even though I have provenly done nothing more than other people have in the same areas.

To claim that I am "disrupting" is to exagerate to an exponent that is unmeasurable. I am using my user talk page, which is 1 trillionith of Wikipedia, to request an unblocking over something that I have a strong case for, and which the admin blocking can not provide a reasonable case to block me indefinately. However, the treatment that has been recieved so far would explain why there are people who create websites which demonstrate how to create socks, to build those socks and to become admin to then get revenge on people like Orderinchaos. here. I just have a reasonable request to be given an appropriate block that is normal for these situations, not a punishment block that is unwarranted.

Firstly, I did not block you. I declined a third unblock request - the first two having been declined by neutral and uninvolved admins - on the basis that there were no cited grounds to raise one. I had no involvement in those. It is general consensus on Wikipedia that declining an uncontroversial repeat unblock can be performed by any admin.

In respect of any claim of bias, I acted on your blatant vandalism of another user's talk page, which came up on my watchlist. Up until then I had no exposure to your edits. After seeing your blatant WP:POINTing on a range of AfDs, harassment of a number of users and especially User:Arkyan on both an AfD and his talk page, and general lack of civility and respect to other editors, I saw a block as the only way to prevent your continued disruption of the encyclopaedia and harassment and time-wasting of the community - however, I limited myself to merely stating my opinion here that such was inevitable, and did not act any further, choosing to actively disengage from you (despite your persistent harassment on my talk page). A preventative block is totally within the scope of WP:BLOCK, and an indef block for disruption is not an uncommon thing when dealing with new accounts which have shown an inability to contribute positively or to desire to do so. You had received, in my view, excellent and good-faith feedback from a wide range of respected editors making suggestions on how to behave, and you ignored all of them. Your persistent wikilawyering before and after your block suggests you have far more understanding of policy than one would normally expect for a new user, and your editing and range of subjects does match very closely with another editor from the same area on the same ISP which one checkuser has labelled "Possible" and another "Likely".

And finally, please cease from vandalising your declined unblock request. If it really is so unfair, another admin can overrule me, and I'm open to that. Orderinchaos 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

NobutoraTakeda/SanchiTachi, you made several unblock requests, all of which have been declined. For what its worth, I am another uninvolved admin and I also support the indefinite block of your editing rights. For continuing to troll on this page and vandalising the unblock requests and responses this page is now protected. If you wish to communicate with an admin, you will now need to use the email facility. —Moondyne 11:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]