User talk:Kikbguy

Welcome!

Hello, Kikbguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GraemeL ^(talk) 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of FireGPG

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article FireGPG, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable software extension; unsourced

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Killing" information?

Regarding your comments in this edit: you seem to think I'm trying to stifle information to protect these countries. I would have you know that I improved the Re-education through labor article to Good Article status and I am preparing resources to do the same to the Laogai article, which should be enough to demonstrate that I am certainly not trying to hide information from people. Please immediately stop accusing me and others of trying to "kill" your information. This is not about censoring information, it's about Wikipedia policy and verifiability. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, assume good faith and do not personally attack other editors. Continuing down this path could lead to a block. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I am not a Wikipedia moderator and I am not the person who will be choosing whether or not to delete your article. That is up to an administrator who will read the discussion and make a decision. Any "killing of information" that goes on will not be carried out by me, but by an administrator acting according to community consensus. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of FireGPG

I have nominated FireGPG, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireGPG. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment at the AfD discussion was not removed to "protect" administrators, but because it was wholly irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about FireGPG, do it at the FireGPG afd discussion, because no one at the other discussion cares.

Also, please be advised that your latest comment constitutes the second personal attack against ZimZalaBim since you received your final warning, and there is currently a pending request to have you blocked for incivility. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 04:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to the above - this edit was the last straw [1].--VS ^talk 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppeteer block

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

--VS ^talk 00:00, 8 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Politizer and Zimzalabim have been harassing me ever since I wrote an article stub on Incarceration, Surveillance, and Military Spending among the World Superpowers. They want nothing more then to have the article stub deleted because they do not feel it is a valid article. Their beliefs are acceptable, but their conduct is not. They have made threats, committed vandalism, made false statements about my content, proposed all of my articles for deletion, deleted very relevant information in the discussion section that the moderator reads before deciding on a proposed deletion, and then had VirtualSteve block my account indefinetly for false charges of personal attacks against Zimzalabim. I was then "mysteriously" indefinetly suspended the next day. I would like to be unblocked immediately and speak to a neutral third party as soon as possible to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Thanks and Happy Holidays- Kikbguy

Decline reason:

Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kikbguy. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 8 December 2008 (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.

There is nothing "mysterious" about your indefinite block, Kikbguy; you were blocked for operating multiple disruptive accounts, as documented here.
I don't know what "false statements about your content" you're referring to; if might help the administrator if you could provide examples of false statements we have made. As for the rest of your comments, I will leave it to an administrator to decide whether ZimZalaBim and I acted with unacceptable conduct. If you wanted to be amicable, you probably should have avoided making comments like these [2] [3] [4]. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you, Zimzalabim, or VirtualSteve haven't deleted the evidence yet, check out your original claim in the discussion section of: Articles For Deletion:Incarceration and Surveillance in the US, Russia, and China. that my article/stub was basically based on 1 source that was critical of Laogai. My original article, which was based on 4 referenced sources, was not based on criticism of Laogai, it objectively used the Logai Research Foundation to estimate the number of people in Laogai camps. You also claimed that I would be commiting "vandalism" by undeleting the "See Also" sections of articles linking to my stub that you deleted. This is not vandalism when the "see also" section links to an article that is related to the subject matter. You threatened me that arguing with you was not the best way to avoid deletion of my article. I just don't respond well when people threaten me. Lastly, the only reason that I used another account is because I was incorrectly blocked in the first place by an administrator that was abusing his power and had a time sensitive deletion proposal that I needed to refute. Kikbguy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator: By "threat," the user is referring to the following comment from me: "Also, please note that insulting other editors and calling the AfD process "bogus" is not a good way to get your article rescued.". —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you were not blocked by ZimZalaBim, therefore he was not "abusing his power" because he did not ever use his administrative power in this matter. You were blocked by VirtualSteve, who was an entirely neutral outside party whom I had never even met before this issue. ZimZalaBim was not the one who reported you to be blocked; I reported you when you repeatedly left insulting comments about ZimZalaBim after having been warned not to make personal attacks. Neither of us abused any powers to block you, we simply reported you to neutral, uninvolved moderators. And the administrator who blocked you was not abusing his power; he left a specific note regarding the reason you were blocked, and a link to a personal attack you had made that was the reason for the block.
As for your use of multiple accounts, you weren't using those accounts to refute the deletion proposal, but to repeatedly make inflammatory and insulting remarks about myself and ZimZalaBim. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lies again, I never made a personal attack on Zimzalabim. I simply mentioned that either he or you kept deleting my posts in the discussion section and that he got VirtualSteve to ban me without hearing my side of the story. I love how your pretending to abide by the rules in this discussion, yet in discussions that were not as public you and your friend Zimzalabim did everything you could to discredit me from altering my entries to deleting my arguments in the proposed deletion section. Moderator, please keep in mind that these two guys feel threatened by my free speech because they have attempted to supress my arguments in the past. Kikbguy (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You can go through and look if you want, but what was deleted was personal attacks, not arguments. Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks and they can be deleted on sight. When you made arguments that didn't attack editors, we left them untouched. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I'm even giving you these links, since you know full well what you did, but anyway, here are some of the personal attacks you made (just against one user; I'm not listing the ones against me):
- Calling an editor "pissed off" and accusing him of censorship [5]
- saying an editor "has issues" [6]
- again calling an editor "pissed off" [7]
There you go. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of unblock process

Kikbguy - I have protected your talk page because you are breaking the Unblock Process. You may consider you have not been rude and uncivil to either ZimZalaBim or Politzer but this edit alone - where you admit being so rude and apologising will give any administrator reviewing cause to consider that opinion wrong. In any event you are blocked as a sock-puppet and you are now engaging in disruption through your talk page in contravention of the Unblock Process. You have put in a request to have your block reviewed and you should wait now until that occurs. I have left a message for the reviewing administrator to consider unprotecting your page after the first review. If you return at that time to again breach the unblock process I will again protect your page.--VS ^talk 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have set the protection length to one week; hopefully, you'll calm down by then and will be able to address the situation objectively. You have been rightfully blocked for disruption and personal attacks (e.g. accusing other users of ulterior motives for nominating your article for deletion); afterwards, you escalated the situation by avoiding your block using IP addresses and a sockpuppet account, which led to your current indefinite block. I don't absolutely rule out unblocking you, as long as you don't continue avoiding your block, and agree not to engage in this kind of inappropriate behavior any more. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Kikbguy your protection has been shortened (thanks to Mike for his input) - but despite this you have still used another sock here to blabber on with comments like (Politizer, Zimzalabim, and VirtualSteve) have had me blocked for "sockpuppetry" which is code for using a proxy when they wrongfully block my original account. Please take the time to read about sockpuppetry and you will see that this is not a wrongful proxy action - but the legitimate action for dealing with very disruptive editors.--VS ^talk 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another sock here for which you received an immediate block by another administrator. Look carefully at what Mike has suggested also above - take a week to calm down. With that in mind can I ask you once again to refrain from using socks and consider whether you want to be here at all.--VS ^talk 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again for attention of any future reviewing admin (although your chances of ever being unblocked are getting less by the second) - as per here.--VS ^talk 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this fellow is quite persistent despite a number of polite requests and offers of assistance. Further evidence of continuing sock activities of this user here via creation of new account Kikbguy2.--VS ^talk 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have continued to avoid your block, I am restoring the indefinite protection of this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked, please e-mail me or the blocking administrator for further instructions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]