Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B1link82

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

Description

[edit]

Repeated uncivil edit summaries, 3RR violations, Edit warring, Copyvio. User has been repeatedly blocked for his actions in the past:

  1. [1]
    • You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. [2]
    • Your abuse of other users is unacceptable. You're temporarily blocked again - I suggest that you study Wikipedia:No personal attacks if and when you return. -- ChrisO 20:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. [3]
    • You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule and no personal attacks policies. Please improve your future edits. --Slowking Man 23:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. [4] - Note: this occurred DURING the RfC process.
    • You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 21:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

Examples of edit summaries: 

08:44, 29 Mar 2005 British Airways (why edit it back you cunt)
09:44, 29 Mar 2005 United States (meh what a shit country)
13:34, 29 Mar 2005 United States (USA IS A SHIT COUNTRY FULL OF STUPID PRICKS WHO THINK THAT THE USA IS EVERYTHING)
14:15, 29 Mar 2005 Victoria Cross (its fucking plural)
16:20, 30 Mar 2005 Sidewalk (Nah i do haev apoint wiht this one, everyone else calls it a pavement and its easier to have one article)
17:42, 30 Mar 2005 Special Air Service (cock)
17:43, 30 Mar 2005 Datchet (FOR FUCKS SAKE DO YOU LIVE THERE?)
17:50, 30 Mar 2005 Datchet (YOU ARE A CUNT)
17:51, 30 Mar 2005 Special Air Service (They ARE the best regiment in the world, no1 disputes that! SO FUCK OFF)
17:53, 30 Mar 2005 Victoria Cross (IT IS A FACT WHY DELETE IT THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA FUCKING IDIOT)
17:55, 30 Mar 2005 Datchet (I FUCKING LIVE HERE)
13:53, 31 Mar 2005 Victoria Cross (dont edit it you cock)
15:04, 31 Mar 2005 England (Bobo192 is a fuckin cunt)
17:35, 3 Apr 2005 Special Air Service (tHE FUNCTION SECTION IS CRAP, ITS REPETATIVE AND POINTLESS soz bout caps)
12:06, 5 Apr 2005 Special Air Service (navy NOT marines, they are not battalion equivs, the function section is false and crap)
11:36, 6 Apr 2005 Special Air Service (if someone wants to know what a regiment is they can fucking click it)
18:00, 6 Apr 2005 Blink-182 (you do not understand do you? BLINK 182 CALL THEMSELEVES PUNK ROCK - I GUESS THEY ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO KNOW! PLEASE DONT REVERT)
08:50, 7 Apr 2005 Blink-182 (interwiki links WTF? I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG? HAPPY? please acept that the band is punk rock and not pop punk, it is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Examples of edit warring and 3RR violations:

The edit history for Special Air Service shows massive reverting/warring by this user who refuses to concede a point not factually in question.

Examples of copyvio:

  1. [5]
    • I noticed you added Sea Doo. Unfortunately, it appears to be a copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ to get a better understanding of what can be accepted and what can't. Cheers. Burgundavia 02:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of deleting and altering other users' comments and votes from polls:

[6]
[7]
[8]

Examples of vandalising user pages:

[9]
[10]
[11]

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ (not really a policy page but Copyvio is against policy)
  5. Wikipedia:Profanity
  6. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  7. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  8. Wikipedia:Revert

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [12] My first direct comment.
  2. My edit summary 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 Alkivar (rv, your step by step reverting each step counts as a revert b1link82. You have therefore violated 3RR's intent, watch it or be expecting another block soon.)
  3. RedWordSmith comment
  4. After this exchange, I rewrote the Special Air Service article incorporating many of his changes and left him this message. He has proceeded to revert almost everything not written by him numerous times (although he has kept the basic layout). I respectfully suggest that, while he may have read a lot about the SAS, he knows very little about the British Army as a whole and refuses to accept anything he has not personally read, which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1.  ALKIVAR™ 19:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2.   Necrothesp 22:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. He's doing the same revert war/personal attack thing at Talk:Blink-182. Also see the history for the blink-182 article. Rhobite 20:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I concur. It also has a lucrative sideline in blatant vandalism: Wikipedia:Banning_policy | United_States | United_States | United_States | United_States | United_States | United_States | United_States | George_W._Bush -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. I also concur with this. Burgundavia 21:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hey, it's a Blink-182 fan who has a fetish for the SAS! Sounds like a wonderful person. Hey, it's a fifteen year old Blink-182 fan who has a fetish for the SAS! Sounds like a wonderful person.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. B1link82, slow down, it seems that you're behavious has mainly "gotten up people's noses" because you delete or change minor or petty points in articles. You need to respect people's contributions to Wikipedia, and rarely do this. Is Blink-182 punk rock or pop punk? If you truly feel this has been miscategorized, say so on the talk page, ask for contributions, then either edit it or put in a special Blink-182 disputed categorization paragraph. It will look, frankly, stupid, but if you really feel that way, that's what you should do. Music categorizations are largely a marketing tool anyway. If you feel that the colour of the SAS cap is misrepresented, do the same, but again, it's stupid, colours are a very cultural thing, eg, Japanese don't have a yellow (I think). You're not acting as part of the culture, you're acting against it. When you change someone's contribution, no matter how small, you're at least wrapping them on the knuckles, and if this happened en-masse Wikipedia wouldn't work. If you feel you need to make deletions and modifications, show that you've put some effort and thought in. If you do this, you'll realize what you've been doing is irrelevant. I concur that user B1link82 needs to have his behaviour modified, and regret using 30 mins of my life admonishing some guy. JamesHoadley 13:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. I concur; this user's incivility and acts of vandalism need to be dealt with. -- ChrisO 15:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. I also concur with the summary, and I have my own user page vandalised and my comments edited by the user in question. Kiand 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. I also concur. We worked together on Blink 182, and he has shown a complete lack of willingness to compromise. Doesn't seem to understand that articles are not his, and his alone to edit. Lan3y - Talk 19:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Well, as I am listed among the numbskulls without knowledge of Blink-182, I am perhaps horribly biased against him. That, or the fact that his edits are completely without merit, and he's seemingly obsessed with Blink-182 not being Pop-punk, for reasons unseen. It's stunningly obvious that this user is not following the rules of Wikipedia and is, in fact, flagrantly violating them.--TheGrza 21:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  10. I've run across him a couple of times, and my experience fits the already overwhelming evidence above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Quite bad in dealing with people [13]. Pavel Vozenilek 22:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Where do I start, well i'll go with the Special Air Service article. Users including but not limited to User:Necrothesp and User:Alkivar are some of the stupidest people I have ever come across. Not only that but when told they are wrong they still refuse to accept it. For example Necrothesp would have you belive that the SAS beret is not sand colour when it clearly is AND it is for a reason - the desert creation. He would also like to make it clear that a battalion is the same as a regiment when obviousl it is not (see the paras). For some reason which I do nt understand User:Alkivar supports these stupid suggestions. Now, on to the Blink 182 article. Users including but not limited to User:Rhobite, User:Greedyredbag, User:Lan3y, User:TheGrza, User:Alkivar (again) and User:Katefan0 also show their obvious lack of knowledge. Claiming a band that has always been known as punk rock - would the be on kerrang if they weren't? - are now pop-punk.. It is fuckign stuid to think that. The wikipedia text invites me to expand upopn artilces and change them for the better, I correct peoples mistakes but they are upset that they have been proved wrong and change them back, where is the sense it that? These people should be told that they are fucking. Continuing with this article, I quote "Hey, it's a Blink-182 fan who has a fetish for the SAS! Sounds like a wonderful person.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)". I see my noble friend has pointed out I am a Blink 182 fan, that is obvious from my username. Furthermore he breeches the 'no personal attacks' and I am requesting a 24 hour ban for such behaviour. I actually laugh at you people who have nothing betetr to do than discuss people you do not know and who are more intelligent than you. I am 15 and I am obviously more intelligent that the lot of you (any of you Americans - that might explain it). For tose who are offering outside summaries, I hold nothing against you, you are going by the lies you see here from geeks who have nothing better to do than complain about better people than themeselves. User:Pd THOR and User:Ben W Bell you are right to assume that im the fucking prick these guys are making me out to be. However, I am just a normal person with a particular interest in the SAS and Blink 182 and was helping to create a beter online site. Obviously only people who think they know what they are talking about but do not are allowed here. People use shit slang like 'edit wars' and '3RR' like they are in junior school. I am asking you people to look outside at the normal people in life and to get a fucking life as the majority of you need one. I laughed out loud when I saw the bloke who was interested in Church Architecture!!! If I was in charge I would ban User:Alkivar for life becuase he is a fucking cock sucking prick and put User:Necrothesp on some sort of edit preivew. Congratulate me on standing up to those dick heads and aapologise to me whilst encouraging me to stay. I know I did muck around a bit for a laugh, but that is not why I am writing this (I'm on a break from revision), I am writing to show that the big guys try and kick out the little guys , who are often right, and in my case more intelligent and more kowledgeable than most of the people on here - I don't often boast about being clever but I am here. Now, I am off to revise and become a better person than most of you, tara.

--B1link82 11:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow up - User:John Fader is also one of the pricks on the site, he reverts a perfectly reasonable edit as the user User:Alkivar was breaking the rules of the page. I have had the undesirable pleasure of working on the same article as User:John Fader before and he is worse than User:Necrothesp.

--B1link82 11:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow up - User:Deathphoenix has a very good idea of what is happening and is much more open minded.

--B1link82 15:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 9 people with nothing better to do! COCKS!

--B1link82 12:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I became aware of this user when he created what I felt to be a poorly constructed article (Foreign Military One) and linked it to pages I was watching at the time. Before I added any criticism (Talk:Foreign Military One), I looked through the user's previous work and edits. My immediate worry was that if I were to change any of "this member's articles" both my integrity and articles would come under their slander. My question posed was responded with insult, and my politely constructed response was duly ignored despite evidence that the user was actively working on wiki at the time. Based on the user's track record, they are slanderous, vandalistic, unrelenting, and wholly immature; whether they need to be using wikipaedia (a community) and/or editing articles is seriously in question. — THOR 23:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention that when this article was nominated for VfD, he removed the VfD header. [14]  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not involved in the dispute, but in the short time this user has been registered he has done nothing but cause trouble within the Wikipedia. He blatantly reverts changes calling them vandalism without listening to other points of view on the matter. While it's possible some of the stuff he alters is then factually correct he makes no effort to support the changes with reference other than comments like 'I know far more than you ever could.' His changes, edit wars and personal attacks against anyone who doesn't see the world his way are not in the spirit of the Wikipedia and is bringing the name into disrepute. Ben W Bell 08:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view 2

[edit]
I first became aware of this user on the Talk:Victoria Cross page, where I've seen him engage in mildly combative behaviour. I've looked over his contributions, and I think B1link82 can potentially be a good contributor, but I think he takes things personally and feels that he owns his contributions. Remember that once you submit something to Wikipedia it is no longer yours. Also, if you try to be more civil to your fellow Wikipedians and not take things too personally, you can become a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. --Deathphoenix 15:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After seeing your other edits, it definitely seems that you don't know how to be civil. I've seen users blocked for much less vandalism that you've done so far. --Deathphoenix 00:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Arbitration requested

[edit]

Due to B1link82's insulting response here and his vandalism of user pages today, I have requested arbitration against him. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:B1link82. Rhobite 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, considering he's now vandalizing this page, he just called 9 people "cocks", how long is this going to go on for? JamesHoadley 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He might've been a good user. But I have a zero tolerance on vandalism (especially of RFC and RFAr pages) and calling people "Cocks" isn't helpful either. If Blink wants any sort of support he should try to discuss things with people instead of calling them names for changes his edits. Starting friendly discussion is much more likely to give results. Mgm|(talk) 21:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

19:14, 17 Apr 2005, Neutrality blocked B1link82 (talk · contribs) (expires indefinite) {Vulgar vandalism, trolling, personal attacks.)

B1link82 has thus been informally banned from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/B1link82&oldid=1138660286"