AG191D
Your recent edits edit
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. --SineBot (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
|
AfD nomination of Pavel E. Smid edit
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pavel E. Smid, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel E. Smid. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Deskford (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Prod tag removal edit
I noticed that you're quite new here and that most of your edits have been to remove "prod" (short for "proposed deletion") tags from quite a number of of articles. Normally, such tags should only be removed if the reason given is invalid or the issues stated can be quickly resolved. Your edit summaries that an article "could be notable" might be sufficient for a speedy deletion tag but is not appropriate or sufficient for a prod tag.
Also, if you must remove a prod tag, please be sure not to also remove the other tags than have been applied to the article if their concerns remain unresolved. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Making proposals edit
While I don't think your proposal will be well received, the correct place to suggest stuff like this is WP:Village pump (proposals). I removed your section from WP:AN. Cheers, –xenotalk 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree (on where the proposal belongs), and have re-posted it at Village pump proposals: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New requirement?. Equazcion (talk) 18:39, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)
AG191D (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please contact Thatcher and ask why he has latched onto this small business and called us this Derek guy. This happened about a year ago and we have no idea who Derek is. He is not one of our employees. What we think has happened is that one suspicious person has branded us wrongly as Derek and keeps perpetuating. It's like if someone wrongly branded Paris Hilton as Madonna and the wrong ID keeps being perpetuated by mirror sites. More likely what I think has happened is that Thatcher objected to an WP:AN post that I did and is seeking retribution and punishment. There is no other explanation except that Thatcher is combing through WP:AN and hurting people whose opinions he is opposed (It is forbidden to block someone whom you have a dispute, if two editors oppose each other's edits in an article, one editor can't use his administrative powers to block the other guy). Also see that Thatcher made the original AN post so he is an involved user and using his checkuser power to get everyone to agree with his opinion. Ask Thatcher to explain that rather than trying to say "but I accuse him of being a sock". Just unblock me, that's all.
Moreoever, if Derek is this guy with 500 socks, then he is certainly more capable than this small business with 2 computers and no techie guy and little time for Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
As you requested, Thatcher has responded below, and the reasoning for the block appears sound. In addition, I haven't noticed Thatcher playing favourites, so the unblock argument above seems unlikely and unconvincing. The clincher, however, is that User:Dereks1x's (and probable?) socks are not to be unblocked without consulting arbcom [1] If you truly aren't Derek, and want to be unblocked, you should email them arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Back on May 7, 2008, someone from this IP emailed me asking me to checkuser them to prove that he was a member of a certain profession, so he could put that on his user page and make edits in that profession without bullying. Turned out to be Dereks1x. Later that year the IP was involved in this report. In November 2008 the IP was involved in this report. There have not been any non-Derek1x editors on that IP in the past, and 8 different checkusers have checked it at one time or another. While I can't prove to a legal certainty that AG191D is Dereks1x and not someone else at the same workplace, his edits today to the admin noticeboard suggest otherwise. Thatcher 20:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains. Thatcher, you complained on AN and were getting people to support your position on AN. When there was an opinion questioning whether all the rules had been followed (but didn't really support your enemy), you were vindictive enough to search people's IP.
If that isn't spying and vindictiveness, nothing is. After doing that, Thatcher wrong brands me a sock.
Thatcher has failed to adequately explain why he was snooping and looking at IP's except to look for a reason to silence editors.
Thatcher has also failed to explain why if my IP shows that I cannot be Derek (reason for blocking Derek is completely incompatible with my IP...further information cannot be given without violating my privacy but anyone who knows the identity of my IP will know that I cannot be Derek. A hint...it would be like saying to an editor that he has a conflict of interest writing about the Bank of England but the editor is editing from the French Army computers...clearly the French Army person is not a banker)
Thatcher knows that no administrator is going to stand up against a checkuser. Thatcher should do the honorable thing and question why he is snooping because he didn't like someone's AN post. AG191D (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
AG191D (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
ArbCom does not respond. Read the above and state why you, as an administrator, supports Thatcher vindictiveness. If you don't support it, you should fight against such vindictiveness. For example, if Wikidemon posts a complaint about a user on ANI. If another editor questions the logic of Wikidemon's complaint, it is clearly improper for Wikidemon to block that editor and (if he were a checkuser) to snoop at his IP. It's also wrong if Wikidemon wrongly blocks. What is requested of the administrator reading this is to champion the cause of fairness and act as an ombudsman to help solve the situation. The administrator should not be coy and just write nasty refusals to unblock. I am thinking that I shouldn't have asked because the chance of anyone being fair or helpful is almost zero--I should just make it easy and deny unblock myself.
Decline reason:
Claims about the evilness of Wikidemon, Thatcher, and other administrators will not help you get unblocked. I am revoking your talk page access on this account; please request unblock from only your main account. NW (Talk) 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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.