Guardian Tiger

Welcome

Hello Guardian Tiger! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Resolving ambiguity (example:Welcome) Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Your recent request for checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Content Dispute

Re your message: I didn't look into everything, but it seems to me the problem at Bruce Lee was a POV/content dispute, there was no need for checkuser. --ElectricEye (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

crossbow

You have to source your statements. Creating pseudocitations is no valid way. As long as Needham doesn't write China, but Southeast Asia you can't quote him as a source for its origin in China. Deleting a well sourced section based on scientific material and inserting unsourced POV is no acceptable edit. Wandalstouring 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I know it is a widespread belief that the crossbow had its origin in China, but it is not supported by scholarly works. To be careful the borders of China and Southeast Asia are not clear and overlap in today's Southern China, although this region wasn't part of the Chinese political entity back than, so you have to clearly distinguish what you are talking about the geographic region of China or the historic China. I realized you tagged it as a China relevant article. Actually there is information missing on what Chinese crossbows looked like, how they were constructed, what materials were used(several layers of bamboo) etc. Wandalstouring 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Hi, can you please stop reinserting the sub-headings on the article. I know that you might think it looks nicer, but it was one cause of the page failing a recent FA nomination. So please do not revert. John Smith's 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta

While it's considered uncivil to remove talk page warnings, it's not a particularly blockable offense. Your best bet is probably WP:AN3 and/or WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Guardian Tiger, with regards to your request... need you ask? (Pardon the lateness of my reply...XP) Nic tan33 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Hopefully, there are enough sensible editors and admins to keep him from doing too much damage. Guardian Tiger 03:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Block warning

I disagree with wknight94's comment above. Your best bet is to immediately, now, stop harassing Certified.Gangsta on his page. You have already been requested to do so through comments from administrators on that page, and signally ignored everything they say. Don't bother to warn Certified.Gangsta of the WP:3RR, rule, as that is not normally enforced against people reverting their own userspace. The only person in danger of violating the three revert rule on that page is you. Please go read the rule. You will be blocked if you violate it on Certified.Gangsta's talkpage. In fact you will be blocked if you post on that page again at all, since it amounts to harassment. Feel free to take this to WP:ANI if you like, but I have never seen these issues get any other response there than a unanimous "Stop harassing the guy", "Leave his page alone." I am reverting your edits. Now stop harassing the guy. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to butt in - I was saying that Certified.Gangsta's removal of warning messages was not reason to block Certified.Gangsta. Of course continuing to barrage Certified.Gangsta with warning messages is reason to block whoever is doing that! See the user space harrassment part of WP:HA. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta is making unjustified accusations on his talk page while deleting and censoring ALL my comments. Could you do something about that? Certified.Gangsta is using his talk pages to make unjustified accusations about me while censoring and deleting ALL my comments that refute the accusations. Could you restore the comments without the warning templates? Guardian Tiger 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now repeatedly vandalizing my userpage. Guardian Tiger 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Block warning II: crossposted from User talk:Bishonen

Wow, you're actually editing my CheckUser notes in my userspace? You're giving me quite a taste of what it feels like to be stalked by you. You think that page is inappropriate, do you? Don't worry, I'll delete it as soon as it's served its purpose. Now, since you apparently can't or won't take a hint, I request you to go away. Don't post to any subpage of mine again, if that really needs saying. And stop posting to my talkpage unless you have something significant to say to me, such as answering the questions I asked. Hint: to wikilawyer around questions isn't the same thing as answering them. As for Certified.gangsta, stop pestering him, stay off his page, don't follow him around, or you'll be blocked for harassment. Bishonen | talk 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll cross-post my response to your accusations here since you won't allow me to post on your subpage. I find your subpage to be highly inappropriate and unjustified accusations against my account. I respectfully request that you delete this page as it can be seen as a form of further personal attacks and harassment against myself. For the record, RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was not blocked for "disruptive editing" but because it was linked to RevolverOcelotX as shown in the block log. As another admin has stated, theres no rule against multiple accounts as long as there is no violation of WP:SOCK. Bishonen, it appears you are fairly intimate with Certified.Gangsta behavior, and I do not consider you a neutral or objective admin to be issueing warnings or blocks. Quite frankly, looking at Certified.Gangsta and your history, it appears you have repeatedly defended Certified.Gangsta numerous times in the past. These are not actions of a neutral and objective admin. Guardian Tiger 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to see if your view of my admin competence impresses the CheckUsers, won't we. There's not a lot of room in the block log, but here's the full reason for RaGnaRoK's indefinite block as given by the blocking admin: "Surprisingly enough, people who, within one day of editing, engage in stalking and massive edit wars across many pages without productive edits, and are merely reincarnations of earlier problem users, aren't welcome here. Maybe I could have been more accurate in my block log, but I think you are a troll, and I don't use that word lightly." Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bishonen (talk • contribs).

Whether or not RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was block or not is irrelevant. The fact is the original account that RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH was linked to, User:RevolverOcelotX was not block or banned indefinately. If you look at the different account's contributions, you would see that none of the accounts are editing at the same time or in the same time frame. Whether or not RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH's indefinite block was justified or not is up for debate but it seems one of the reason it wsa blocked was because of WP:USERNAME. Another user explained this situation here in which he says:

"In one instance, he [Certified.Gangsta] successfully obtained the blocking of a likely sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX, even though it was a legitimate sockpuppet was not violating policy as per WP:SOCK; in that instance, User:RevolverocelotX explained that the alternative account was created because the main account was, at the time, inaccessible, and there was no evidence to cast any doubt on that argument."

If anybody is "pestering" or "following around" anybody, its Certified.Gangsta, which a glance through his contributions will show. I don't believe there actually a dispute at the moment because Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) already claims he is leaving on his talk page - he just seems to be trying to get my account blocked before he leaves or is a very manipulative person that is pretending there is a current dispute (when there isn't one). Guardian Tiger 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) behavior

In the past, User:Certified.Gangsta has frequently and routinely accused others of sockpuppetry in content disputes. At one time or another, he has alleged that two or more of myself, User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Jiang, User:Nic tan33, User:Enochlau are the same person, usually without any evidence. He also frequently uses wild accusations of nationalistic conspiracies to attack those who differ with him on content issues.

In one instance, he successfully obtained the blocking of a likely sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX, even though it was a legitimate sockpuppet was not violating policy as per WP:SOCK; in that instance, User:RevolverocelotX explained that the alternative account was created because the main account was, at the time, inaccessible, and there was no evidence to cast any doubt on that argument.

Across a number of articles, User:Certified.Gangsta has adopted aggressive tactics which violate the spirit of policies such as WP:3RR but always remain within the limits of the formal policy, making administrative discipline difficult. However, the result of such actions is often the provocation of other editors into edit wars. In the case of those with relatively low self-discipline, such actions often provokes other editors into illegitimate activities, such as the alleged "stalking".

He has also used discretionary conventions, such as the relaxed attitude with which user page edits are viewed, to make questionable edits which are quasi-legal, in the sense of violating the spirit of Wikipedia policies without actually violating the words as such. Evidence of such edits include a long-standing dispute, of which you are no doubt aware, with a number of editors over a blatantly racist section on the user page; blanking of his user talk page, arbitrary removal of discussions, and warning removals. Again, I reiterate that I understand that such moves are usually not viewed as subject to disciplinary action because of the leniency accorded to user pages; nonetheless, I feel that they are not conducive for productive editing. [2]

Here is what other users had to say about Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s behavior. Guardian Tiger 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked

This account has been indefinitely blocked as an obvious and abusive sockpuppet of RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RevolverOcelotX' editing is too far back in time for CheckUser, but an indpendent CheckUser admin, User: Mackensen, has reviewed the non-technical evidence and approved the block.

The sock evidence will as usual not be presented in detail (Wikipedia avoids teaching sockpuppeteers to refine their methods). It consists chiefly of:

1. Strongly similar editing styles and behaviors between the two accounts
2. Similar interests
3. This edit: [3].

The abuse consists of userpage harassment and stalking, behaviors typical of both accounts in question.

If you wish for another uninvolved admin to review the block, please add the template {{unblock|reason why I should be unblocked}} to this page.

Bishonen | talk 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Requesting review of unjustified block

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please see reasons below

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry seems fairly obvious. --pgk 11:08, 13 January 2007 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sockpuppetry obvious. Whilst that's not in itself blockable, the evidence of abuse from this account means the block is good.--Doc^g 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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 find this unilateral and subjective indefinite block by Bishonen to be highly inappropriate. I request an uninvolved, neutral, and objective admin to review this unjustified block, and take this dispute to an administration page. Whether or not, any of the accounts Bishonen listed are linked to RevolverOcelotX is irrelevant. The fact is that none of the accounts are editing at the same time or within the same time frame. If you look at the different account's contributions, you would see that none of the accounts are editing at the same time or in the same time frame. Another fact, is that none of the accounts Bishonen listed are even indef blocked or banned for any credible violations. In fact, the account User:RevolverOcelotX that Bishonen listed is not even currently blocked. Wikipedia's official policy does not prohibit the use of different accounts and sockpuppets are not automatically indef blocked. In fact, there has been many users on Wikipedia who have used different accounts but are not blocked. There has been no direct violation of any policy on this account. Even if Bishonen allegations are true, a simple look at the different account's contributions, shows that none of the accounts are active at the same time and therefore considered legitimate and are allowed. None of the accounts Bishonen listed have edited in tandem or had any credible policy violations. This is currently my only account. Bishonen has produce no evidence of any credible policy violations or any WP:SOCK violations. This block is therefore unjustified and should be lifted.

Another user has explained this situation quite clearly here in particular when he says:

"In one instance, he [Certified.Gangsta] successfully obtained the blocking of a likely sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX, even though it was a legitimate sockpuppet was not violating policy as per WP:SOCK; in that instance, User:RevolverocelotX explained that the alternative account was created because the main account was, at the time, inaccessible, and there was no evidence to cast any doubt on that argument."

Bishonen has listed no evidence of any credible userpage harassment and stalking. In fact, I stop posting on User talk:Certified.Gangsta after I was told not to by Bishonen. My intent was not to harass Certified.Gangsta but preserve NPOV on the numerous numbers of articles Certified.Gangsta have edited and I regret posting on his talk page. If anybody is "harassing" anybody, its Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which a glance through his contributions and block log will show. His contributions mirrors my own and he has been mass revert warring on China/Taiwan-related articles, a fact other editors can attest to. Certified.Gangsta repeatedly filed a declined checkuser that was harassing, repetitive, and unwarranted as there is no evidence of any actual policy violations. Certified.Gangsta already repeatedly claimed he is leaving on his talk page and is trying to get my account blocked as a personal vendetta. In fact, Certified.Gangsta has made his intentions clear here. Certified.Gangsta has repeatedly made personal attacks against myself where he calls me "that fucking sockpuppet".

I find this unilateral indef block by Bishonen to be highly inappropriate and unjustified for the many reasons. Certified.Gangsta purposely asked Bishonen to settle this dispute after he was turned down by another admin at User talk:Nlu. I respectfully request a neutral admin to undo this unfair block, or take this dispute between myself and Certified.Gangsta to an administration page, if necessary. Looking at Certified.Gangsta's and Bishonen's history, it appears they are quite friendly with each other, and I do not consider Bishonen a neutral and objective admin to be issueing warnings or blocks. Looking at Certified.Gangsta's history, it appears Bishonen have repeatedly and zealously defended Certified.Gangsta against numerous other editors many times in the past as evidence by here. These are not actions of a neutral and objective admin. The central point remains: I did not violate any policy, period, and deserved no block. Looking at my contributions, it is clear that I have made many valuable contributions. What is certain is there is no policy violations or any violations of WP:SOCK here. I intend to do useful editing on this account. Please consider lifting the block. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pgk has stated "Sockpuppetry seems fairly obvious" but sockpuppets are not automatically indefinite blocked. User:Bishonen stepped way out of line by unilaterally blocking me for a highly subjective violation of any policy, if any. This is obviously an unfair block. There are many legitimate use of different accounts as stated on WP:SOCK. This block is against the official blocking policy and this is an unjust block. Add to the fact that the main account RevolverOcelotX is not has not even been indef blocked for any violations. There is clearly no violations of WP:SOCK here. If anybody bothered to look through the different's account's contributions, it is clear that none of the accounts are editing at the same time. Guardian Tiger is the only account I currently use and have control of. I cannot access any of the other accounts Bishonen has listed such as RevolverOcelotX. You can block the other accounts but please unblock this account since this is the only account I plan to use. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)