Notabilitypatrol

I Give Up :`(

I regret that I give up. It is clear User:Golbez has won in his campaign to run me off wikipedia. This all began when User:Lew19 began making mass undos without edit or discussion and was warned. Then a sock campaign started up against this article (see: User:MikFantastik). I took it upon myself to try to contribute to that article in a proactive manner that would prevent the vandalism and was told to kill myself, stalked (documented), called names (see complaint saying I've been banned for "douchiness" - below), had people like User:Golbrez spend - literally - dozens of hours compiling partial citations that could be massaged to cast me in a light that is not true, all because his girlfriend - he said - was a member of the fan club of this article's topic and didn't take kindly to edits that were disparaging.

I'm just an old grandma, a retired zoologist, who wanted to participate in wikipedia while taking care of her grandkids during the day. I don't have many years left and this is too much for me. In the last day I've been shaking and crying and absolutely beside myself because of some of the nasty comments left on my Talk Page, my User Page and emailed to me directly. I've been afraid the user - User:Golbrez - who has been following me from article to article, taking notes on every little thing I say then selectively citing them in his daily complaints to everyone who will listen until he can make just one stick, will take this to IRL. I have grandkids and it's just not worth it to potentially expose them to this danger; I fear for my safety and that of my family. I've seen too much joy and sadness in my life - from the moon landings on the joyful side to the holocaust on the sad side - to let one person get me down by spreading malicious lies about me and devoting literally dozens of hours - all to destroying my online identity, knowing those of us who have non-wikipedia life commitments will never be able to defend ourselves in the face of such an onslaught.

I'm very truly sorry for any inconvenience to which I may have inadvertently contributed here. I had no idea some articles could be so political and elicit such a reaction and I accept full repsonsibility for not taking time to observe a few days more before posting. Thank you for your understanding and thanks to the support of friends here who have lent me their support and shoulder to cry on.

PS: One final note - several people have said they would have voted to unblock me if not for the "multiple sock investigations requesting bans because users disagreed with me." This is what User:Golbrez claims in his block report, however, to clarify, no such thing ever occurred. Here is my one (1) sock investigation request, and here is the exact text of my reasoning for request (note I am not making the request because people disagree with me):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unknown_Puppetmaster/Archive

I would appreciate the one (1) courtesy of reading this link before you buy-in to the mischaracterization leveled against me. It is one of the selectively cited arguments for my banning that are contained within. Again, thanks for your understanding.

--- Gladys

Page May Be Blanked Liberally - Don't Worry

GENERAL NOTICE - I like to keep a clean house and blank my Talk Page immediately after I have read messages. Please do not be offended if I have lbanked your comment here, it just means I read it! :) :) :) Notabilitypatrol (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO COMMIT SUICIDE

Recently I have had a person blank my user page and leave the phone number for a suicide hotline on it along with a sinister suggestion I call it after I made an edit with which they disagreed and falsely characterized as "vandalism." I have also had people email me with threats against my family. My generation does not run away. I am taking two steps: (1) I have made my email account private and (2) I will not be replying to people who seem to be asking me to kill myself, I will just be turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). I'm not the kind to complain when things get rough, I like to handle situations on my own and not bother the busy admins. I keep my chin up and my head back and am proud to be known on wikipedia as The Gigabyte Granny. Thank you for your understanding and support to everyone who's written me and offered their shoulder for me to cry on. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

My FAV Articles I've Written

National Primate Research Center - look forward to continuing to work on this soon ( fingers crossed! ;) )

the Ron & Don Show - love my two drive time guys ;)

Scott Noble - a notable pol who had no wikipedia entry - Gigabyte Granny to the rescue! ;)

Dorcus_tenuihirsutus - "you like BUGS, Gigabyte Granny?!" LOL, yes! I am a zoologist by training (didya know that?)

Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Discussion

Note: Sorry if this is mish-mash but I'm just absolutely shaking and crying right now for fear of what Golbrez may do to me IRL given his OL obsession with me. Even in his blocking note below he repeats the frequent names he's been calling me like "douche" and so forth. I'm at my wits end. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To All Whom May Read This:

Background: An admin who has stated his SO is the member of a fan club of an article I nominated for deletion issues an INDEFINITE BLOCK (even socks don't get that kind of block) against me within minutes of me making a RfC about him in response to, what I perceived to be, abusively following me from article to article.

This followed an attempt by him to get another admin to block me, a request that was denied when it became clear there were no grounds on which to do so. I am now permanently and forever banned from editing wikipedia. My crime? Making an edit to an article that the girlfriend of an admin didn't like, then filing a RfC against that admin when he tried to run me off wikipedia by filing daily, frivolous complaints about me.

This admin was seeking to send a message to me and has succeeded. "Don't cross me or my girlfriend or you'll regret it." I had the audacity to recommend an edit to a pet article and this prompted a campaign of harassment against me. I am at my wits end in the absolute vitriol to which I've been subjected, all I ever wanted to do was work on some of my favorite topics like taxonomy and food while I'm watching my grandkids. I never wanted to spend hours daily just fighting for my right to be on wikipedia. I've been targeted and threatened. I've had suicide hotline phone numbers posted on my userpage by supporters of the edit-position of User:Golbrez with the sinister suggestion I should call it and, then, when I complain about it I've essentially been told by Golbrez (see his comments below) to stop whining about it. User:Golbrez has lodged complaints directly to admins against me DAILY so he doesn't have to go through the formal process and notify me (knowing I could prove my innocence) in an attempt to exhaust me and chase me off. I am in tears at the kind of anguish and mud I've been pulled through by this admin, because of his girlfriends membership in the fan club of an article I nominated for deletion. PLEASE, PLEASE HELP ME.

Notabilitypatrol (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • --> Note - I will accept personal requests for clarifications of any item, via email. I simply don't have the hours that this person has every day to spend attacking me to defend myself. For that reason, I simply can't respond to every one of his points below because I have had to do so multiple times already just to manage to survive on wikipedia from day to day, and work on my favorite articles like C. Anne Wilson, National Primate Research Center, etc. Even though my wikilife has been made into a hell, I simply can't devote 4 hours each day defending myself against someone so determined to run me off. I appreciate that he can spend 4 hours each day compiling and selectively editing his "evidence" but I don't have that luxury. In short, if any part of my general replies below is not satisfactory, please contact me privately and I will happily provide detailed clarification. Thank you. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GOLBEZ RFC RETRIBUTION BLOCK BEGINS BELOW THIS LINE ---

I am blocking you for being a troll, disruptive editor, and massive attempts to game the system. Here is my evidence:

• Your name. You come on here as "NotabilityPatrol" and then immediately call Too Beautiful to Live non-notable,[1] and seem to have some form of agenda against the show.[2].

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol: Yes Golbez. Your statement is correct and I do not dispute it or apologize for my actions. I came on as "NotabilityPatrol" and called the article in question non-notable. This opinion, in the discussion that followed - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Too_Beautiful_to_Live - was echoed by User:OrangeMike, User:JamesBurns and User:207.102.78.164. Ultimately, the community decided it was notable, a decision I respected. People disagree on wikipedia. Disagreement and agreement is permitted. Blocking the people who disagreed with you, as you have just done to me, is not. I'm sorry you made the decision to do so. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing; you only like it when it benefits your agenda, and have no problem adding unsourced information if it is to insult someone you don't like. You harp later on about requiring sources, but had no problem adding sourceless 'rebuttals' to features of the show.[3] You made a BLP edit without sourcing,[4] and you blatantly misrepresented your position in edit summaries [5] and then by editing the article to fit this unsourced information in.[6] And again with unsourced criticisms here,[7] even though in other areas you add multiple, redundant citation-needed tags. You add graphic details to the murder of Mike Webb on an unrelated article, somehow perhaps linking Burbank's ascendancy to the spot to his being killed.[8] Having trivia in TBTL is bad, but having it in Ron & Don Show is good?[9] You found 'informal talk show' to be inaccurate and unsourced, so you replaced it with... the inaccurate and unsourced 'hot talk'.[10] You clearly have some agenda against Luke Burbank, or NPR in general.

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol: You have done a good job at selecting edits I made 'in progress' and using those to create the perception that what you are saying about me is true.

I added a section called "Controversies" to the article in question. This is a normal addition. Most radio shows, like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc. have such a section. This one did not and I added it; there is no axe to grind on my part - I have provided endless examples of how such a section is SOP for wikipedia. You took exception to it because your girlfriend is a member of the fan club of this show and the host of this radio show may have issued a call for his supporters to "PATROL" his wikipedia page, which is probably some gross violation that hasn't even been invented yet.

As the logs show, every statement I added I returned to add citations within minutes afterward (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Too_Beautiful_to_Live&oldid=272186702). It's my editing style and I will simply not apologize for it because it is not disruptive. You said I provided no citations. In fact, there were 22 citations in the sections to which you objected and to which newly registered users supporting your position - who were subsequently blocked as socks (User:MikFantastik, User:TBTLFan, etc.)- vandalized and resulted in the article being placed under protection by User:SoWhy. This is shown in the link I provided and begs the question: "Why did you say there were not citations when I have just shown there were 22?"

As regards your statement regarding "Hot Talk." This is an edit discussion, but, I'll indulge: there IS a wikipedia section called "Hot Talk" Talk_radio#Hot_talk, there is not one called "Informal Talk," but at the end of the day, these are edit disagreements that can discussed as normal human beings, not by permanent blocking.

• Creating new, unreasonable rules for edits. You created rules to get things deleted from articles, calling for deadlines,[11] and while not against any rules, it does betray a certain, for lack of a better term, douchiness. You don't give people a deadline. Wikipedia has no deadlines. You also created arcane new rules and structures for your AFD.[12]

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol:In each instance you cite I said "please" and noted what I was posting was "discussion guides." I'm sorry if you were offended but I will simply not apologize for providing a suggested framework for the discussion. This is normative in group facilitation processes'. As I've already said to you in multiple talks my requests for expeditious comment were requests that people comment in a reasonable time frame. They were not "deadlines" as I have no power to enforce a deadline. I am allowed to make suggestions as to how discussion be framed. If that offends you, I'm sorry. Please do not mischaracterize what I have said simply to exhaust me into giving up and leaving wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a contest. There are no winners or losers. Chasing me off doesn't mean you've "won." Your girlfriend may appreciate it but that should be secondary to your admin responsibilities.

• Sacrificing your article on AFD to get another one deleted. You created Ron & Don Show, then when it was brought up for AFD, you supported it, if only so that Too Beautiful to Live would also be deleted.[13] When, after many attempts, people made it clear to you that's not how AFD works, you withdrew your vote and changed to keep.[14] A clear case of attempting to game the system. When Ron & Don Show was nominated for an A7 speedy, you clearly retaliated by nominating TBTL for one,[15] even though notability was asserted (for both, I would say).
• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol:Incorrect. All I ever said was, that if R&D Show article was deleted then, reasonably the TBTL article should be deleted. The logs show this. Making a position statement by way of comparison is a permitted type of discussion. I will not apologize for it because juxtaposition is the way normal human talks. Permanent blocks because you disagreed with me is not. Thank you.

• Dishonesty in your direct communications. You have been very dishonest in your direct communications. Apart from the "death threat" mentioned below, you denied trying to get TBTL deleted, and claimed the only people who had tried to contact you were new users, and thus unworthy of a direct response or something.[16] In my second (I believe) comment to you, you are already harping about how this questioning isn't helpful and telling me to not speak to you again.[17] I was actually happy to abide by your unreasonable request at the time, as I didn't communicate with you for several days afterwards. And when we did, when I was trimming the TBTL article, we seemed to be communicating just fine.

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol:Again, something I have no intention of denying. I never denied "trying to get" TBTL deleted. I nominated it for deletion. I'm very open and forthcoming with that fact. One is permitted to nominate an article for deletion in wikipedia. The fact, as chronicled above, that 4 users out of the 12 who participated in the AfD discussion, supported me demonstrates this was not a frivolous nomination. It was one not upheld but that's why we have discussions. You don't go around banning people for making nominations you dislike. Once again, I will not apologize for this "transgression." The proper response to me was "I disagree with you," not "you are forever banned from coming to wikipedia."

• Dishonesty with regards to your identity. You claim to be a return user to Wikipedia after losing your password;[18][19]. When you're called out on things, you somehow transform into a 78-year-old widow who is new to Wikipedia and learning how it works.[20][21] At the same time, you went from a Mormon (who was a Jew) to an Episcopalian.[22] You made a single edit to aardvark, which didn't involve removing vandalism.[23] but ... [24] You curiously started leaving forum-like posts on articles, I would guess in some attempt to appear new and naive on Wikipedia.[25][26] Alone these would be nothing; combined it's a clear attempt to 'reinvent' who you are to try to find sympathy.

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol:Nothing personal, but, at this point you are the last person I'm going to get into details of my IRL identity with. There is no good cause to ban me because I refuse to disclose personal details about my life to you. I had a user profile that I largely edited to remove large amounts of personal data and you, apparently, take offense to that. I never made any "transformation", I simply changed the information I was choosing to disclose after I had come under personal atack. That is permitted. I never "reinvented" myself. I never changed gender, I never changed age, the logs show that. I'm not going to get into the complexities of my religious beliefs with you because that is a private matter and I wish to keep it that way, particularly in light of a review of your own interaction with editors - as evidenced on your Talk page among other places - that shows you have a possibly abusive interest in users religion and ethnicity. Blocking me for adjusting my userpage to restrict my personal data is highly abusive, in my opinion. Thank you.

• The death threat nonsense. A user made this edit to your page,[27] which was way out of bounds and I told them such. However, it was not a death threat. You cannot then later refuse to give a link to this 'death threat' while still harping on about it. You have done this multiple times. You are trying to garner false sympathy. The funny thing is, in your first response to it, you didn't even note the suicide help line.[28] You then later say it was a threat of violence,[[29], and then start calling it a death threat:[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] (<- you claim in that one it's too horrible an experience for you to delve back in to, but...) [39] (<- and in this one you attempt to tie me to it)

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol: This message was left on my userpage: [40]. I considered it a death threat. The user was admonished for doing so. Frankly, that's all you need to know: end of story. If you consider it something else that's your right, but don't ban me because you disagree with my characterization of a personal attack made against me. Thank you.

• Calling for retribution on those who disagree with you, opening a sockpuppet investigation without any evidence other than "they all disagre with me",[41], suggesting that people who disagree with your AFD vote be blocked for a week.[42] And accusing everyone in the AFD of being the same person.[43]

• Documented Reply from User:Notabilitypatrol: Golbez, I have been tempered in my response to you up until now but what you have just said is a bald-faced lie. The reason for my sock investigation was not "because they disagree with me" as you have conveniently mischaracterized to support your campaign against me. The reason was (and is stated on the link you provided):

1. only made 5 contributions - all to the disputed article or discussions about the disputed article occurring on its discussion page, user talk pages or in discussions on the talk pages of other articles that touch on the disputed article 2. despite the fact he is a 2 day old user has demonstrated a very evolved and complex understanding of wikipedia policies and procedures that are would be extremely atypical of a new editor a. 1st contribution ever to wikipedia: The issue doesn't seem to be if these events you described happened, you've clearly proven that they have. The issue seems to be if they are in fact controversial, or if you are giving undue weight to them. I was unable to find any reliable sources that bother to mention these events or any controversy around them. In all your examples for persons with controversy sections, they all have at least one third-party citation saying it is controversial. b. 2nd contribution ever to wikipedia: Wikipedia already has an article on objective standards for determining notability. To create a new system would be superfluous. We are discussing if the article "Ron & Don Show" meets notability using Wikipeida guidelines, not your own system. 3. has taken a subtly sarcastic, passive-aggressive tone in his small number of contributions from his initial contribution (less than 24 hours ago) that would lead a reasonable person to believe he was "not new" to these discussions 4. has replied to questions and concerns regarding vandalism, in an extremely quick way, that were left on User:Lew19 talk page even though User:Lew19 himself has refused and not replied to any attempt at contacting him regarding his liberal use of "undo" without discussion (for which he was warned by an admin) 5. Stated in his Talk page: I never made the decision to resolve any discussion. The issue was brought up in August of 2008 if Too Beautiful to Live was notabile enough to warrant an article of its own. At that time in the discussion, editors agreed that there was sufficient sources to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. A 2-day old account referencing a 6-month old discussion? There's no other explanation other than this is a sock. (Obviously he didn't have to be registered at the time to simply "observe" the discussion but, taken in tandem with the great body of additional evidence presented, makes this idea stunningly incredible.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC) ---

Does this exhaustive explanation anywhere say my sock inquiry was ""because they disagree with me"? PLEASE, once again, stop spreading these lies. I am absolutely at my wits end about how to deal with this. You've absolutely succeeded in bringing me to tears and making me feel like garbage. At this point I am willing to succumb to your demands. If there are edits you would like to demand I don't make and articles you feel ownership over you want me to avoid I'll do it. But, please, don't seek to personally destroy and humiliate me just because you disagree with my position on an article.

Finally, this is after sock investigations to similar profile users were initiated by other editors and were upheld User:MikFantastik. There was clearly precedent of justification that would cause me concern about continued socking and I will not apologize for requesting a sock investigation.

At this point I don't have time to continue to respond point-by-point to the rest of your mischaracterizations about me and selective citations. I spend virtually all my time on wikiepdia defending myself against you. I don't have the same amount of time as you to do this. A reasonable admin will see that everything to this point has been part of a generalized effort at mischaracterization and make a logical conclusion about the rest. IF IT IS NECESSARY for me to also counter-cite you on the below I will do so, but I'm PLEADING with admin at this point for some kind of relief from this abuse. This situation has become completely out of control and I am shocked and in a state of disbelief this individual is allowed admin privileges.

• Incivility and failure to assume good faith. You refer to Nathalmad as a sock without any evidence or official ruling, multiple times. [44][45][46]. Templating the regulars: [47][48][49]. Calling people the "King of Wikipedia" for disagreeing with you: [50][51][52] Accusing me of wikistalking, and the 'shock and disbelief' it can cause: [53] (And I was accused of cyberstalking because I ... told you to add talk page messages to the bottom of the page!) [54][55][56][57][58] (At a certain point, you simply have to bring charges on RFAR or give up)

Note to Admins: Please note my previous, fully documented, cases of this admin using selective citations to support outrageous claims and consider whether or not these are really true no the basis of the references he's providing. Please see my previous statement regarding the fact I've had to DAILY devote hours to defending myself from getting blocked by this user and I just don't have the time anymore to, once again, spend hours searching up the relevant source citations that would defend me. I am happy to reply by email to specific requests for clarification but I'm going to have to accept that Golbrez can shout me down. I will hope you will consider the above mischaracterizations as indicative of this admins M.O. and either, personally ask me for a clarification of any item you have a problem with or discount it. I'm really at my wits end; I don't know what I ever did - except disagree with this admin - to warrant the kind of treatment he's subjected me to here. I am just trying to make some edits and add to some articles while I'm at work or watching my grandkids, I can't spend hours upon hours battling for my right to stay at wikipedia by sludging through mounds of old posts. I've lodged wikiquette complaints, RfC notes, etc. and all it's brought me is more ire from this admin. PLEASE HELP ME. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, what I consider to be the worst offense: Forging comments.[59][60] You claim it was a copy and paste error; the rest of us laugh at that. You created barnstars praising you for fighting vandalism on the articles you're fighting over, and ... sign them as from the people with whom you're fighting? You should have been blocked right there.

note to admins - "the rest of us laugh at that" = this editor and his associate in trying to run off and "protect" the pet page in question, Abriloxos, who has been joining him in following me from page to page /// My explanation has been upheld by impartial editors (User:Edit Centric), of which he is not one. I feel bad because poor User:Edit Centric was kind enough to try to help me and was subjected to the ire of these thugs himself just for trying to come to my rescue. Since this is yet another documented mischaracterizatino one must be wondering at this point what Golbrez is hiding? Notabilitypatrol (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you had constructive edits? Yes, you created Dori Monson which, after some trimming, might be a good article. You've made a few others. But these are outweighed by your disruptive editing, baseless accusations, and willful gaming of the system. This stops now. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been following me from article to article (DOCUMENTED AND LOGGED), filing daily complaints against me which I have had to endlessly defend myself against in an obvious and thinly veiled attempt to throw enough against the wall that eventually something will "STICK." Now, because that tactic hasn't worked you're simply blocking me with no evidence and no excuse because (1) your SO is the member of the fan club of a radio show whose article I nominated for deletion because I legitimately felt it merited discussion, (2) I filed a RfC involving you and you are seeking retribution to let others know that if they cross you they will pay. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dorcus tenuihirsutus

I have nominated Dorcus tenuihirsutus, 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/Dorcus tenuihirsutus. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chillum 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case since you are blocked I can put a link from the MfD to an area here if you wish to make arguments. Chillum 03:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Chillum! Because I'm blocked I can't participate in the AfD discussion as much as I'd like. This insect has been covered in a Spanish-language journal which is why it may have not showed up in a Google search. I don't know what the correct format for citing foreign language media is, however. I'm sorry, I'm just not as good on all the technical aspects of wikipedia yet, but I'm trying to learn as fast as I can. Anyway, you seem like a reasonable person so I'll just cross my fingers and hope you give my article a fair treatment since it's beyond my hands now due to the block that has been placed on me by Golbrez for, in his words (as noted in his comments above), being "a douche" [sic]. Thank you again for the FYI on the AfD. Respectfully -- Notabilitypatrol (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requests

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).

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

---

Request reason:

please help me, a personal vendetta is being carried out against me by an out-of-control admin - even in his block complaint he calls me names like "douche", etc., as noted above - please read the complaint thoroughly before passing judgment and email me with requests for clarification

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. I'm not going to read that whole mess up there. Please explain, totally within an unblock request and limited to 3-10 sentences, why you feel you should be unblocked. I understand this may feel like an onerous requirement, but I want to hear your side of the story as neutrally and briefly as you can present it. If, from that request alone I feel that there are sufficient grounds to investigate this block, I will read the rest of this page and review other information. If not, I will decline the unblock. I suspect that most other admins will do pretty much the same. Also note that unverified claims of bad faith on the part of the blocking admin are not persuasive reasons to unblock you. Read the guide to appealing blocks and provide evidence in the form of diffs where possible. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 3 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

please help me, a personal vendetta is being carried out against me by an out-of-control admin

Decline reason:

The entire diatribe above this unblock request is a long rambling personal attack against a respected admin, and only seems to confirm the reason for his block of you. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 3 March 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I have recently been indefinitely IP blocked by an admin, Golbez, immediately following my filing of a RfC regarding him. The RfC was regarding, what I perceived to be, wikistalking, to wit: he and one other user have followed me from article to article, accusing me of being disruptive for disagreeing with them and filing almost daily complaints against me. In each case these complaints have never been upheld but their clear goal is to simply throw enough against the wall that something will stick. He apparently got tired of that and just placed an indefinite block against me. He and I had an editing disagreement over the article Too Beautiful to Live, a radio show which his girlfriend is a member of the fan club for and for which he took offense to my nomination of the article for deletion. I have responded to his specific accusations on my Talk page, but, unfortunately, this is part of a long story I have had to retype and recite almost daily for the last week in response to the many, many frivolous and unsubstantiated complaints to which I've been subjected by him and another user. Each time he files a complaint that is dismissed he provides selective references to the logs of that complaint that require me to, in turn, dredge through pages of information to find the explanatory files that ultimately exonerate me. I would be happy to do so again as I have had to in the past but, at this point, all of my time on wikipedia is simply spent defending myself against daily harassment so I would like to make sure someone is reading this before I have to go through all this yet again. I am sorry for directing this to you but Golbez has made sure I am unable to file a normal request for mediation due to his permanent block that he placed moments after my RfC. If you wouldn't mind reviewing my Talk page and, if you find there is some indication that would warrant greater examination or explanation I will be happy to provide a citation-by-citation, cross-referenced and point-by-point history of what I have had to go through with this admin that, I believe, will exonerate me in face of his increasingly aggressive accusations and extremely selective citations he's using against me. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Decline reason:

I'm going to bring this up at AN, as there's a bit too much here for one person to review on their own. However, I would note that Golbez does appear to have some very good points, and at the very least your username violates our username policy as it implies you have some position of authority here or that your account is controlled by more than one person. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 2 March 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.

I'm not going to decline this request offhand, but I don't advise others to grant it out of hand, either; there's certainly something fishy about the editing habits of this user.  Sandstein  21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My review is that I don't want to lift the block. I also think a case like this needs thorough review so I will also not decline it despite my instinct to do so. If some admin thinks the indefinite block is excessive then I suggest that some length block is appropriate. Chillum 02:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to twist everything about it so I suggest the Indef be kept.  rdunnPLIB  10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo eadm.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo eadm.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)