User talk:LaPiedraInglesa
|
established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely. |
Welcome!
Hello, LaPiedraInglesa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Britton LaRoche[edit]
Howdy BrittonLaRoche. How many times are you going to create new accounts to get re-blocked? IrishGuy talk 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ¿Te conozco? ¿Quién es este rey de la marioneta de calcetines? --LaPiedraInglesa 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BrittonLaRoche. I think that sums it up. IrishGuy talk 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- How interesting, so many people with similiar names! --LaPiedraInglesa 13:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
¡aye caramba! ¿Estás loco? Ip addresses often rotate among people at an ISP, so who got blocked and why? Similiar names and similiar IP addresses are not uncommon.--205.XXX.160.209 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay guys, enough fun for now eh? --65.69.XXX.245 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
¿cuál es este "nosense" en mi página del usuario? --LaPiedraInglesa 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- as you wish, just trying to help --205.XXX.160.209 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously just sitting here talking to yourself by logging in and out? Both of those IPs are yours. CheckUser confirmed this fact. IrishGuy talk 19:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- He takes the bait, now on with the show!
- Chill hombre. --65.69.XXX.245 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC), want some poprcorn while you enjoy the show? --205.XXX.160.209 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Its in the edit history should anyone need to see it. So, does that answer your question, IrishGuy talk ?
Updated to remove actual IP addresses. I don't wan't it directly linkable. --LaPiedraInglesa 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Block and Ban Newbies, Whats the Deal?[edit]
I tried to reply on English Stone's page, but I could not, nor could I post to User:FelsenVonEngland's accusation of being a Sockpuppet (internet). His only crime is linking my artwork to articles.
Side Note: I just spoke to him User:FelsenVonEngland this morning, he is not coming back. I guess this gives new meaning to the term meat puppet, he did not survive the mauling he received. Too bad, he would have contributed a lot to the medical articles. I'm just as much to blame for his departure as anyone. I helped set up his account and asked him to post my pics, and I was pretty sure something like this would happen.
Contributions[edit]
My main account User:BrittonLaRoche was blocked, and my talk page too. User_talk:BrittonLaRoche So how was I supposed to request to be unblocked? I had to create a sock puppet to do anything, while I did, I contributed, I created the following article: finfolk
|
|
- Over 20 works of art released to public domain, sketches made specifically for the articles I'm working on.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sword.jpg){kind=link}
One Month of warm welcomes for a Newbie[edit]
All of these contributions were made since I singed up in June 2006. I have not vandalized anyone's pages or ripped anything out, I'm just trying to learn and contribute. I asked that my main account be unblocked and it was denied so I had someone else link my artwork to the relevant pages. How am I supposed to contribute? Or make a case for unblocking my account when I can't even post?
Do you think Jimbo Wales wants this? Do you think he wants all of a newbies contributions deleted (less than 5 days) and the account blocked in less than a month? Is this the norm? All I have done is contribute, nothing more. I did not delete anything other than some of my own comments. Yes, I rant a bit on my user pages, and yes I challenge people who abuse the system.
Blocked As a Sock[edit]
As far as I can tell I did not violate any policies in creating a sock puppet. I really have no other choice, if I wish to communicate. I can no longer edit my user BrittonLaRoche or talk pages BrittonLaRoche, they have been blocked indefinitely. I did not do it to create a false consensus, to vandelize or harass anyone, rather I went on my merry way contributing on other topics.
- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
- You were blocked by xxxxx for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
- Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "EnglishStone". The reason given for EnglishStone's block is: "sock account".
- Your IP address is 65.69.xxx.245.
So, I created a sock, I had no other alternative. I stated plainly that I intended to contribute. I had no way to request an unblock, but to create a sock puppet, since both my own user page and talk page were blocked. I've kept to my interest and my field of contribution, English history, Legend and Folklore. Whats wrong with that? I have done nothing that is a policy violation (that I know of) except give guff back to one particular individual, who is exceptionally rude to new comers. I did not use sock puppets to vote or give a false consensus. I even put on a couple of puppet shows for amusement on this very page.
- Small Snippet from a user talk page:
- Its on the list now. I've never dealt with WP:SSP before, so I may not be of much help. It wasn't clear what the violation of the sock puppet policy was on first reading. Has he attempted to create a false consensus somewhere?
- How are things with you? --best, kevin kzollman talk 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good Question Kevin. What was the violation? And why an indefinate block? "Self admitted Troll" I never called my self a troll, I did rant on my user page. Thats it, and its no reason for any block of the main account or the necessary sock puppet accounts.
Please Unblock[edit]
My main account is BrittonLaRoche
I've been here for about a month now and contributed a ton. Inspite of being blocked, I've been trying to contribute. My last attempt was to have help linking artwork to articles. Now my friend is in trouble. How am I supposed to contribute to wikipedia?
:I did not even know what a Sockpuppet (internet) was until my second account was blocked, I responded by contributing a bunch of nice artwork to compliment the Sockpuppet (internet) article. Why am I blocked? I've asked twice to remove the block and been turned down. (By more than one admin) Last time I asked my user_talk:EnglishStone user talk for that account was shut off too. So here I am with a second sock account making yet another plea. I am trying to contribute, not destroy anything, or waste time.
Some Sort of Whacked out Conspiracy?[edit]
I'm not paranoid or anything, but... Is there really an organized effort to block new comers and keep them off of wiki-pedia? We have a real problem at wiki-pedia, the new contributers are easy targets, and its all too fun to bite them and block their efforts to contribute. I don't care anymore about contributing articles. I want to contribute something more, a better wiki-pedia. We have an organized effort by a hand full of individuals to attack and drive away new contributers and delete their contributions. It becomes difficult to determine who is editing, and who is destroying content as a new form of vandal. The link above is just one example. I've made the posts at the village pump, and on my user page before I was blocked. I'm here to try and change things for the better. I have not figured out exactly how to determine who the wolves are, and measure how much damage they cause, but in time I will.
The Five.. CRASH! THUMP! Three, Three Pillars of Wiki-Pedia[edit]
We have The five pillars of Wikipedia lets not forget the last two. Code of conduct Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules I am only doing as instructed. And so are the other newbies... It is supposed to be a process of inclusion. Not a wolf pack of destruction.
The case against[edit]
Do you really need someone to outline your behavior for you?
Britton LaRoche has admitted [2] that the bulk of his edits are designed to publicize the pet project of Celtic toe.
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe, Britton LaRoche made claims that people who voted delete were vandals and asked for those who voted for deletion should have their editing privileges revoked. Later, of course, those inflamatory comments were removed leaving the reponses which made it appear that Britton LaRoche was being attacked without provocation [3].
With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Toe Ring, the user created some graphics that Matticus78 believed may have been copyright violations. Britton LaRoche went on to make graphics that stated slander and libel [4] against Matticus78.
Matticus78 apologized both on Britton LaRoche talk page [5] and publicly on the AfD page. Britton LaRoche continued to refuse to remove the graphics and instead went further and asked another editor to have Matticus78 blocked for questioning the validity of the graphics [6].
Britton LaRoche attempted to goad me on my talk page by questioning my hetitage as well as my intelligence [7].
I was further attacked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Jackson when Britton LaRoche claimed that I was clearly upset over personal issues [8].
Britton LaRoche also claimed that I was at the head of some cabal dedicated to biting newcomers and insinuated that I would soon be under investigation for my edit history. Which, of course, I noted that anyone could peruse and find out for him/herself that none of those claims hold any validity at all.
In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Jackson user Britton LaRoche went further and accused another editor, Tapir Terrific, of being in a cabal with me. When confronted to look through our respective edit histories to prove that we had never communicated, the paranoia continued with Britton LaRoche claiming that I was IMing people and emailing them. All, of course, with no evidence or concrete reason for such suspicion. [9]
In the same AfD, Britton LaRoche accused Alun of being a sockpuppet of me simply because I defended him when Britton attacked and insulted him [10].
When confronted by other editors about this behavior, Britton LaRoche went on to say "I am accusing IrishGuy. I suggest the rest of you duck low. Irish guy since you are nothing more than a tiny mined wiper of other peoples bottoms, I fart in your genral direction and taunt you a second time. I suggest you go away and vent your frustrations else where. Obviously you have no power and are of no consequence what so ever. How's that? I've been picking a fight, wanting to take this to arbitration. I hope the rest of you can see this and stay away. Oh, I'd like to add more. I think he is a vandal and a leader of a malicious pack to run off new contributers. Bring it on you wimp. I'm calling you out IrishGuy its high noon and I'm counting to three.... one ... two..." [11].
After that, he pushed it further by saying "I'm drawing the arbitration line in the sand, placing aribtration chip on my shoulder, and daring... no I double dare IrishGuy to knock it off by filing it himself. I'll sweeten the pot. Should you decide to file for arbitration then I ask you agree to this term: the loser of the arbitration will pack his bags and leave wiki-pedia forever. I think it fair to warn you, IrishGuy, I've brought my bag of garlic, a wooden crucifix, holy water and a silver bullets melted down from saint medalions and a small silver crucfix (worn about the neck) I may be mixing myths but hey, vampire orwarewolf whatever type of newbie biter you are, you are going down. If you are the chicken warewolf I think you are ( who else would bite defenseless newbies? ) you won't do it. If you don't do it please take your "chicken warewolf" label, place it on your forehead and go vent somewhere else. Wiki-pedia is better off with out the newbie biters. All one has to do is vanquish the head warewolf, vampire or whatever and nomral people (especially newbies) become civil and will be the happy place its meant to be. Naturally I'm suffering from the bite of the warewolf, I'm foaming at the mouth and biting everyone... but I'm going after the one that bit me." [12].
When again confronted about possible copyright infringements with graphics, he labeled one of the graphics "Remember if you lack tallent you can always delete contributions that show it" [13].
After ostensibly deciding to leave Wikipedia, he posted a screed on his talk page attacking me and made more remarks about some grand cabal to harass him [14].
Having had one of his graphics removed, he stated that his new aim was to go around Wikipedia and delete other graphics "and do the same thing thats been done to me" [15] ...which is a clear violation of WP:POINT.
Frankly, I think this pretty much sums up the kind of behavior seen from you. You claim to just be a newbie who wants to contribute, but you have knowledge of procedures and policies which you don't hesistate to call others one while blatantly violating them yourself.
You have repeatedly created new sockpuppets to evade being blocked. This violates Wikipolicy. The block isn't just for an account, but for the person. You as an individual were blocked for your behavior. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that you continue to violate policy by creating new sockpuppet accounts to continue trying to bait others. IrishGuy talk 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The Case Against the Case Against[edit]
I must appologize for what may appear as a personal attack, but what can I do? Every where I turn this guy and his cohorts delete my articles, block me from editing and attack my contributions. I can count these people on one hand. Whats up with this?
- 1. Name a single article I've submitted that you have not edited. Never mind not deleted.
- 2. Why do you keep such meticluous notes, on my activities?
- 3. Do you communicate with other's concerning my contributions?
- 4. All of the things I said were on articles I created from scratch or my own user page. Yes I rant, guilty as charged. I don't delete content.
- 5. How many articles have you submitted for AFD? In say the past 30 days? How many of those were from newbies?
- 5. a. I should say AfD not actual deletions.
- 6. Honestly would you like me to leave wiki-pedia?
- 7. How many newbies have left wikipedia, never to return after a few of your edits / AFDs?
I think its pretty clear you've gone out of your way to harrass me since day one. Looking at you user page (vandalized over 44 times) you've been less than nice to other's too. You are a giving too many people a bad impression of wikipedia. I'm doing what I can to make this a better place.
- To answer your questions...
- 1. I put a merge tag on Finfolkaheem as per your request. I added categories to Finfolk. How are these negative edits? The other articles were delted via AfD which means they were up for discussion (even peer review as per your request) and found wanting, hence their deletion.
- 2. The notes were kept because you went out of your way to threaten arbitration on numerous occasions. I figured it would be best to have all the proverbial ducks in a row.
- 3. No. The only communications are right there on my talk page (archive 4) and you can see that others came to me for discussion, not vice versa. I didn't tag your newest sockpuppet. Someone else did.
- 4. You did delete content. You deleted attack messages that you made on an AfD but kept what others said in response thereby making it look as though people were being rude to you without provocation...which was completely innaccurate. Also, removing comments from AfDs is frowned upon, even your own comments.
- 5. In the past 30 days? About six. Soloman Keal, Cru Jones, Girl Choir Of South Florida, Celtic Toe Ring, Celtic toe, and Phyllis Jackson. The first two were vanity articles, the next two were non-notable, and the last two were deemed hoax/non-notable.
- Your figures are off by quite a bit. I should be more specific, AFDs and delete votes. --LaPiedraInglesa 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- 6. I would like for you to abide by the policies of Wikipedia. Right now you have been indefinitely blocked. I would like you to abide by that ruling and stop creating sockpuppets. If your block is lifted at some point, I would like you to stop spamming your art into articles. This is Wikipedia, not The Britton LaRoche Experience. Build a website to showcase your computer art if that is what you would like to do.
- As for vandalism on my user page, look over the edits of my user page and you will see where the vandalism comes from. The are all from vandals whose edits I reverted. Edits like this [16]. That isn't me being mean to newbies. That is me protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. I also disagree with your assessment of your actions. I don't believe trying to get others blocked, insulting people, and spamming articles with artwork which are possible copyright violations is making Wikipedia a better place. IrishGuy talk 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- How is contributing artwork spamming? I submited 5 articles and contributed content to another 4-10. 4 of the 5 articles I submitted were deleted. Its not the "Britton LaRoche" experience its the "IrishGuy obliteration experience." I've been here for a month, and you've deleted line for line more of my contributions than you have made the entire time you have been here.
- I for one, don't wan't you to leave. On the contrary. I'd like you to submit 5 articles in the next 30 days... under a new account, and not the simple two liner biographies, or radio and books, but something your are genuinely interested in thats unique to you, not shared by others. Minimum 500 words. This means no sports, movies or bios of famous people, music groups etc... that is widely accepted by the masses. Medicine, technology history, space, sciene, philosophy the works all wide open.
- I'd like you to show us these contributions after 30 days (no one should know your account or your articles) It will be a good learning experience for you.
- How is contributing artwork spamming? I submited 5 articles and contributed content to another 4-10. 4 of the 5 articles I submitted were deleted. Its not the "Britton LaRoche" experience its the "IrishGuy obliteration experience." I've been here for a month, and you've deleted line for line more of my contributions than you have made the entire time you have been here.
- This isn't a game. I'm not going to violate policy and create multiple accounts. You submitted five articles, I have submitted nine. How have you had more deleted than I have created? Contributing artwork is spamming because that is all that you are doing. You aren't contributing content but instead are simply putting art into articles...and the art even has your name plastered over it to publicize yourself. IrishGuy talk 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- You said one thing I agree with on another users talk page I have been teaching you a lot wiki-pedia policies. How long have you been here? You should know that Jimbo Wales encourages you to do what I just suggested. Creating a sock puppet is not a violation of wiki-pedia policy. If I'm really going to file for arbitration I'd probably be gathing stats on your activities, delete votes, AFD's and complaints by other new comers, you should really know what is and what is not a policy violation. --LaPiedraInglesa 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a game. I'm not going to violate policy and create multiple accounts. You submitted five articles, I have submitted nine. How have you had more deleted than I have created? Contributing artwork is spamming because that is all that you are doing. You aren't contributing content but instead are simply putting art into articles...and the art even has your name plastered over it to publicize yourself. IrishGuy talk 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Depends upon your reason and action in doing so. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. You have clearly done so to circumvent a block and have even claimed to have asked friends to create accounts to continue your edits for you. Both of those are extreme violations of policy.
- I see no need for me to create another identity and write some articles simply for your benefit. Yes, your actions have been instructive about learning to implement policy. I had never used checkuser before and now I know how. I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back about that, though. IrishGuy talk 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. The point is Jimbo suggests learning how th enewbie feels by creating a new account. I have not created a user account for support... only for contribution, no rule against that at all. Also there is no rule for ranting on your own user page, so the block should not be indefinite if there is a block at all. Creating another account to contribute and protest the block is acceptable if you can't even edit your own talk page. None the less you obviously did not know the rules or policies, pretty shabby for someone who has been here since last summer. I timed your response. You had to go look it up. Anyways what your doing is wrong on a number of points. If you were smart you'd not make so many posts here. Look at the rest of the crew, they are not posting here... ( ok this is bait number 3, for the rest of you who hang with Irish guy, don't take it )
- There most assuredly is a rule about creating a new account as you have done: ...or to circumvent a block. As for the newbie experience, I was one once. I didn't come to Wikipedia knowing all the ropes. And, yes, WP:ATTACK covers user pages as well. No, you cannot create a new identity to protest the blocking of another one. Timing a response obviously means I was forced to look something up...it couldn't possibly mean that I was busy doing other things. Geesh. IrishGuy talk 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to questions[edit]
I know these were intended for IrishGuy, but I'd like to answer them as well.
1) Name a single article I've submitted that you have not edited. Never mind not deleted.
- I did a bit of editing on Finfolk to make the format conform to wiki-conventions, tighten up the language, etc. I thought my edits were constructive and helped to make an already solid article better. I can't remember if I've edited any of your other articles.
2) Why do you keep such meticluous notes, on my activities?
- Not really relevant to me, since I'm not the one who kept notes, but I have kept records of other editors in the past. Given that you threatened to take the matter to arbitration, I can't imagine that IrishGuy wouldn't keep notes.
3) Do you communicate with other's concerning my contributions?
- I am not aware of any communication about you between other editors that is not readily available to you. A suggestion was made by one editor that interested parties communicate off Wikipedia[17], but no such action was taken, and I responded that such activity did not suit me.[18]
4) All of the things I said were on articles I created from scratch or my own user page. Yes I rant, guilty as charged. I don't delete content.
- As IrishGuy pointed out, you did delete content, and your rants, no matter where they were, contained numerous statements that violated Wikipedia policies, as well as a total lack of understanding about why anyone might have a problem with your behavior.
5) How many articles have you submitted for AFD? In say the past 30 days? How many of those were from newbies?
- I have nominated a number of articles for deletion. The first was one of yours, Kate Robson Brown: the reasons I nominated were outlined quite clearly and in detail[19], and other editors voted unanimously to delete it. After that, I nominated Gurn Ball[20], Paul zilberman[21], the Mew Mew Alliance[22], Kabobeesh[23], Eric Wendel[24], Meridian Larp[25], and a few articles on which I placed a speedy delete tag. I also had a hand in nominating Francine gravel and Nicholas Bott when I pointed out that those articles fit under an AfD debate already in progress[26]. So far, all my nominations to delete have gone through. As for how many of those articles were created by newbies, I couldn't tell you. I'm not out to bite newcomers, nor am I out to coddle them by letting sloppy articles about non-notable subjects accumulate. If you think that's mean, I don't really know what to tell you.
6) Honestly would you like me to leave wiki-pedia?
- If you stay, I hope that you'll decide to change your behavior.
7) How many newbies have left wikipedia, never to return after a few of your edits / AFDs?
- I don't know. I will, however, refer you to an incident that occurred last week. After you posted an essay about not biting the newbies on WP:BITE, I decided to watch the page to see if anyone responded. One day, looking through my watchlist, I noticed that a newbie had written about a bad experience she'd had.[27] I left a note on her talk page[28], and in response, she wrote me a very sweet thank-you.[29] I notice that she hasn't edited anymore since then, at least not under the same name, but if she has left, which would be unfortunate, I hope that at least I helped make her feel that her time here wasn't wasted.
In terms of my userpage being vandalized, IrishGuy has been hit about twice as many times as I have, and you, Britton, are really off-base with your analysis. Why do you think people post their vandalism counts? It's a freakin' badge of honor. It means you've been doing a good job reverting vandalism. Look at some of the contributions of people who have vandalized my page. How about the contributions credited to this IP?[30] How about this one?[31] How about Samir (The Pope)'s little gem?[32] The people around here, aside from you, who are ticked off at me basically boil down to:
- kids who think "seth's mom smells!!!!!1!!!" or "Jason harris is a FAGGIT he sukced mr smiths fat boner" is encyclopedic material
- a raging Hitler Youth who gets angry when people revert his edits about the dirty Jews getting what they deserve
and I'm really not losing sleep over pissing off bored teenagers and neo-Nazis.
So, those are my unsolicited answers to your questions.
Be well, all, and if anyone wants to respond, I won't be computer-bound for a while, so I may not answer in a timely fashion. - Tapir Terrific 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::You are not a bad person, and you do not make vicious remarks on other peoples material. Vandalism of your user page is nothing to be proud of. Nothing to be ashamed of either, unless its abnormally high. But you are learning bad etiquite from IrishGuy and you are part of the pack of maulers. Still, there is hope for you.
P.S. I liked the edits you and Irish guy made on Finfolk. It was much better than the AFDs. My only point is that Irish Guy has touched everything I submitted. Just kind of shows how he is following my activities.
- You have been indefinitely blocked. Two other sockpuppets you have created to avoid the block have been caught and, in turn, indefinitely blocked. Of course I pay attention when you return. You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter that now you claim just want to add to the encyclopedia. You are blocked. You don't get to create new identities to keep editing. IrishGuy talk 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Meatpuppet is Dead[edit]
Well my meat puppet quit. Anyone wan't to link the meat puppet image to the sock puppet article?