User talk:Dangerous-Boy

Archives
February 2005 – March 2006 March 2006 - June 2006 July 2006 - November 2006 November 2006 - January 2007 January 2007 - March 2007 March 2007 - July 2007

Leave a message

Your userpage

In light of basic principles of civility and in particular the admonition to all parties contained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2#On notice, I have removed some highly inappropriate comments that you had added to your userpage. Please do not repost this material or do anything like this ever again in the future. Newyorkbrad 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

I see that despite my request, you have again re-posted offensive material mocking your adversaries in the recently concluded arbitration case. I have again removed this material. This type of conduct will not be tolerated from any user involved in that arbitration. If you do anything like this again, I will block this account indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous-Boy, I ask you to also stop posting your veiled attacks at Rama's Arrow. The case is over now, so just drop the issue and proceed with your Wikipedia editing. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Once again you have placed inflammatory material on your userpage, in violation of the Arbitration Committee's well-earned admonition in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 that all the parties to that case should refrain from harassing one another. The edit summary you used in posting this material, "[name of user] do you see me?", makes it clear that you posted this material for the express purpose of harassing and trolling that user.

In view of the ArbCom ruling, your history of incivility throughout the case, and the prior warnings on this page, I am blocking your account indefinitely. Please note that in this context, "indefinitely" does not mean "permanently," and I will lift the block if you clearly and unambiguously promise to stop this type of behavior. However, you also need to understand that if your plans for the future consist of mocking your adversaries in the arbitration case rather than contributing to the encyclopedia, your participation will not be welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous-Boy, ignoring these requests and warnings proved unwise. It would make sense to appear here and agree to desist from the disputed behavior. This would greatly aid others who are right now making the case to unblock you (see WP:ANI#Indefinite block of Dangerous-Boy)Proabivouac 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm...This does seem to pose a problem here. With your persecution of my userpage, I did what you said. I kept the Roman stuff off my userpage. I don't know how Shakespeare has anything to do with the ArbCom. It has nothing to do with anything. I was looking for a cool quote from wikiquote. That looked cool. So I put it on my user page. Kindly put it back. There's no reference to RA and Dagizza in it.

Also, Dagizza was stalking my edits as shown here and I wanted it to stop: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This where he is mocking me on my talk page [7]. Also, his admission of guilt of having stalked other users in the arbcom [8].

ArbCom ruled on "Lack of evidence" and I haven't been blocked before. Keep in mind that I never vandalized any pages or articles or used sock or meat puppets. ArbCom ruling did not mention anything about blocks. Nothing in enforcement. NYB seems to have a twisted view of the rulings. Use sticks and not your block buttons. NYB seems to have created the "ruling" unilaterally, nowhere does it mention anything about blocks. That the Shakespearean quote was not related to anything. I can't put anything Roman because you accuse me of using metaphors for an Arbcom. So kindly unblock me and leave me alone. Jesus christ....9_9....this is death of the republic. A man can't even take a break in peace or edit his userpage.--D-Boy 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were simply adding a cool quote and nothing more, why did you put "dagizza do u see me?" as the edit summary? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Because he's been stalking my edits and I wanted him to leave me alone. The Shakespearean quote had nothing to do with anything. There's no allusions to past events, people, or arbs. it's just a quote. No more, nothing less. There was no offensive material on my userpage. No policy was broken as stated Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. How a shakespearan quote is offensive is beyond my knowledge evidently. Also WP:Stalk is apart WP:Policy. How does that also go against Inappropriate content? I was just stating policy on my user space. There was no expression of my disdain for Brad's input as he puts it. There was no malice to him or anyone on my userpage. It's bordering on harrassment when there's no offensive content on the userpage and i'm getting blocked for it. Just tell brad to leave me alone.--D-Boy 09:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. How is leaving a comment directly aimed at a user who you accuse of stalking your edits likely to get him to leave you alone? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, sometimes people make impulsive actions that, in hindsight, probably didn't have the effect they were hoping for... ugen64 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

it's stated above.

Decline reason:

Please concisely summarize your reason for unblocking in a separate section or within the {{unblock}} template. — -- John Reaves (talk) 23:07, 17 July 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.

--D-Boy 10:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear the wrath of the ArbCom should I unblock you and they dislike it (I'm only half-joking), but I think an unblock would be suitable here. ugen64 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear no one. But I'm not convinced that D-Boy is telling the truth above. The edit comment is pretty damning.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing damning about it - if I were one to care about users stalking me (and I'm not), I think I would have done something similar... after all some of us are more impulsive than we should be. ugen64 10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone unblocks this user, it should be User:Newyorkbrad. In my personal opinion, he should not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

uh, the edit comments show that I'm telling the truth, Theresa. the history shows that i've compiled with the Brad's demands throughly. Again, Shakespearean quote had nothing to do with anything. There's no allusions to past events, people, or arbs. Shakespearean quote had nothing to do with anything. There's no allusions to past events, people, or arbs. the quote does not break any policy as stated above nor does it target anyone. Also, Theresa, you have a wikilink on your page that directly goes to child porn which has no education value and a statement Great sex with someone who really loves me. I'm being blocked for a quotation from Shakespeare. That's somewhat hipocritical. If I did anything wrong, it was not going to ANI with allegations that dagizza me instead of putting it my dit summary.--D-Boy 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Theresa, it says on your user page that you believe in absolutely no censorship. Looks what's happening to me. I put my userpage Gaul has fallen. Pompey has fled. Cato has retired.[9], You will find rest from vain fancies if you perform every act in life as though it were your last.[10], The merciless Macdonald (Worthy to be a rebel, — for, to that, The multiplying villainies of nature Do swarm upon him) from the Western Isles Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied; And Fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling, Showed like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak: For brave Macbeth (well he deserves that name) Disdaining Fortune, with his brandish'd steel, Which smoked with bloody execution, Like valour's minion, Carv'd out his passage. Captain, scene ii - Macbeth [11]. I fail to see how any of that is offensive material. There are no swears, no sexual content, no references to anyone on wiki. They refer to roman history, a quote by a roman emperor, and a quote form Macbeth. Anthony, can a man not show his love for rome as you do? How does any of this go against wiki policy? I complied with eveything Brad said and he's still persecuting me.--D-Boy 11:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being accused of using quotes as thinly veiled references to events on wiki. How does the contents of my userpage have any bearing on that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get embroiled in semantics and small details, such as by pointing out that all three of these quotations deal with vanquishing opponents in battle. My question for Dangerous-Boy is, if unblocked, will you stop doing this. I may be offline for a bit, so if Dangerous-Boy gives an assurance of appropriate behavior, any administrator is welcome to unblock without further consultation. Newyorkbrad 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, though I looked really hard, I still don't see how this is even remotely covered by the arbcom ruling. (Can somebody quote me the passage?) It seems like, even if he is gloating over something, it would only be identifiable to someone with great knowledge of the case who also was stalking him. There's really no way for it to look like anything other than quotes beyond that.

What's more, I don't understand what was so offensive about his last version of his userpage. That was a wonderful quote from macbeth. And the wp:stalk link was valid because he was being stalked. Frankly, brad, I think you're watching this too critically and getting too closely involved. I'll be the first to admit that d-boy's behaviour during that arbcom was less than pleasant, but, then was the time to punish him for it. That time's past. Now, he's just putting quotes on his userpage. And they're of no concern to anyone who isn't watching him like a hawk (who shouldn't be watching him like a hawk).

But, seriously, what specific ruling from arbcom is covered by this? (That's not a rhetorical question. It's a, uh, questional-question) Bladestorm 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to Bladestorm both on my talk and on ANI. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(yup. I commented here first, before finding the other discussion and addressing personally. I think everything I've addressed here is being covered elsewhere Bladestorm 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC) )

Theresa, How does a Shakespearen quote on my userpage have any bearing to events of wiki? Anything I put on my user space is being looked at too critically. wp:stalk link is valid because I am being stalked. The links I provided have shown that. Brad, I feel any block is unreasonable. I have complied with your demands from the beginning. Again, Shakespearean quote had nothing to do with anything. There's no allusions to past events, people, or arbs. You're looking for something that isn't there. If you can't seem to understand that, then so be it.--D-Boy 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an idea. Will you agree not to put any quotes whatsoever by anyone at all, about any subject on your userpage for a period of say two months? That way no one can misinterpret your intentions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to that aslong as you prevent brad from persecuting after those two months. Will I be able to put roman quotations or anything that does not go against WP:Policy after those 2 months? I complied with his demands and he still blocked me for the shakespearan quote. I can agree to your terms. There was no reason what so ever for this block because I complied.--D-Boy 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't comply, you wittily tried to make it look like you were complying, so you could act all aggrieved when somebody didn't fall for it. Stop battling. Stop game playing. Not only do we expect you to comply with the letter of the arbitration ruling, we expect you to comply with the spirit. We don't want to notice you at all unless it's for positive contributions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)