User talk:Paul Harald Kaspar

I have contacted ARBCOM regarding the blatant abuse of User:Yamla. This notice will remain here indefinitely, so that this process will remain as transparent as possible. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Paul Harald Kaspar: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments regarding wrestling

Hello, I noticed that you mentioned your frustration with wrestling fans creating unnecessary categories and adding trivial information to other articles. As a member of WikiProject:Professional Wrestling, I wanted to say that I agree completely. One of our big frustrations as a project is the amount of crap that IP addresses and well-meaning but often clueless editors add about wrestling to almost any article that could possibly be related. We try hard to remove such references when they add nothing to the article. You will also notice that most of the wrestling-related categories nominated for deletion have been nominated (but not created) by WP:PW members. Most of these pointless categories have been added by two or three editors, none of whom are involved with WP:PW. In short, I wanted to let you know that we share your concerns and to mention that I hope you don't hold it against us as a wikiproject, as the things that annoy you are the very things we are trying to eliminate. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Edit to Wachovia Spectrum

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I notice that you dont care much about wrestling. Unless the page had something about some backyard wrestling thing that is only know about some teenaged kid and his buddies, leave it up. Thank you. Whammies Were Here 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I dont want to see you get into any trouble at all. Please leave the WWF/E stuff up in Wachovia Spectrum (and if you have, any other pages too). As I said, were not talking about some backyard wrestling group that is only known by some 15 year old and his high school buddies, were talking about something a little bigger. If I, or anybody else, or even worse, and admin keeps on finding that you are deleting this stuff, you will get banned from editing on here. If you have any concerns, by all means, send me a message, but please, leave certain stuff up.Whammies Were Here 10:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your talking about some small little promotion or something, yeah, I understand your argument, but were talking about the WWF/E, WCW, or other decent sized to big promotion. Unless it really is something that isnt notable (like a certain unnotable house show was held at a certain arena), please leave it up. What you had deleted on the Wachovia Spectrum page was notable enough to be on there. Whammies Were Here 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Whammies Were Here 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, if the Spectrum hosted the Ringling Bros., yes, I would feel that would be worthy of being put on too. Whammies Were Here 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be an admin, but I do belive you are deleting notable info. If I report you, it is for that reason, not because I feel like being a tough guy, and passing a love for something that you claim I like (which I do not, I feel nowadays that the wrestling in general is crap). Find me an admin that will agree with what you are doing, and I will go ahead, and let you delete the info about the Spectrum being used as a wrestling venue by the WWF/E and WCW, but I have asked you not to do that. I dont like reporting users for misdeeds, but if it comes to it, I will. Whammies Were Here 23:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if according to the reverts you have made on Wachovia Spectrum}}. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ^Avruchtalk 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning template above gives you the links you need to direct you towards the appropriate method of resolving your dispute with PYLrulz on the Wachovia Spectrum article. Please do not risk getting yourself blocked for edit-warring. ^Avruchtalk 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - don't know how I managed to misname the article in the warning template, the HP article was the other AN/I thread I responded to :-P Good luck ^Avruchtalk 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Shaquille O'Neal has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. BJ^Talk 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Cheers, L A X 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked this account. This edit is not vandalism, the user had been actively engaged in discussion on the talkpage. This is not a vandal account and no recent warnings were given. I apologise for incovenience caused during your block. WjBscribe 12:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wachovia Spectrum edit

I dont know why you keep on insisting you keep on deleting the wrestling section. I feel the way its covered is more than fair enough. This is not like that the article has gone in depth about every single little thing that has happened with wrestling at the Spectrum. And if your gonna give me the circus argument again, it wont work because I feel if thats notable enough too, it should be included in the article. Im asking you please do not keep on deleting that info. Thank you. Whammies Were Here 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop removing content without citing a Wikipedia policies to support it's removal. Furthermore, your refuse to participate in mediation related to the matter does not help your case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wachovia Spectrum.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: edits at Wachovia Spectrum + Wikiquette Alert

Greetings Paul!

I was just over at the Wikiquette page, and saw the alert filed against you. I left a comment over there, adn you should probably go read it. Let me drop some strictly impartial advice: 1. In general practice, I would avoid flat out calling someone a sockpuppet. If I suspected it, I would check edit histories, and report it ..... let some admins get involved. Otherwise, true or not, it comes across as a baseless accusation until proof surfaces. 2. While I don't personally think there's much wrong with the term "wrestling fan kids" or whatever it was that you typed, in the future, use a more neutral term .... its for your own protection, because you never know when an admin comes along with a particular mind set, and starts throwing around more serious warnings at you. 3. I did not look at the diffs on the article. But my two bits: If the building was used primarily for sporting events,then most of the "history" of the building part of the article should deal with that (I think you and I agree there). However, if the building was used for other non-sporting purposes (circuses, car shows, mass weddings, and (sigh) "pro" wrestling), then a brief mention is likely warranted. I did look at the current article, and there was only a small paragraph. I don't think I would go beyond that, but I think I would have a hard time fighting against its inclusion.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am not trying to preach to you, and I am not telling you what to do .... just some friendly, neutral advice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am being blocked as part of an ongoing campaign of harassment to discourage me from editing articles that contain superfluous content related to professional wrestling. A previous block has already been lifted, and I request that a non-biased admin do the same with this one as well.

Decline reason:

Not eligible for unblocking until you state categorically whether or not you are in any way related to Chadbryant. — Yamla (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See discussion on Talk:Wachovia Spectrum. Paul refused mediation requested by another user, and fails to provide any policy supporting removal of references to wrestling (which it appears that the Paul doesn't like). Paul then went on to repeatedly remove any mentions of wrestling on other arena pages, despite several warnings to cease. The reviewing admin is welcome to contact me for additional information regarding this block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a discussion has been started here: WP:ANI#Block review of User:Paul Harald Kaspar to seek further input on the matter. I am inclined to deny the unblock request, and let the block stand, however seeking further admin input at this time seems prudent before making ANY further moves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have a legitimate complaint about a block, I'm being accused of being a "sockpuppet"? I don't know who this "Chadbryant" individual is, and this is really starting to smell of a Wikiclique. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me an email from an email address issued by your ISP. You can reach me at wikiyamla at gmail dot com. Hopefully we can start clearing this up. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Paul Harald Kaspar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ^Avruchtalk 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant

Despite claims to the contrary, this account is actually blocked vandal, Chadbryant (talk · contribs). As per WP:RBI, anyone is free to revert all contributions from this account. --Yamla (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did what was requested and contacted this admin from my personal e-mail account. Now less than twenty minutes later, this same admin claims there is "evidence not available" to label me a sockpuppet. I trust that Wikipedia has more than what appears to be a kangaroo court to decide content disputes.

Decline reason:

After reviewing this request, I am declining it due to the fact that the contributions and interests of this user are quite similar to one "Chadbryant". If you continue to believe this block is unjustified, you may contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-l(at)lists(dot)wikimedia(dot)org — nat.utoronto 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Evidence not available to the checkusers. Not evidence not available to anyone. The correlations between the two accounts, along with this account's poor behaviour, were already sufficient for a block. That we know this account uses the same ISP as Chadbryant and is located in the same small city is more than sufficient to block as a confirmed sockpuppet. Not that this is the only damning evidence, of course. --Yamla (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "small city" do you speak of? Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are willing to have me reveal which city you live in? I am happy to do so. --Yamla (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that I live in a "small city" lends evidence to the fact that you don't know what city I live in, and don't know what you're talking about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you are willing to have me reveal where you live. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it your best shot, Yammy. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address traces to Salt Lake City, Utah. There's some small margin of error, of course. Salt Lake City has a population of 178,858, making it a rather small city. The metropolitan area is quite considerably larger. --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your classification of Salt Lake City as a "small city" demonstrates your ignorance. Your grudge against "Chadbryant" (he must have exposed your ignorance at some point as well) has rendered you all but useless as a Wikipedia admin. Thank you for demonstrating this for all to see. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy concern

I deleted the email that you posted here due to privacy concerns. If you are willing for me to reveal all of the emails that you sent to me, I am happy for you to post the emails I sent to you provided you remove or obscure my email address. If you are not willing to have me release these emails, you are under obligation not to post my email to you to any third parties, including to the Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, if you are willing to have me release your emails, you may immediately repost my email, after obscuring my email address, without any further "permission" or anything from me. --Yamla (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I have no problem with you releasing my emails, I also demand why you just attempted to delete my entire talk page in a move that can only be described as an abuse of your powers as admin. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that your page was immediately restored without the privacy issue. --Yamla (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored my talk page. You did not. You also sent me this utter joke of a "suggestion:

From: Yamla (Wikipedia) <redacted>

To: paulhkaspar@aol.com

Sent: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 3:52 pm

Subject: Re: Wikipedia mail from Paul Harald Kaspar

Your best course of action is to contact ARBCOM. You can find their email addresses at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBCOM Note that in order to be considered for unblock consideration, you may need to provided specific proof as to your identity. I can give you additional information if you wish.

Of course, in blocking me indefinitely, you are aware that I can not contact ARBCOM by the normal mathod. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why Yamla pointed you to the e-mail address, which is arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. ^Avruchtalk 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The normal way for a blocked user to contact ARBCOM is through email so you can indeed contact them by the normal method. Indeed, that's why I pointed you to their email addresses. --Yamla (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you falsely claim that you restored this page, that is not correct. I deleted the page on 2008-02-04T15:54:12 with the deletion message, "CSD G6: Housekeeping, will be immediately restored". I then immediately restored it at 2008-02-04T15:54:33. Your next edit, with an edit summary of "restoring due to blatant administrator abuse", did not take place until 2008-02-04T15:55:13. Times are in my timezone. --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The obvious abuse and ignorance of User:Yamla has been demonstrated on his interactions with me here and in e-mail. His obvious grudge against "Chadbryant" has led to him accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" of this departed user, and his "evidence" (in the form of tracing an IP to a large metropolitan area, hosted by a major telecommunications company) is laughable and rooted in his own ignorance. Allowing Yamla free reign to pursue this grudge and squelch a dissenting opinion is to allow him to abuse his power. Absolute power corrupts apsolutely.

Decline reason:

After a review of past edits, I do see a correlation between your edits and those of user chadbryant. I also see a pattern of disruptive and uncivil behaviour which makes me disinclined to removed the block. At this point, my suggestion is to follow the instructions above and take your appeal to ARBCOM. — Trusilver 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock comment Yamla is one of many editors and admins (including myself) who supports the indefinite block of this user, given their history of incivility, disruptions, and WP:POINT edits, regardless of their sockpuppet status. The user will likely counter this with accusations of a "wikiclique." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also reviewed the situation and agree with Trusilver. Mango juice^talk 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Harald Kaspar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]