User talk:TehFreezer

Welcome to my Talk page

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Google Homepage.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Google Homepage.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Ѕandahl ♥ 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:TehFreezer, you will be blocked from editing. You were blocked for, amongst other things, displaying barnstars that you did not earn on your user and talk pages. Reinstating those barnstars after the block has ended does not show good faith on your part and a willingness to accept the decisions of the community. Displaying barnstars that you did not rightfully earn diminishes their value for the entire community and that is unacceptable. Please work to contributing usefully towards the encyclopedia and in due course you will earn barnstars. Mfield (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were warned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You have been blocked for the copying of barnstars, for issuing inappropriate warnings and for your continuing unwillingness to cooperate with the spirit and policy of the community. Please use the time to reflect on your actions, when the block ends you are free to contribute positively and earn the barnstars for yourself.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Mfield (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has no policy regarding barnstars that says that all barnstars on user and talk pages must be awarded by other members of the community. In addition, the user User:Mfield has apparently promoted himself to the rank of barnstar secret police, and has come around to my user page and completely blanked it (without a single warning) one more than one occasion. In fact, the user Mfield has previously warned me for edits I made to another person's user page.

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Lazylaces may be offensive or unwelcome. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Mfield (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I find Mfield's edits of my user page unwelcome and consider it to be vandalism. Mfield substantially edited (completely blanked) my page without my permission, and never brought the matter to my talk page until the individual had already vandalized my user page. I feel that Mfield has treated me unfairly and with prejudice as a new user to Wikipedia. The page has been deleted by another administrator, so the edit log has been covered up. I would like the admin review this block to please post this complaint to the appropriate message board on Wikipedia so that Mfield's administrator status can be reviewed.

Decline reason:

While userspace is granted greater leeway that other areas, it is not your personal space, it is Wikipedia's. A gallery of counterfeit barnstars amounts to a claim of credit for non-existent contributions. A willingness to edit-war to keep them, to restore them after your block in November over the same issue, and your attacks on other editors who have gone to the trouble of explaining the issue and obtaining consensus in the appropriate venue, combined with the questionable edit history noted below indicates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and that you are not willing to learn from experience. Mfield has gone to some trouble to explain why your actions were inappropriate. I suggest you take the advice offered. Your behavior on Lazylaces' page was unacceptable, and you have no business complaining about being warned for it. Barnstars are not trophies: they are recognition from other users for positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (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.

Just for the record, I'd like to note that regardless of whether Wikipedia has a policy on the copying of barnstars or not, the way they have been used by this user gives a false impression of his/her past contributions to Wikipedia. Some of the user's edits have been clear cases of vandalism (including this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit), interspersed with some minor contributions. Looking at the stolen barnstars, one might imagine this was a long-time user with solid contribution history, but in fact none of the barnstars are real, and the user's edits have been a mixture of vandalism and at most minor contributions. Furthermore, the user also has a history of removing vandalism warnings directed at him/her. Given that the user freely copies other users' barnstars, changes the name of the recipient to him/herself, and deletes vandalism warnings, it is difficult for one to assume good faith. On the contrary, this pattern of activity forces me to conclude that the intention here is to disguise and cover up vandalistic/retaliatory edits by making the user talk page look impressive and free of the many vandalism warnings issued in the past. I would like to ask any admin reviewing this request to examine this user's contribution history carefully before removing the current block.—Tetracube (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also relevant ANI disussion in which second and third opinions were solicited before today's block. Mfield (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the barnstar thefts were accompanied by forging the signatures of other editors, which is always a blockable, and often a bannable, offense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion at its archived location. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]