One trick people employ is to create numerous usernames and argue the same point as other newly created usernames, to try and make it look like their POV has more adherents than it actually does.-- MONGO 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This user has been here for a few days, and has about 50 edits, most to the mainspace, so I doubt there a SPA or sockpuppet.-- Phoenix - wiki 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk) 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding bad-faith edits to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mohamed Atta. 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.
Haemo (
talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Go back to your other account. Or accounts. Guy ( Help!) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked until there is actual evidence of sockpuppetry, or an inkling as to who you might be a sock of should you be one. However please remember to abide by wikipedia's policies. Viridae Talk 11:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I second and support this unblocking action - certainly until (if ever) there is proof offered to the contrary.-- VS talk 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-blocked. This account used extensive edit summaries form the outset, was at RFPP within 24 hours of registering, asking for unprotection of Terrorism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), voted at MONGO's RfA within 48 hours of registering. The contributions show that this is a Truther with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy and editing procedures, and is very obviously not a new user. That, combined with RFPP and RFA input, indicates an invalid use of an alternate account. In addition, the RFA comment was blatant trolling, suggesting that supporting the mainstream in 9/11 articles equates to unfitness for adminship. MONGO's rudeness is a legitimate source of complaint, his defence of 9/11 articles against rampant POV-pushing is widely admired and is undoubtedly not a problem for the encyclopaedia - quite the opposite. It is, however, a source of relentless trolling of MONGO, and this account is just one more data point there. Finally, the user never requested unblock. We typically do not honour unblock requests made on Wikipedia Review; no unblock request was made on Wikipedia in respect of this account. If user:Krimpet wants this account unblocked he can ask on Wikipedia or advise the user to request unblock, but I don't think we need Truthers crusading against NPOV. This user very obviously has another account, they can go back to it (unless, of course, it's already blocked). My thanks to Viridae for causing me anger and stress at a bad time. Guy ( Help!) 12:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will not wheel war on this issue - and I do note that you have now provided a better range of evidence on this account perhaps being a sock. However I will also comment that it is unfair to blame Viridae for your current feelings of anger and stress - and whilst I would normally put this additional comment on your talk page - I am loath to do so particularly when you provide such angry and very offensive edit summaries to Viradae's legitimate question and actions. I have previously offered you a support message in relation to your current situation, and I understand it completely (having been there) ... but if you make admin actions then you should under all circumstances act appropriately or you should take a break.-- VS talk 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I regret this user has been blocked. All I've seen is his/her behaviour on the Talk page of 9/11, which was polite, constructive, and adequate. Personally, I believe anti-truthers have a screw loose which makes them unfit for any wikipedia activity except spam patrolling. I totally agree with the majority of wikipedians that Truthers often violate wikipedia policies in pushing their POV. I admit to having done so myself, occasionally, without meaning to. But anti-truthers make exactly the same mistake, the only difference being they are even further from the mark than the truthers. On blocking this user: I liked what little I saw, and I feel it's childish to block your opponents for socking if you can't beat them by arguments. Also, this user will then likely create a third sock which is even harder to find, so what's the point? Please do not block users as long as they do not engage in edit-warring unreasonably. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
One trick people employ is to create numerous usernames and argue the same point as other newly created usernames, to try and make it look like their POV has more adherents than it actually does.-- MONGO 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This user has been here for a few days, and has about 50 edits, most to the mainspace, so I doubt there a SPA or sockpuppet.-- Phoenix - wiki 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk) 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding bad-faith edits to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer ( talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Mohamed Atta. 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.
Haemo (
talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Go back to your other account. Or accounts. Guy ( Help!) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked until there is actual evidence of sockpuppetry, or an inkling as to who you might be a sock of should you be one. However please remember to abide by wikipedia's policies. Viridae Talk 11:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I second and support this unblocking action - certainly until (if ever) there is proof offered to the contrary.-- VS talk 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-blocked. This account used extensive edit summaries form the outset, was at RFPP within 24 hours of registering, asking for unprotection of Terrorism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), voted at MONGO's RfA within 48 hours of registering. The contributions show that this is a Truther with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy and editing procedures, and is very obviously not a new user. That, combined with RFPP and RFA input, indicates an invalid use of an alternate account. In addition, the RFA comment was blatant trolling, suggesting that supporting the mainstream in 9/11 articles equates to unfitness for adminship. MONGO's rudeness is a legitimate source of complaint, his defence of 9/11 articles against rampant POV-pushing is widely admired and is undoubtedly not a problem for the encyclopaedia - quite the opposite. It is, however, a source of relentless trolling of MONGO, and this account is just one more data point there. Finally, the user never requested unblock. We typically do not honour unblock requests made on Wikipedia Review; no unblock request was made on Wikipedia in respect of this account. If user:Krimpet wants this account unblocked he can ask on Wikipedia or advise the user to request unblock, but I don't think we need Truthers crusading against NPOV. This user very obviously has another account, they can go back to it (unless, of course, it's already blocked). My thanks to Viridae for causing me anger and stress at a bad time. Guy ( Help!) 12:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will not wheel war on this issue - and I do note that you have now provided a better range of evidence on this account perhaps being a sock. However I will also comment that it is unfair to blame Viridae for your current feelings of anger and stress - and whilst I would normally put this additional comment on your talk page - I am loath to do so particularly when you provide such angry and very offensive edit summaries to Viradae's legitimate question and actions. I have previously offered you a support message in relation to your current situation, and I understand it completely (having been there) ... but if you make admin actions then you should under all circumstances act appropriately or you should take a break.-- VS talk 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I regret this user has been blocked. All I've seen is his/her behaviour on the Talk page of 9/11, which was polite, constructive, and adequate. Personally, I believe anti-truthers have a screw loose which makes them unfit for any wikipedia activity except spam patrolling. I totally agree with the majority of wikipedians that Truthers often violate wikipedia policies in pushing their POV. I admit to having done so myself, occasionally, without meaning to. But anti-truthers make exactly the same mistake, the only difference being they are even further from the mark than the truthers. On blocking this user: I liked what little I saw, and I feel it's childish to block your opponents for socking if you can't beat them by arguments. Also, this user will then likely create a third sock which is even harder to find, so what's the point? Please do not block users as long as they do not engage in edit-warring unreasonably. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)