It should be pretty obvious that this is just the latest abuse by an ed. who repeatedly shows a total disregard for the rules and policies of this forum - and in fact, enjoys making a total mockery of them. Within moments of me filing a complaint accusing
User:William S. Saturn of sockpuppetry, he files an identical complaint against me. Coincidence much? Not really.
Nope. Just the latest, most embarrassing & transparent indication that this ed. has nothing but contempt for this forum and its policies. If there is a mechanism for handling frequent and blatant abusers like this ed., their use is completely justified in this case.
The problem is that you can't accept that you are wrong. As a result of this, you disrupted the project (not a forum) and wasted a countless number of editors' time. --
William S. Saturn (
talk)
08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Wrong again. The real problem is that you lied. Then you got caught in your lies. Then you tried to bully your lies into becoming the truth. Then you got caught in more lies to cover the original lies. Then you tried to bully people into believing those latest lies. Now you've failed completely on all counts, and all your lies have been exposed. Now hopefully you will finally get exactly what you deserve. That's all.
X4n6 (
talk)
09:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter: E + F(Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Clerk note: I recommend a block on the accounts
Sexually Active (
talk·contribs) and
Umbrella corporation 33 (
talk·contribs) per
duck (both made an edit which simply said "hello" to William S. Saturn, both have been harassing him, and both put {{retired}} on their pages once William S. Saturn told them of the sockpuppet case). However, the fact that X4n6's name in this report is I suspect due to a knee jerk reaction to them filing a report against William S. Saturn, and I fail to see enough evidence here to show that the two accounts Sexually Active and Umbrella corporation 33 are being operated by him/her.
SpitfireTally-ho!06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you for seeing through the latest ridiculous charge of William S. Saturn that I am responsible for other accounts. Just as you noted, his complaint is transparent and retaliatory. I accused him of sockpuppetry because I believe it is true. He accused me - in a weak effort to "settle the score." Given the circumstances, (my infrequent visits here, versus his being blocked for 3RR violations just a week ago), it's not a very original complaint either. But it does speak volumes about the accuser.
X4n6 (
talk)
08:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks to you both for clearing me of this ridiculous charge. Now can either of you please checkuser my original complaint against
User:William S. Saturn? After all, his complaint was just vindictive retaliation for my filing that one. Many thanks.
X4n6 (
talk)
10:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: Actually, this case is still pending, as it has proven slightly trick to determine whether or not you were socking. However, Saturn's case has been checked by a check user and it turned out that he was not socking. Regards,
SpitfireTally-ho!10:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the update. May I ask if the Saturn case review would also reveal if the two deleted accounts that Saturn complained about were also his? It does seem rather curious that they both would have been opened right in the midst of all this, just to "harrass" him. Just covering all the bases. Thanks again. Best,
X4n6 (
talk)
10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Please don't. This is still on hold. While I can say that the information relating to
X4n6 (
talk·contribs) is Inconclusive and we're finished with that account, there is something else here that needs work. Right now, myself and Dominic are working this case still -
Alison❤19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps someone can kindly advise me of what's going on here and why the delay? You've established that the two accounts that I was alleged to have socked and harrassed someone with were not mine, as you blocked them with no effect on me, and you've also established that both were geographically quite far from me. Wasn't that the complaint? I also asked that you investigate the user who initiated this retaliatory complaint, to determine if he had harrassed himself with those accounts, and that request appears to have been ignored as that original complaint was closed within hours, while this one has dragged into days. So really what else is left regarding my account I wonder? Or does your work no longer include me? Thanks for the clarification.
X4n6 (
talk)
00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Our work no longer includes you, 'sokay :) However, there's something else going on under here that we discovered, so we're not quite done with the overall case yet. Myself and
User:Dominic are still going here ... -
Alison❤01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)reply
It should be pretty obvious that this is just the latest abuse by an ed. who repeatedly shows a total disregard for the rules and policies of this forum - and in fact, enjoys making a total mockery of them. Within moments of me filing a complaint accusing
User:William S. Saturn of sockpuppetry, he files an identical complaint against me. Coincidence much? Not really.
Nope. Just the latest, most embarrassing & transparent indication that this ed. has nothing but contempt for this forum and its policies. If there is a mechanism for handling frequent and blatant abusers like this ed., their use is completely justified in this case.
The problem is that you can't accept that you are wrong. As a result of this, you disrupted the project (not a forum) and wasted a countless number of editors' time. --
William S. Saturn (
talk)
08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Wrong again. The real problem is that you lied. Then you got caught in your lies. Then you tried to bully your lies into becoming the truth. Then you got caught in more lies to cover the original lies. Then you tried to bully people into believing those latest lies. Now you've failed completely on all counts, and all your lies have been exposed. Now hopefully you will finally get exactly what you deserve. That's all.
X4n6 (
talk)
09:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter: E + F(Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Clerk note: I recommend a block on the accounts
Sexually Active (
talk·contribs) and
Umbrella corporation 33 (
talk·contribs) per
duck (both made an edit which simply said "hello" to William S. Saturn, both have been harassing him, and both put {{retired}} on their pages once William S. Saturn told them of the sockpuppet case). However, the fact that X4n6's name in this report is I suspect due to a knee jerk reaction to them filing a report against William S. Saturn, and I fail to see enough evidence here to show that the two accounts Sexually Active and Umbrella corporation 33 are being operated by him/her.
SpitfireTally-ho!06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you for seeing through the latest ridiculous charge of William S. Saturn that I am responsible for other accounts. Just as you noted, his complaint is transparent and retaliatory. I accused him of sockpuppetry because I believe it is true. He accused me - in a weak effort to "settle the score." Given the circumstances, (my infrequent visits here, versus his being blocked for 3RR violations just a week ago), it's not a very original complaint either. But it does speak volumes about the accuser.
X4n6 (
talk)
08:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks to you both for clearing me of this ridiculous charge. Now can either of you please checkuser my original complaint against
User:William S. Saturn? After all, his complaint was just vindictive retaliation for my filing that one. Many thanks.
X4n6 (
talk)
10:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: Actually, this case is still pending, as it has proven slightly trick to determine whether or not you were socking. However, Saturn's case has been checked by a check user and it turned out that he was not socking. Regards,
SpitfireTally-ho!10:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the update. May I ask if the Saturn case review would also reveal if the two deleted accounts that Saturn complained about were also his? It does seem rather curious that they both would have been opened right in the midst of all this, just to "harrass" him. Just covering all the bases. Thanks again. Best,
X4n6 (
talk)
10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Please don't. This is still on hold. While I can say that the information relating to
X4n6 (
talk·contribs) is Inconclusive and we're finished with that account, there is something else here that needs work. Right now, myself and Dominic are working this case still -
Alison❤19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Perhaps someone can kindly advise me of what's going on here and why the delay? You've established that the two accounts that I was alleged to have socked and harrassed someone with were not mine, as you blocked them with no effect on me, and you've also established that both were geographically quite far from me. Wasn't that the complaint? I also asked that you investigate the user who initiated this retaliatory complaint, to determine if he had harrassed himself with those accounts, and that request appears to have been ignored as that original complaint was closed within hours, while this one has dragged into days. So really what else is left regarding my account I wonder? Or does your work no longer include me? Thanks for the clarification.
X4n6 (
talk)
00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Our work no longer includes you, 'sokay :) However, there's something else going on under here that we discovered, so we're not quite done with the overall case yet. Myself and
User:Dominic are still going here ... -
Alison❤01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)reply