Adoniscik( t, c) 05:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
After being permanently blocked for evasion of the same, phiscirel is back under an anonymous IP to vandalize his favorite article, Fethullah Gülen. (I had reverted it to the last version before he came.)
It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a sock because this purportedly new editor is already citing site policy on 3RR and vandalization--after only a dozen edits. Plus (s)he uses philscirel's common refrain that "this issue is discussed already in the discussion page". Never mind the fact that the consensus (now archived) is that the article is a steaming pile of trash, thanks to his "efforts".
I have nothing to do with other users.. Fethullah Gulen discussion page is full of evidence that Adoniscik is misusing his experience to alienate new users and other contributors so that he can push his version of the article. His edits are evident that he would like to
-- Adoniscik( t, c) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Wikipedia.
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 ( talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I have read most of the history and related pages including other editors you made sick of Wikipedia and left. The quote is only an indication of the consequences of your tricks you consistently use to have them leave the project. Mastercasper ( talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I mentioned you being an experienced editor above. But unfortunately a sneaky one who are using his experience to alienate other editors he disagree with. Phil was apparently one of them. He listed already the IPs you are using to show your real face. But your tricks and your gangs dropped the case from WW:SSP page [10]. Now your new target is me. Keeping the other editors in the project who may have more valuable contributions would be much better, I think. If you really like to see my contributions, you should be nicer to a new editor. Pushing people quit the project, blaming on other new users with their contributions is not a way to go. It does not seem to be a nice trail of personal record. Mastercasper ( talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition, Mastercasper is refactoring my comments and continuing editing the article. See the edit history to see my deleted reports. Can the admins please wake up? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely.
Philscirel is indef blocked, the IP has a 3-month block on it, and
Mastercasper served a short block for edit warring in late November and hasn't edited since. The article in question has been relatively quiet since then. So rather than apply a longer block to Mastercasper, which at this stage would be punitive and not clearly preventative, I'd prefer to believe that the user has taken a break and if he returns will edit in a
"more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Please relist if necessary. —
SMALL
JIM
20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
Adoniscik( t, c) 05:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
After being permanently blocked for evasion of the same, phiscirel is back under an anonymous IP to vandalize his favorite article, Fethullah Gülen. (I had reverted it to the last version before he came.)
It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a sock because this purportedly new editor is already citing site policy on 3RR and vandalization--after only a dozen edits. Plus (s)he uses philscirel's common refrain that "this issue is discussed already in the discussion page". Never mind the fact that the consensus (now archived) is that the article is a steaming pile of trash, thanks to his "efforts".
I have nothing to do with other users.. Fethullah Gulen discussion page is full of evidence that Adoniscik is misusing his experience to alienate new users and other contributors so that he can push his version of the article. His edits are evident that he would like to
-- Adoniscik( t, c) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Wikipedia.
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 ( talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I have read most of the history and related pages including other editors you made sick of Wikipedia and left. The quote is only an indication of the consequences of your tricks you consistently use to have them leave the project. Mastercasper ( talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I mentioned you being an experienced editor above. But unfortunately a sneaky one who are using his experience to alienate other editors he disagree with. Phil was apparently one of them. He listed already the IPs you are using to show your real face. But your tricks and your gangs dropped the case from WW:SSP page [10]. Now your new target is me. Keeping the other editors in the project who may have more valuable contributions would be much better, I think. If you really like to see my contributions, you should be nicer to a new editor. Pushing people quit the project, blaming on other new users with their contributions is not a way to go. It does not seem to be a nice trail of personal record. Mastercasper ( talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition, Mastercasper is refactoring my comments and continuing editing the article. See the edit history to see my deleted reports. Can the admins please wake up? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely.
Philscirel is indef blocked, the IP has a 3-month block on it, and
Mastercasper served a short block for edit warring in late November and hasn't edited since. The article in question has been relatively quiet since then. So rather than apply a longer block to Mastercasper, which at this stage would be punitive and not clearly preventative, I'd prefer to believe that the user has taken a break and if he returns will edit in a
"more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Please relist if necessary. —
SMALL
JIM
20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
reply