User talk:Mykungfu

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

---

Alpha Phi Alpha mediation

I moved your addtional issues to the section called additional issues. If you read the rules for creating the dispute, this is where the other editor (You) lists any other topics you want mediated. You can't change my original text for mediation, and we're not suppose to talk about why we feel the our version is correct. We only disuss the merits if the case is accepted by the mediation team. I'm sorry I deleted one your add'l issues in the move, it was by accident should I was using copy/paste. Please restore my original issues, and then add your issues to the additonal issues section. BTW-i did't create this format, it's a standard template, I have have a section (issues to mediate) and you have a section (add'l) issues. Let's get ths correct so they will accept mediation. Ccson 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

False accusations

The case against me has been closed. You also failed to list any evidence against me. Therefore, I have the right to remove the notice from my user page. Continuing to post this message is harassment, and this is my last warning to you to stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The case is closed [1]. And you've been told so by an admin: [2]. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

at what point have i been told that it was closed? look at my history and please note me i have been notified to not place new notices. Mykungfu 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been told that the case was closed here [3] and now twice by me on your talk page just above this. It's not that complicated: The case is closed and putting the accusation back on my user page (and on the user pages of the other users you've accused) is harassment and vandalism. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't told that if the case is closed why is the project page still open. Mykungfu 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The project page still exists as a record of the discussion, but the case itself is closed. Do not put the sockpuppet template back on any of our user pages. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I specifically requested that you not reinstate those notices pending the checkuser results. You didn't listen, and tried to wikilawyer saying that you were only "replacing" them not placing new ones. You have been blocked for 24 hours (the same block given to 3rr violators). If you will give me a promise to not replace the notices, you can be unblocked. I've posted notice of this block at WP:ANI (or will when I get done typing this) for review. Regards. Syrthiss 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From the above.. reading is fundamental. 205.188.117.7 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu Cleared of Wrong Doing Now Stop with the Accusations and Personal attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Mykungfu

• Mykungfu (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 64.131.205.160 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

User Mykungfu (formerly NinjaNubian (talk • contribs • count) before he lost his password) has been making sockpuppet allegations against several of the other editors at Alpha Kappa Nu (see User:Robotam for example). While editors can certainly edit anonymously, this particular IP seems to imply that he's not Mykungfu and is supporting Mykungfu's comments both on the talk page for Alpha Kappa Nu as well as on Robotam's talk page (Robotam had marked the ip's signature as Mykungfu, and the ip reverted it). Specific policy violations are harassment (replacing sock notices without proof and warning with vandalism templates when the notices are removed), and editing other user's talkpage comments. Syrthiss 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Syrthiss 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu is still be editing under anon IPs, such as 149.68.16.97, even though he has been blocked by admin.[4][5][6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robotam (talk • contribs).

Checkuser only officially confirms the IP addresses used by registered users under extreme or unusual circumstances. If there is sufficient similarity of contributions, you can deal with him without technical confirmation. Thatcher131 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

so "declined doesn't mean the same as "cleared?" thanks for the clarification. this one is pretty blatant. -Robotam 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Declined means the check wasn't run, because we will (almost) never reveal the IP address of an editor. Thatcher131 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr spam block

I've blocked you for a token 8h to convince you not to keep reportig the same 3RR offence even once its clear that no action will be taken William M. Connolley 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice job idiot. Check to see if the person actually posted it rather than someone posting in their name. 152.163.100.69 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alpha Phi Alpha, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Blocked for 1 week

In light of your continued spam campaign at WP:AN3, vandalism of other's comments on userpages, and general disruption to the function of the encyclopedia I've blocked you for a week. Your "no these AOL ips aren't me, you have no proof!" statements are clearly specious when you have repeatedly restored a 3RR that nobody except you would care about, and when you have made comments while not logged in on talkpages of articles and then referred to those edits as being made by you.

Any further evidence of disruption by you will not be tolerated. Please step back and consider positively contributing to our encyclopedia. Syrthiss 12:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mr. Darcy talk 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu, if you are willing to come back and play by the rules - no sockpuppets, no harassing other users, no constant reverts - I think there are some real issues that we should discuss on these frat pages, such as the reliability of the Skip Mason site, and I'd be happy to help. But for that to happen, you have to work with us, through talk pages and via compromise. I hope you'll choose to stick to one account and to work with the rest of us to make Wikipedia's articles on these fraternities better. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu, why do you persist in trying to evade your block with edits like this: [7] I think it should be clear now that there are plenty of editors who will roll back your changes. If you question whether Skip Mason's site is a reliable source, let's have that discussion on the article's talk page - but only if you first stop vandalizing the article. It's starting to look to me like it's more important for you to get your way than it is for you to help make the article better by discussing the issues. I'm willing to help you, because I think underneath it all you raise a good point, but the bad behavior has to stop first. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

i've been on here for the past hour. haven't evaded a thing. look at my history report as well as the length of my last written subject Mykungfu 17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, because all of these edits by anonymous IPs [8] that happen to be identical to the ones you'd been making are actually different editors, right? I'm offering to work with you, to try to understand your concerns and see if we can address them in a way that satisfies everyone. Since imposing your will through the anonymous IPs isn't getting you anywhere, why not try to work with me and see what we can do? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Skip Mason debate

I think you're making a good point about Skip Mason, and we should have a discussion of whether he does or does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources. If I had to guess, I'd say that he doesn't meet them - but it's not my call any more than it is your call. We need to discuss it on the talk page, but first you have to stop reverting the article. When you're ready to do that, and will pledge not to alter the article to take out all the Skip Mason references, I will be here to help. Just drop me a note on my talk page when you're back. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for continuing your disruption through IP addresses. If you can show you have intention to abide by Wikipedia policy, I will unblock you, but this has gone on long enough. Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I havent even been on this site. I come back on my seventh day and I'm blocked again? What's going on here? I have an

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Alpha_Phi_Alpha

to attend to as well as a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu_%28second_nomination%29

i'd like to support

If i've been disruptive, then why would i agree to mediation??

Simply take a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bearly541

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MrDarcy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ccson

It's the same 3 users who revert continuously in a manner to avoid 3rr, by interchangibly reverting.

As can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history

and even here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MrDarcy

they are typically the ones whom have engaged in this and from it seems did this in my absense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_%282nd%29

no biggie.. i'll wait around and see what happens. Mykungfu 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My belief that you are using sockpuppets to avoid your week-long block stems mainly from edits such as this that are repeatedly addded to a suspected sockpuppet page. If you believe that these users are harassing you, then it would be best to file a user conduct RFC to request comments on the conflict. I'm willing to unblock you given that you stick to this one account and settle this through proper methods. Cowman109^Talk 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only been using one account. the users who file the case against me are members of the same Fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha [9]. They have consistently posted on other fraternity and sorority websites Alpha's name

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78997601&oldid=78985708

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=78548760&oldid=78530450

reversions of officially referenced material

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75056898&oldid=75050135

Even when I have nothing to do with a situation, my SN is used as revert sockpuppet this.. or that. They are the only ones who post on anything about me that is negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=77463836&oldid=77241382

They open up a RFC about someone else and the title is my SN. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ccson#User:StrangeApples_etc

please take a look at the contant reversion that have been going on between those who oppose the views of Robotam, Ccson, MrDarcy, and Bearly541 over only the past few days.

reversions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=78996087&oldid=78923637

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=78675005&oldid=78650285

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=78530450&oldid=78528580

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=76794285&oldid=74548014

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=78548760&oldid=78530450

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff=78528580&oldid=78527642

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=78996087&oldid=78923637

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75888115&oldid=75673172

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=77241382&oldid=77230347

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=77779028&oldid=77472924

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=66651311&oldid=65463353

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78997601&oldid=78985708

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78985708&oldid=78983008

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78973273&oldid=78964438

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78964438&oldid=78956759

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78952804&oldid=78934974

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78861878&oldid=78832597

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78820838&oldid=78818511

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff=78770985&oldid=78762960

Even the removal of chapter video's that detail the fraternity and it's history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=68340685&oldid=68047316

If you would help me to file an RFC I would be more than thankful. Everytime I have tried to file some kind of notice, the group of the previously listed users have simply gone onto these pages claming harrassment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syrthiss#Mykungfu_Harassment

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ccson&oldid=76850236

or they have simply ganged up stating that I am the one who is doing the wrong things. They have also collectively shut down the Alpha Kappa Nu article b/c it simply disagrees with the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black inter-collegiate fraternity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu_%28second_nomination%29

Even if the article is highly referenced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_kappa_nu

The addition of dispute tags to articles that were created by myself under my first SN

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&diff=76774970&oldid=75936756

and then disputing facts on whether a group is a fraternity even when on the official website stating that it is a fraternity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi#First_African-American_Fraternity.3F

""Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. "

http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/

All in all, these individuals are not coming in with clean hands, but with dirty hands, and it isn't fair that i'm the only one being blocked indefinately. They simply have a better grasp of Wiki rules. They have to agree that everything that i insert is always referenced not simple vandalism, and i have no problems using the talk page.

by the way, speaking about annon IP address' please take a look at this being used by one of the SN's listed above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.34.213.85

Mykungfu 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. If you would like to create a RFC against a user, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users would be where to start. These conflicts seem to be very complex, however, so if the RFC does not end out well, I might suggest a request for arbitration. Cowman109^Talk 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I agree with you that Bearly's comments were over the line, but removing personal attacks is generally not done on Wikipedia. See removing personal attacks. Unless it's really egregious (like racial epithets, threats, etc.), the attacks should stay, but you should feel free to comment on them - for example to say that you feel that those are personal attacks, and that you'd like for them to stop. (I think leaving the attacks up does more to hurt Bearly's credibility than it does anything to hurt you, for what it's worth.) I will do what I can to help you if they continue. On a related note, it would really help if you'd stop editing under those AOL IPs. I am more than willing to forget everything that's gone before if you'll just work with me on this stuff. We can pick one article at a time and I will do everything I can to help you through the process, but you need to stop reverting and to stop editing under those IPs. Let's talk this stuff out, OK? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What Bearly said is that you were "terrorizing" those two articles. Poor choice of words, but it's not a threat or a racial epithet. I think what you wrote in your last edit on that page [10] was perfect. You made your point, and you sound like you're prepared to move on. That's the right way to go. I've also asked Bearly to conduct himself differently in the future. If you're attacked again, and you don't want to file an RfC, let me know and I will try to mediate for you. In the meantime, can I get a pledge from you to stop editing anonymously and work with me on the Skip Mason issue? | Mr. Darcy talk 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

Hi,

I have re-imposed a one week block against your continued involvement in contentious disputes. I will reduce this block to 48 hours if you agree not to involve yourself any further in deletion diputes regarding Alpha Kappa Nu, now at AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please indef this user for using thier account as a platform to attack other AOL users with autoblocks--172.162.193.218 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • no aol users have EVER been attacked by me ! Mykungfu 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the original Alpha Kappa Nu site, everything i've written has been to explain the POV of why the article was made and it's relevance to history. Please read above in the section named Indefinite blocked This gives a detailed summary of the current situation. Please take a look at "This article should be deleted because NinjaNubian/MyKungfu is using multiple IPs to endorse keep for article and terrorising Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha. Bearly541 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu_%28second_nomination%29 Individuals have been making numerous accusations as a personal vendetta against myself on the talk pages as well as the user page for AFD-Alpha Kappa Nu. Mykungfu 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)\

Ccson,Robotam,Bearly541,MrDarcy

Please Take a look at the pages of alpha phi alpha, alpha kappa alpha ,kappa alpha psi, omega psi phi for a complete history of the edit warring going on between users Ccson, Bearly541, Robotam, MrDarcy, and Mykungfu.

Simply take a look at this

[11] [12] [13]

It's the same 3 users who revert continuously in a manner to avoid 3rr, by interchangibly reverting.

As can be seen here [14] [15]

and even here [16]

They have consistently posted on other fraternity and sorority websites Alpha's name [17] [18]

reversions of officially referenced material [19]

Even when I have nothing to do with a situation, my SN is used as revert sockpuppet this.. or that. They are the only ones who post on anything about me that is negative. [20]

They open up a RFC about someone else and the title is my SN. [21]

please take a look at the contant reversion that have been going on between those who oppose the views of Robotam, Ccson, MrDarcy, and Bearly541 over only the past few days.

reversions [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Even the removal of chapter video's that detail the fraternity and it's history [41]

If you would help me to file an RFC I would be more than thankful. Everytime I have tried to file some kind of notice, the group of the previously listed users have simply gone onto these pages claming harrassment. [42] [43]

or they have simply ganged up stating that I am the one who is doing the wrong things. They have also collectively shut down the Alpha Kappa Nu article b/c it simply disagrees with the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black inter-collegiate fraternity. [44]

Even if the article is highly referenced. [45]

The addition of dispute tags to articles that were created by myself under my first SN [46]

and then disputing facts on whether a group is a fraternity even when on the official website stating that it is a fraternity. [47]

""Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. " [48]

All in all, these individuals are not coming in with clean hands, but with dirty hands, and it isn't fair that i'm the only one being blocked indefinately. They simply have a better grasp of Wiki rules. They have to agree that everything that i insert is always referenced not simple vandalism, and i have no problems using the talk page.

by the way, speaking about annon IP address' please take a look at this being used by one of the SN's listed above. [49]

They've filed false accusations [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

revert vandalism by Bearly541 [62]

[63] [64]

please assist. I am moving for full protection of all articles discussedfor 10 days while discusions go on in the talk pages, the need for intervention in the articles, and possible blocking for 24 hours or more due to persistant vandalism by all users involved.

Indefinitely blocked

It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used one or more sock puppets for abuse, libel, or ban evasion. See block log, list of suspected puppets and list of confirmed puppets. The use of abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia is prohibited; use of sockpuppets to evade bans results in the ban timer being reset and may further lengthen it.

Categories: Protected | Wikipedia sockpuppeteers