User talk:207.6.12.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am a crusader for factual information on Wikipedia and look to ensure that articles in areas of my experise are fully informative and neutral.


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am not user: Mayor Quimby that is only the accusation of one user: munmum man, a known sock, vandal and disruptor"

Decline reason: "Either way, all you've done recently is harass someone, without any indication you'd like to work productively on the project; regardless of whether this person has violated any policies, I can't abide that. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively.
This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse.

In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.

Contents

User:Mumun man

Also known as User:Flamebroil accused me of being a sockpuppet and harrassed me, reverting many relevant and important edits then trying get me blocked. It turns out that he himself had sockpuppets and was blocked for POV in other articles. I feel vindacated by these results but have recieved no indication that any admin. will look into his other behaviours. Which is a pity. --207.6.12.137 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked because his IP address fell in a range of IP addresses that were blocked. It's moot though since he resigned from editing. --Kmsiever 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you fail to mention his sock puppet and the fact that admins knew about it but allowed it,contrary to the rules. How can you defend such a hypocrite? Everything he has done should be investigated and double checked. He obviously had an agenda.--207.6.12.137 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Leave the guy alone, please. Comments like you made don't help in the least - Alison ☺ 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it is perfect hubris. I think, you need to revisit my edits and contributions and his accusations, in light of recent events and his reliability. He deserved it.--207.6.12.137 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Last chance. You're being disruptive at this stage, not to mention your crowing triumphalism is not helping. Next time, I block your account for trolling - Alison ☺ 00:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

So you had to bring your trolling to ANI. And when I check, it looks like it's you, User:Mayor Quimby, again.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent trolling having been repeatedly warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 01:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why am I not allowed to edit my own talk page?--207.6.12.137 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First, it's not your page; you don't own it. Second, blanking pages is considered an act of vandalism. --Kmsiever 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to edit this Talk page, of course. But please don't delete any information that has been added to inform us, vandalism patrollers, about the trustworthiness and history of this anonymous IP address. Be open to the Wikipedia community and use a logged-in user instead, and you won't be treated as a 'suspected address' anymore. - DéRahier 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll return the favour to you someday.--207.6.12.137 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regina neighbourhoods

Please stop reverting edits to the Regina neighbourhoods article. The information you have provided is uncited. without sources it seems to be a POV statement. You cannot make the claim that Regina is always in the top 2 for crime rate in Canada or that such a placement affects the NC neighbourhood without providing any supporting evidence. Those two statements require sources.

I have even gone so far as accepting your new addition, but editing it in good faith by making the sentence readable and changing spelling errors. I have made an attempt at compromise (including the statement but asking for sources), but you have brushed it aside.

Further unexplained reverting is an example of vandalism, and will result in my reporting you and your potentially being blocked. Please stop making nonconstructive edits. We've been through this many times before. --Kmsiever 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported already.--207.6.12.137 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also accepted your edits but they have since been altered. Would you be amicable to reverting to your last post? --207.6.12.137 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:3RR violations and repeated trolling. Please stop. You're 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.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I was not nominated at 3R and Kmsiever had 3R in 24 hours contrary to the judgement. According to the rules, I must be warned and have a complaint/nominated made against me. Neither took place. This is the act of a proactive admin that has obviously overstepped her/his area of responsibility.--207.6.12.137 06:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "A warning isn't necessary, certainly not when you've been blocked before for 3RR.— chaser - t 07:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.

Request reason: "previous admin erred in judgement, failed to take into account a block can not take place with out a complaint--207.6.12.137 07:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

Due to the nature of disruption originating from this network, please forward this request directly to a member of the Arbitration Committee for consideration. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)