Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Trey Stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Trey Stone editing as an anon

Trey Stone is editing as an anon User:64.7.89.54. He is up to his old tricks, but this time mostly getting away with it, since I seem to be the only one who knows what's going on. 172 01:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly following the situation closely, and do agree with you that this anon IP is Trey. Do you know if Trey is blocked? as I could find no reference to this. If not he is clearly not doing wrong merely by editing anonymously as Trey has not edited since the beginning of the month, though you were right to revert the talk page edits, SqueakBox 02:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

He and his sockpuppets have been blocked so many times that it's hard to keep track of. I can't think of any good faith reason, though, explaining why he has been editing as an anon lately. 172 02:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the wily 172 found me up. "up to my old tricks," all right. like reverting his intellectually bankrupt edits. J. Parker Stone 05:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken identity

I agree with Tony S that Trey and Kapil are very different people, and that asserting they are the same makes a farce of the Rfc. Does Trey speak good Spanish? We know he is in California, and has never edited about Bogotá, a favourite of Kapil. From Kapil's talk page it appears he has been at a Colombian wikipedia meeting. It quite simply doesn't fit that they are the same person, and alleging they are in the face of the evidence weakens the whole Rfc process. If we convict people on absurd statements we are in danger of being considered a kangaroo court, SqueakBox July 4, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

First, the purpose of an RfC is not to convict anyone. It has no administrative force. It is simply a mechanism to draw attention to either an article or a user.

Second, I personally don't think that Kapil and Trey Stone are the same person, but at the same time I don't think it is proper for Trey Stone (or Kapil) to remove the allegation. Hence, I support Carlton's and Davenbelle's revert of Trey Stone's attempt to remove it, but I won't revert Tony Sidaway's deletion. -- Viajero | Talk 4 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

I, too, do not believe that they are the same user; my purpose in adding the line to the *long* list of Trey Stone socks (as a "could be") was to document that the discussion of the two had occured. Trey has no business removing this; neither do Kapil or Tony. Trey has no right to edit outside of the response and discussion sections. — Davenbelle 08:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

whatever man. just remember that the sock thing all took place in December. J. Parker Stone 05:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)