User talk:Vigilant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia! 2 The above passage rings a bit hollow lately 3 Merkey comes undone (sung to the tune of Jenny's got a gun) 4 You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article 5 Re: wikipedia IRC 6 3RR Violation Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) 7 peyote/NAC 8 PeyoteMan 9 Jeff speaks with many tongues 10 Hey 11 Something interesting? 12 In pure Merkey style 13 I reverted your revert of User talk:Sint Holo 14 Sockpuppet accusation 15 Whoopsie 16 Another MerkeyVorthy innovation 17 Extreme incivility 18 Recent blocks related to Jeff Merkey and his sockpuppets 19 How SAD is this? 20 Indefinite block 21 Some things from Tony_Sidaway's Talk page that he deleted 22 Are there any admins who find this offensive?

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Vigilant! Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Vigilant, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 08:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The above passage rings a bit hollow lately

Maybe I'll give one last try here.

Some admin please point to an edit that I have made and the rule I have violated for which I was given an indef block. Vigilant 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merkey comes undone (sung to the tune of Jenny's got a gun)

So sayeth the Merk aka PeyoteMan aka Waya Sahoni aka Gadugi, 'Hi, I am SCOX Colonel Zen, 69.12.134.163, sonic.net dsl gateway in San Jose, CA and a Novell Employee'

BZZZZzzzzT. Thanks for playing Jeff. (c-67-177-46-5.hsd1.tu.comcast.net)

Some fodder for you big guy, since you seem to have trouble with the public internets and search engines in general

I did use that adderss while I waited for repairs to my DSL line. (lightning strike took my modem/router)

It was in SanJose.

It was a sonic account. Thanks for the empty threat about contacting sonic.net, that was funny; no, they didn't call (surprise).

I am not a Novell employee. Do they even *have* San Jose offices?

I don't live in San Jose.

For the final DING,DING,DING I am not Colonel Zen.

I have told the absolute truth, something I find hard to imagine you doing. You get a gold star for effort though. How's that broken wiki fork working out with the terabyte drive, multiple T3s and a history of breaking every two days? P.S. Esker says, HARRRRR!!!!HAR!!!!!HAR!!!!!

[edit] You are named in an ARBCOM Proceeding regarding Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Article

See WP:ARBCOM for the details. Waya sahoni 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

References have been provided. If you remove the material I can guarantee you will be blocked for vandalism. Stay away from me and stop stalking me. Waya sahoni 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide links to the evidence you have provided. Vigilant 05:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Links not required. Posted verified content provided by the Cherokee Nation and published by the United States Government, including photos. It doesn't get more verifiable than that. Go read the document images on the talk page. Waya sahoni 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for the source of this material. The US government is not a sufficient answer. Which documents and where can they be verified? Vigilant 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I could respond with something thoughtful, instead I going to ignore you. Waya sahoni 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As you will. The material does not appear to be attributed or sourced correctly. I'll give you until tomorrow to add the relevant information and if not, I'll move to delete the information as lacking WP:RS. Your choice. Vigilant 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: wikipedia IRC

Wikipedia's IRC channel is located at irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. --BWD ^(talk) 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief)

You have reverted that page 4 times today. I have posted a notice asking for you to be blocked for 3RR and misrepresenting sources in that article. Waya sahoni 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the portion of the article 3 times Waya. I would have thought that a preeminent Linux expert would be able to count better than that. Vigilant 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Waya_sahoni was the first to hit 4 reverts. However, please avoid getting in an edit war over something so trivial. He can name it whatever he wants; that doesn't mean it's any less of a copyvio. No need to war over that. --BWD ^(talk) 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] peyote/NAC

hi, I don't know who gadugi is or why he was banned by arbcom, but it seems kind of silly to remove project tags from talk pages just because a possible sock of his put them there, no? Although i'm not a member of the North american indigenous project, peyote and the NAC certainly seem like articles that would fall under their project scope. so i've replaced the tags. cheers --He:ah? 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PeyoteMan

I know you're pissed, and you have reason. But back off from making threats to PeyoteMan; it's only going to get you in trouble. FreplySpang (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff speaks with many tongues

MY red badge of courage

Don't post personal attacks and allegations without proof. 70.103.108.66 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are indef blocked Jeff. You made gross libelous accusations involving your own daughter you digusting excuse for a human being. Vigilant 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Just checking in to see how things are going. Drop me a line some time (my email addy is on my website - check my user page). --BWD ^(talk) 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something interesting?

New User:Sint_Holo, created 01:02, 5 April 2006, adds a new section into Cherokee Nation Supreme Court Allow Cherokee Freedmen Tribal Membership with misspelling "Frredmen" at 07:31, 6 April 2006.

At 07:34, 6 April 2006 User:Sint_Holo comes back and changes the overall heading to "Cherokee Freedmen Membership Controversies".

And at this edit at 07:45, 6 April 2006 User:71.199.40.199 Special:Contributions/71.199.40.199 comes back and corrects the spelling to "Freedmen"

199.40.199.71.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer c-71-199-40-199.hsd1.co.comcast.net.

First time I've seen a pure *.co.comcast.net (Colorado) host name in use by (maybe) you-know-who.

Bears watching, anyway -- talks_to_birds 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Seems to be a pretty pretentious name for a mere mortal to adopt. -- talks_to_birds 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not Colorado. It's Utah with a wrong DNS entry. Try whois:

$ whois 71.199.40.199
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services ATT-COMCAST (NET-71-192-0-0-1)
                                  71.192.0.0 - 71.207.255.255
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services UTAH-6 (NET-71-199-0-0-1)
                                  71.199.0.0 - 71.199.63.255

It's our man. Friendly Neighbour 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is our man. Running tracert gives back the damning information clearly.

Passing through gar1-p370.slkut.ipp.att.net and

the last hop prior to going into request timed out is 67.87.171.178

which is always the last hop into the MerkeyVerse

OK: now I feel better. You said "67.87.171.178" which resolves to ool-4357abb2.dyn.optonline.net., but clearly you meant 68.87.171.178, or Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. PA-WEST-12 (NET-68-87-160-0-1) 68.87.160.0 - 68.87.175.255, which is what I get from traceroute. Sorry, but I just don't take stuff for granted :-/

On another note, neal_r on Y! says Merkey called and threatened to sue him today. -- talks_to_birds 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Merkey from here [[1]]

It always will be that way until Jeff either moves, forces comcast to restructure *giggle* or telnets into some other machine, though I can't imagine anyone giving him access based on his constantly getting hacked by phishers and malicious people wanting to post on LKML.

[edit] In pure Merkey style

At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sint_Holo&action=history -- NOTE: that this is the Sint Holo article not the user Sint Holo...

No edits since 26 Oct 2005, and then a flurry of image additions/fiddling, the verifiability of which is challenged by User:Hetar, who seems on the up-and-up. And look at what IP address shows up in the middle.

Sint Holo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Revision history

(cur) (last)  05:42, 7 April 2006 Sint Holo
(cur) (last)  03:24, 7 April 2006 Hetar (needs sources)
(cur) (last)  03:22, 7 April 2006 71.199.40.199 (change back to original article until images are verified)
(cur) (last)  03:16, 7 April 2006 Hetar ({{not verified}})
(cur) (last)  03:15, 7 April 2006 Sint Holo

Finally, the "source" that Merkey adds is -- um -- interesting: "GodChecker.com -- Your Guide to the Gods".

-- talks_to_birds 08:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reverted your revert of User talk:Sint Holo

Even a blocked user is usually allowed to maintain their own talk page as they see fit, so long as they archive messages and don't delete them. While you and I may find great amusement in Merkey's antics, please remember that this site exists to produce an encyclopedia. Anything that looks like deliberate provocation of another user (even a user who has effectively been banned), is not likely to endear you to the admins. Please forgive me if you feel I'm butting in, but I really don't think it will serve Wikipedia to encourage another blowup from Merkey. — MediaMangler 02:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I'm stupid. I thought he had archived the text instead of just deleted it. I guess I was trying to apply WP:AGF a little too diligently to User:Sint Holo. I should've realized how much more likely it was that you acted correctly. I will either reverse my revert or try to help him out by archiving the text as he should have done. Please accept my apologies. — MediaMangler 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 :P It's all right. I completely understand. With Jeff Merkey, you want to be squeaky clean because he's so likely to make people go overboard. No bones showing, no foul. Vigilant 04:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and copied the text into the archive, but I probably shouldn't have done that. I see you put it back onto his talk page. At this point I think I'll just bow out of this, so that I don't make things any worse. I will post a message on User talk:Sint Holo to let him know what I've done. — MediaMangler 04:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith is an excellent priciple.

As with most (if not all) good principles, it is unfortunately subject to abuse and manipulation by those with no principles whatsoever.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is utterly without principles; he operates without any of the usual or familiar constraints that most of us take for granted (and correctly so) in our day-to-day dealings with people; Merkey has demonstrated this without question, time and time again.

Give Merkey about as much Good Faith as you would a rattlesnake, or at least a vicious and remoresless school yard bully. -- talks_to_birds 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're giving Jeff too much credit. He's neither a rattlesnake nor a remorseless bully. He's a mouthy, not very intelligent punk who deserves *every* bit of the aggravation he receives. --Jerry (Talk) 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet accusation

You have been accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Friendly Neighbour and User:64.139.4.129 in RCU. The accusation comes from User:TempusFugit, a sockpuppet created just for that purpose. Not surprisingly, User:Sint Holo referenced the accusation on his talk page almost immediately. Merkey continues to amaze. — MediaMangler 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And Jeff Silverman continues to amaze. It's a new game gentlemen. How about contribute something useful for a change. Sint Holo 06:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm certainly not Jeff Silverman, nor am I Linus Torvalds, not Andre Hendrick, not Pamela Jones, etc, etc. Keep guessing Jeff, it outs your sockpuppets faster. Vigilant 06:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And... Jeff has requested a block on you and I for 3RR. Since Jeff hasn't the decency to inform his targets, here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_needed_for_.7B.7BUser3.7CVigilant.7D.7D_for_perpetual_3RR_and_Disruption -- You might want to join the discussion. --Jerry (Talk) 06:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Between this and the RCU without notification, I can safely say that Jeff Merkey is a big, fat coward. If you're going to tattle on someone Jeff, at least have the sack to stand behind what you say. Chickenshit. Vigilant 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoopsie

Jeff Merkey blows it, yet again, with his IP address hanging out there for all to see. [[2]]. Color me surprised. Vigilant 07:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And he was doing so good so far. Damn... --Jerry (Talk) 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything's relative, I suppose. Personally, I am reminded of the SouthPark episode where Cartman tries to enter the Special Olympics to win the $10,000 first prize, but ends up losing all the events and gets the consolation prize, but that's me. Vigilant 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another MerkeyVorthy innovation

Try going to the Cherokee wikipedia that Jeff has on the Sint Holo page. Cherokee Language Wikipedia
There is literally nothing I can add to make that message any clearer.

[edit] Extreme incivility

I refer to some of your recent edits on WP:AN/I: [3] [4] [5] . There are ways to deal with sock puppets and that is not one of them. Please stop abusing Wikipedia facilities to harangue, pester, flame, and insult other editors. --Tony Sidaway 11:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to when you are going to deliver exactly the same message to User:Sint_Holo / User:TempusFugit / User:71.199.40.199 / User:Asgaya_Gigagei / User:PeyoteMan / User:Waya_sahoni / User:Gadugi (these are *all* the same, indef blocked user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) etc etc etc, since this user is committing exactly the same tactic: to harangue, pester, flame, and insult other editors.

Any particular reason why you seem to be coming down on the wrong side of this issue? -- talks_to_birds 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Appealing to the misbehavior of other editors doesn't serve to excuse your own. Please ensure that you don't abuse Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm not going to contest my block, as I stated on your talk page before it was deleted, I apologize for the tone of the edits, even thought he provocation was extreme. However, I would ask that you look at the evidence that I provided and try to determine whether Sint_Holo (talk • contribs • logs) is actually an indef blocked user making extremely gross acusations without backing them up. Thanks in advance, Vigilant 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Tony, I think this [[6]] is uncalled for. Is there any wikipedia rule you can point to that prevents an editor from watching for harmful behavior? Can you point to a Merkey sockpuppet that has ever been well behaved? I would request that you call in another admin to take a look at the record over the long haul, specifically, Gadugi, Waya Sahoni, PeyoteMan, Asgaya and a host of IP accounts that all have been blocked for grossly disruptive behavior. Thanks, Vigilant 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent blocks related to Jeff Merkey and his sockpuppets

I need an admin to explain to me how a user who watches for disruptive behavior can be blocked for just that. In particular, this block [[7]] for "Another "mission poster" here only to pursue Jeff Merkey and his socks" and this one [[8]] for "Self-declared purpose in using Wikipedia (and actual practise) is to attack Jeff Merkey." are in accordance with blocking rules on wikipedia.

From here [[9]]
"Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans, most often by the Arbitration Committee. There are other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia. Blocks normally last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below, and in most instances will be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior." and
"Users will normally be warned before they are blocked." and
"Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith." and
"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." and

Furthermore, I find a lack of reason for the above blocks of talks_to_birds and Vyrl under the blocking policy page which states,

"# 1 When blocks may be used

   * 1.1 Vandalism
   * 1.2 Excessive reverts
   * 1.3 Personal attacks which place users in danger
   * 1.4 Posting personal details
   * 1.5 Disruption
   * 1.6 Copyright infringement and plagiarism
   * 1.7 Usernames
   * 1.8 Bans
   * 1.9 Users who exhaust the community's patience
   * 1.10 "Public" accounts
   * 1.11 Bots
   * 1.12 Anonymous and open proxies
   * 1.13 Death"

I would appreciate clarification of the reasons for the blocks being placed and for an obvious and acknowledged sockpuppet, Sint_Holo (talk • contribs • logs) of Jeff Merkey/Gadugi/Waya_sahoni/PeyoteMan/etc/etc, not being indef blocked for violating WP:SOCK by circumventing his indef block for legal threats, disruption, revert warring, copyvio, POV editing, vanity edting, ad nauseum.

Thanks in advance, Vigilant 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From here [[10]], "It's controversial if you think any other admin might dispute your reasoning, i.e., anything other than simple vandalism or clearcut 3RR."

[edit] How SAD is this?

From here [[11]]

"User:NicholasTurnbull From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from User talk:NicholasTurnbull) Jump to: navigation, search

I have just been informed by Danny Wool of the Wikimedia Foundation, via #wikipedia-en-admins on Freenode, that I am expected to give preferential treatment to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey here on Wikipedia (User:Gadugi, User:Waya sahoni, and newer socks) by not applying admin actions to him - simply because, apparently, he's promised the Foundation money. Well, that's it, I'm not standing for this. I will not participate in a project where users can pay to have their editing privileges restored after they've been consistently unpleasant, made aggressive vanity editing of articles, launched legal threats against Wikipedians, etc. I have no further interest on continuing here. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)"

How much money does your soul cost Danny Wool? How much more will you lose for your association with a known psychopath? Pathetic. Vigilant 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block

I've blocked you indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators (which is my normal practice in making blocks). On examining your editing history, it seemed to me that I could not find a single edit that was not in some way focused on Jeff Merkey. This I think amounts to disrupting Wikipedia by importing external conflicts here. The block will be reviewed and could be reversed, but I think this is an appropriate block. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. You're indef blocking me for making sure a indef blocked user doesn't evade an indef block with sockpuppets? What color is the water on your home planet? Since I am indef blocked, would someone open an arbcom request for myself and Tony Sidaway? Thanks, Vigilant 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to wait to see how many of Merkey's hit list Tony will actually block. (Will I be next?) If you don't want to wait, they claim you can open an Arbcom action by emailing any member of the committee. For now, you could request an "{{unblock}}". — MediaMangler 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SInce you're an admin, could you please point me to the wikipedia policy that forbids what I've been doing. Thanks, Vigilant 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some things from Tony_Sidaway's Talk page that he deleted

Since this is the only page I can edit, pending an admin review, of course, here it is

"== A Thoughful Request ==

- Dear Tony, - - Thank you for removing the stalkers from WP. It's been relaxing to work on Cherokee and Native American articles without the harassment. However, four of the users are still here and their conduct is not going to stop. If they come near my talk page or engage in any more harrassment, I would appreciate them being warned and if this fails, handled appropriately. One of the users still has a banner on their user page they are here for stalking and harassment and this is MediaMangler (talk • contribs • logs). - - The users are: - - *MediaMangler (talk • contribs • logs) - *Vigilant (talk • contribs • logs) - *Jerryg (talk • contribs • logs) - *Friendly Neighbour (talk • contribs • logs) - - I know who all these people are and their identities, and I can tell you three of them work for competitors of my business interests and one of them appears to simply tag along with the others. - - I would like these users to be banned from my talk page since all they do is post flame bait and harassment. - - All of these accounts are SCOX members who came to the site originally for the sole purpose of stalking and libeling me. They are simply not going to stop until someone stops them. I have discussed the postings of these users with Danny and he has requested I send me a complete listing in writing of the materials I feel are inappropriate. My response was to have Fred Bauder review the article in question and make edits perhaps with assistance from other ARBCOM folks. I am going to stay away from my bio and after doing a lot of soul searching about myself, I can clearly see why WP:AUTO exists. It's just not possible to be neutral about your own autobiography. I did communicate to Danny if there were items in the article I objected to, I would use the same approach Jimbo uses which is to post clarification to the talk page. However, I consider myself under a self imposed ban on any edits to the article in question. I noted Nicholas Turnbull is walking away. I have mixed feelings about it, and I also am not neutral on this topic, so I have no comment to make that would be helpful there. Thank you for your help in making WP a better place for everyone to contribute. Sincerely, Sint Holo 22:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

- - :Mr. Merkey's original account Gadugi was "indefinitely" blocked October 15, 2005. My first edit did not occur until October 27, 2005. While I now understand that Wikipedia policies are enforced in such an arbitrary and capricious manner as to be essentially meaningless, at the time I wrote the text to which Merkey refers, I had no expectation that he would ever be allowed to edit on Wiki again. I certainly had no idea that he would be able to purchase such a right. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that my user page in any way indicates that I am here only to stalk and harass him. At this point, however, I'm not at all sure I wish to remain. — MediaMangler 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

- - :: Jeff Merkey is banned. [[12]] Vigilant 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

- - :User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales himself as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi. I do hope this means that admins may again use the Wikipedia rules about his sockpuppets. He still has two known unblocked ones. They are 71.199.40.199 (talk · contribs) the IP number Sint Holo used when not logged and TempusFugit (talk · contribs) used to stalk the people who remember his previous sockpuppets' antics. Should I post this on the Admins Noticeboard or is this comment enough to block those sockpuppets? This is a good time as Merkey usually gets a meltdown (personal attack & legal threats) after losing an account. He's already hinted some action against User:Jerryg on his Talk page. I also do hope that asking you and other admins to block sockpuppets of a banned user won't get me blocked. Otherwise what would the Wikipedia rules be for if asking to uphold them would be a blockable activity? You might also re-consider some blocks you've put on users for trying to get the admins attention to a blocked sockpuppet chutzpah. Or at least make their block time limited (the blocked users were guilty of some 3RR disruption but this is not a Wikipedia capital offense, is it?). Best regards. Friendly Neighbour 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

- - ::It seems the meltdown I predicted above did happen. Luckily not on Wikipedia but on Jeff Merkey's personal page [13]. The material posted there seems to ask for a libel suit from Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales. That it happened off-Wikipedia does not change my opinion that his remaining known sockpuppet accounts should be blocked while people who tried to warn you should be unblocked. Thanks in advance. Friendly Neighbour 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

- - :Wikipedia:Revert states that the 3RR rule does not apply to reverts of banned or blocked users, so I really have no idea what offense was committed to warrant the blocks. Just how does one go about "stalking and harassing" a user on a site from which they have been banned? Did Jimbo Wales just stalk and harass Merkey by blocking his account? — MediaMangler 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Are there any admins who find this offensive?

[[14]]

"# 16:44, 20 April 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→User:TwoVryl - Well. looks like he admits to being the same guy, and the tone is decidedly unwikipedian"

What does decidely unwikipedean mean and when did that become an indef block offense? Vigilant 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After finding and reading wikitruth.info, yeah, yeah, I know that mentioning that name probably rates a ban *sigh*, I have come to the conclusion that Tony is Danny's hitman in this. Check the contribution logs and make up your own minds. My guess is that we have come full circle from democracy on wikipedia. All animals are equal, some are just more equal. Vigilant 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still waiting for the reason for the indef block on my account. At least a pointer to the rules section I violated. Vigilant 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go for hand reference:

1 When blocks may be used

  * 1.1 Vandalism
  * 1.2 Excessive reverts
  * 1.3 Personal attacks which place users in danger
  * 1.4 Posting personal details
  * 1.5 Disruption
  * 1.6 Copyright infringement and plagiarism
  * 1.7 Usernames
  * 1.8 Bans
  * 1.9 Users who exhaust the community's patience
  * 1.10 "Public" accounts
  * 1.11 Bots
  * 1.12 Anonymous and open proxies
  * 1.13 Death"

Just choose a number and point to an edit/sequence of edits that I've made. Simple. Vigilant 09:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note "Disruption" and "Users who exhaust the community's patience" .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one can certainly understand why the community's patience would be be exhausted after you've been warned so many times about your behavior. How many times was it? ZERO? No warnings? No previous blocks? Yes, I can certainly see how that would exhaust the community's patience. A wise Wiki admin once said that "Good faith should never be enterely[sic] ruled out." Of course, he was talking about a user who had been guilty of massive disruption and had been indefinitely blocked under at least 10 previous acccounts. The community's patience was far from being exhausted in that case. Some people seem to be absolutely devoid of any sense of irony. — MediaMangler 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)