Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/123.255.54.139
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 123.255.54.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 123.255.54.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Carter | Talk to me 07:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Commented twice on my userpage, in an attacking manner. Please help me out here.
- Comments
Sorry, I didnt realise my IP had changed, both of those are the same person, i.e 123.255.54.161 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC) , as for attacking the user?! That is total nonsense, I simply answered a question (puzzle) on a page... I did make a rude remark (which I immediately stated was a joke). This Carter guy deleted my answer (which fair enough, because it did contain a rude comment) but then accused me of being a vandal! So I explained on his user page that it was a joke, and asked him what the problem was, and why he didnt bother to read the entire post before reverting it. He responded by saying he didnt care, and that is extremely rude. And now he brings this up! I know he wants to be an admin really badly, and he has failed in the past, perhaps he thinks bullying innocent users is the way to go about it. But I hope that all of you see that he is a bully, and will probably misuse his powers if he is granted admin status. Please help ME! 123.255.54.161 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Again I apologize for the IP mistake 123.255.54.161 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is not my intention. Wanting to be an admin doesn't have anything to do with this. Saying I want to be an admin 'really bad' makes me sound pathetic when all I want to do is stop vandalism. You need to read WP:ATTACK. You were vandalizing, and didn't reasonably bring it up on my talk page. WTF is not a way to start an answer on someones talk page. You are an unprofessional editor who needs to create an account. I wouldn't abuse my powers as an admin. That's preposterous to make such a claim. Especially coming from someone who edits like you talking to someone who edits like me. That is all. Carter | Talk to me 07:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except for one simple fact, you were not stopping vandalism, you simply reverted a legitimate edit, that contained a rude comment in jest, that had nothing to do with you! And then accused me of being a vandal. And since this is evidence for/against sock puppetry I don't see its relevance anyway. I have accepted that both of those accounts were me and it was simply a case of mistaken IPs (since I have a dynamic IP from my ISP). As for the admin comment, how is it preposterous, when all you have done in my time here is bully me?123.255.54.161 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was stopping vandalism. I'm done with you. You don't know the rules. I'm going to have to wait till you're blocked. I need to spending my valuable time reverting vandalism, as if you check, I do FREQUENTLY. Not wasting it arguing with someone who doesn't understand Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then, that is a really appropriate way to act after accusing someone of something isnt it? "I just cant be bothered with you" I have presented counter-evidence to every point you made, to every piece of evidence you brought forward, now you just cant accept that you had no case in the first place. To the admin who will read this. He bullied me, threatned me etc... please help me out, please at least give this guy a warning. IF he is going to make accusations, he should be able to disprove all my counter points, and he hasnt done so with any of them!123.255.54.161 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was stopping vandalism. I'm done with you. You don't know the rules. I'm going to have to wait till you're blocked. I need to spending my valuable time reverting vandalism, as if you check, I do FREQUENTLY. Not wasting it arguing with someone who doesn't understand Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except for one simple fact, you were not stopping vandalism, you simply reverted a legitimate edit, that contained a rude comment in jest, that had nothing to do with you! And then accused me of being a vandal. And since this is evidence for/against sock puppetry I don't see its relevance anyway. I have accepted that both of those accounts were me and it was simply a case of mistaken IPs (since I have a dynamic IP from my ISP). As for the admin comment, how is it preposterous, when all you have done in my time here is bully me?123.255.54.161 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You've presented NO evidence. It doesn't just magically show up if you say you did it. Learn the rules, that is all. This all started with you inappropriately editing another users Userpage. just stop, and there won't be a problem. Carter | Talk to me 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um... the evidence is supposed to be supplied by the person making the accusation, not the other way around. I have countered all the evidence you have provided, and explained all my actions, and shown you to be a bully and also not to follow wiki guidelines. I'm sure the admins will make the right decision after reviewing the "evidence" at hand. 123.255.54.161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.9 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
The IP addresses have changed and this isn't being contested; however I have blocked the 123.255.54.9 account for harassment.--Addhoc 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)