User talk:King Bee/Star Wars Archive

This archive contains the discussions regarding Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

User:Starwars1955

My pleasure to report him. Wikipedia can do without people who make continuous personal attacks. I hope we get a successful block. Cheers! Yuser31415 01:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell users that they will be blocked for blanking their own talk pages, as you did to User:Starwars1955 [1]. This is not a Wikipedia policy; in most instances, users may delete messages from their own talk pages, as deletion is considered an acknowledgement that the messages (including warnings) have been read. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in severe cases, Mr. Darcy, it shows that the user is removing the warning because they disregard it, and so they receive the same level of warning next time they vandalize because the user warning them has no previous warning indication. Yuser31415 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering users have been blocked in the past for repeatedly blanking their own talk page, I did not know I had done anything wrong. Furthermore, this user has a history of being an obstinate, repeat offender who ignores most of the warnings and comments on his talk page. Lastly, since I always let the user know that he/she may archive his/her page without disrupting anything on wikipedia, I don't see why deletion of a warning ever need occur. Taken from WP:TALK:

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

So again, if you can be more specific as to why I shouldn't be telling users politely to not blank their own talk pages, then warning them after my comments are blatantly ignored, please let me know. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarcy, users are persuaded to archive their talk pages rather than deleting them. WP:TALK even tells not to delete messages. If these comments on his page are read, they certainly are not responded toward. How can you have a discussion with someone that deletes your message and never responds? How can someone respond to another when they delete the entire page? If you left a message on my talk page expecting a response and I deleted it right away, wouldn't you tell me not to delete your message?++aviper2k7++ 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK is a help page, not a policy or even a guideline, and a recent ArbCom decision ruled that users may delete messages from their own talk pages, saying that deletion is an acknowledgement that the note was received and is presumed to have been read. Users are encouraged to archive messages but are NOT required to do so. These are the rules, folks, and I don't want to see Starwars1955 harassed with bogus warnings again. (He's earning his blocks well enough on his own, anyway.)

King Bee, you asked the following question: I still don't understand why you consider a 1 month block of this user "outrageous." It's simple: We don't go from 72-hour blocks to one-month blocks except in cases of extreme disruption, which is not what we have here. Blocks for repeat offenders go up in increments, not in giant leaps. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me that you're saying I can brazenly ignore WP:TALK from now on, without incurring any ire from the community, as it's only a "help page". Somehow, that doesn't seem right. If I were to be blocked, and an administrator left a block notice on my page, could I just delete it if I wanted to, because I would have acknowledged the block?

I feel as though we do have a case of extreme disruption, but maybe you just haven't had a chance to compile all the facts to come to that decision yourself. We've been trying to protect the Brett Favre page from this user and his various IP addresses since a couple of weeks ago. We've gotten some blocks in the process, but they always expire and leave us having to deal with him instantly upon his return. He usually goes straight to the Favre page and removes citations, because he ignored the warnings we left on his talk page to read up on WP:CITE. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user removing a block notification would be futile, since the block would still stand and would be forever visible in the user's block log. Anyway, I reviewed all of this user's contribs, before and since the 72h block, before I posted my first reply to Yuser31415 on AN/I, and I have to say that you are all massively overstating the case here. Starwars1955 has edited just one article in the mainspace, and one-third of his total edits are to his own talk page. On a 1-10 scale of Wikipedia disruptions, this is a two. He's frustrating, but his infractions have all been minor, and we just don't hand out one-month or indef blocks to users just for being pains in the ass unless it goes on for quite a long time. (That said, if he starts avoiding the current block by editing anonymously, or by creating a new username, let me know, as that's a much more serious infraction.) The appropriate way to handle this, now that he has been warned and blocked for various issues, is to notify an admin if any of those issues recurs, providing diffs when possible, and then to accept that the admin who takes up the case may not take the precise action you want. If he does show up under a new username or via an IP address, as I said, let me know, and I will block him or semi-protect Brett Favre as appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the perspective. You'll be the first to know if he disrupts the Brett Favre page again. Thank you for calmly laying out the issue for me. I shall make an attempt to be more civil in the future. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955 et. al.

Hi, I understand your frustration, and I have looked at the reasonably long history of this dispute. Rest assured that despite my posting, I do not "side with" Starwars, who has behaved quite badly in the past. I see him as far more useful as proper logged in co-operative contributor, than as he is now. For certain users in the past this change has proved impossible, of course, but we can hope. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 22:07 10 February 2007 (GMT).

I have no hope for him. He was given n chances, where n is larger than any known prime number. Please excuse my candor, but that is how I feel. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I doubt QueenHMS is a sock of starwars1955, not the same edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt it. Please look at his contributions. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that edit, sock, blocked Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clarifying question: after full protection is lifted, if we can verify the changes starwars is attempting to add to the article, can a non-banned user do so? I just want to get past this so we can continue with actual improvement of the article rather than bickering about how many passing attempts Favre had. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-banned user can do whatever they will to the article (to a certain degree). If you do get verification that the number of attempts that NFL.com has listed is incorrect, then by all means, change it. A banned user has absolutely no rights on Wikipedia; all of their changes can and should be reverted immediately, regardless of their legitimacy. If you get verification and you go ahead and change all the 8,223's in the article to 8,224's, I won't revert your changes calling you a sockpuppet; I'm not insane. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I just wanted to make sure. I realize that the block/protection measures don't have anything to do directly with the content dispute. I'm attempting to verify as many of the claims the user has made as possible (per the recent conversation on my talk page). I also apologize for continuing to prolong the dispute by responding to the socks' queries on my talk page and elsewhere. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your message on my talkpage

I'm aware it is a sock, but I can't actually find any evidence that his is actually banned, other than the banner on the userpage. I'm going to follow up with Jaranda and long story short, if he isn't banned I will probably start a discussion on banning in the appropriate forum. If he is banned then I will carry out the ban. Right now though, I'm not going to indef the socks unless they actually edit the article... if he isn't banned there really is no justification for indef blocks unless the user is using those socks to continue to disrupt the article.--Isotope23 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it sounds absurd... but yeah, that is pretty much true. An indef block is a block of the "user". The individual using that username is completely free to create a new username and if they went about editing other articles and stayed away from creating disruption at the articles/pages that caused their indef blocked they would be left alone. The only way there new users would also be indefinitely blocked is it they were being used for abusive sockpuppeting; i.e. circumventing their indef block to go back and start engaging in the same behavior they were blocked for. A ban is something completely different. It is a social construct and a ban applies to the individual person, not just the user they created. Banned users are either not allowed to edit certain articles or are disallowed from editing Wikipedia altogether. Bans are serious enough that I want to make absolutely sure this person is banned and the ban was done properly. Unblocking the page just so the individual in question will edit it and earn a block is baiting and it isn't something that is acceptable here. I know you are frustrated, but just WP:CHILL for a bit and this will all get sorted out.--Isotope23 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Again, I sympathize with your situation here; I've spent my fair share of time with tendinitious editors and it is absolutely no fun.--Isotope23 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your a little more than heated about this subject King Bee, your acting sort of mental, you proved you have a foul temper and you broke the 3RR several times to the Brett Favre talk page and main page with no actions being taken against you, the BeverlyHills85 edits are all correct except for the outstanding induiry on the 8,223 or 8,224 attempts, three sources have been emailed and starwars1955 requested to be unblocked but user Yamla reverted that unblock request and fully protected starwars1955 talk page out of pure meanness, starwars1955 has a right to request a unblock, but Yamla actions are uncalled for and maybe illegal, but your obsession is sort of weird, you need to chill out and seriously cool down, or talk to someone about your heated temper, were trying to deal with this in a calm matter, edit somewhere else if you can't handle this, but your repeated breaking of the 3RR and heated actions are going to far. Malibu55 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55[reply]

The above contains no personal attacks and I dont' want to attack anyone or would I, I can't help that King Bee is acting this way, it's sort of disturbing the way he talks about and treats this sitation, WP:CHILL

Haha, you just attacked him in that sentence!++aviper2k7++ 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's real mature aviper2k7, I hope people know your 17, going on like this is stupid, this case is solved, except for the 8,224 and 8,223 attempts thing, Malibu55 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55[reply]

malibu, I would suggest you read WP:NPA before making any further comments on user talk pages if you wish to retain any editing privileges on Wikipedia. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the policy and I didn't attack anyone, you call there attitude acceptable and mature, you know it's not, you have to be mature to be a wikipedian and I've made no personal attacks, now lets go back to working together and not break WP:NPA as King Bee and aviper2k7 have. I'm not going to ever break WP:NPA, because I'm not wasting my time with this stuff, Malibu55 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55[reply]

Yes, I believe so. WP:CN is very new, but how it would normally work on WP:AN/I would be to post the username, sockpuppets, & diffs of some examples of behavior.--Isotope23 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GrowingPains1 and there will be no more bickering with King Bee and aviper2k7, GrowingPains1 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

Why do you say "no more bickering"? You've been editing on Wikipedia for a total of 5 minutes so far. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in the community noticeboard, GrowingPains1 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

Suggestion for community ban

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first showed up as an anonymous user on 9 December 2006 (here) on the Brett Favre article talk page, requesting unprotection so he could edit the statistics. His changes resulted in removing references (here) and overall just seems to be very confused about WP rules. Long story short, a bunch of violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ended up getting him indefinitely blocked. This has not stopped him.

Widescale creation of sockpuppets (list of socks used by him) used to edit the Favre article and try to trick administrators who aren't completely aware of the situation into "helping" him (here)

Continues with personal attacks here, here, here, and my personal favorite, where he brings my age into the picture for some reason

Disrupts Wikipedia to make a point here by adding a sixth link on Peyton Manning, so that he can cite that page as "evidence" here

Simply will not stop reverting to the same edit he made months ago here, here, here, and here (with misleading edit summaries too)

He has been nothing but a nuisance; I am suggesting that he be banned from the wiki community. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who tried to reason with Starwars1955, eventually blocked him indefinitely, and have blocked at least two of his socks, I support a community ban. He's shown absolutely no variance in his behavior despite both counseling and warnings from multiple users, including at least two admins. I see no evidence that the user intends to reform. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support as well. He has leveled accusations of policy violations at multiple editors but has refused to follow through, leading me to believe he doesn't actually understand the policies he's citing but rather issuing empty threats. At the same time he violates those same policies and, when called out for it, accuses editors of being biased against him. The behavior King Bee evidenced above clearly demonstrates a persistent user who has no desire to change his ways despite being given several clear suggestions as to how to do so. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, at this point I've had a couple of conversations with the editor in question under various accounts he has created and he just doesn't seem to get it. I've laid out explicitly why the editor was blocked and what the editor should not do if they want to avoid being blocked in the future. The editor's latest incarnation was extended a wide lattitude of WP:AGF and when I advocated letting him edit Talk:Brett Favre to discuss these changes, his response was basically that he was right so there is nothing more to discuss. I think at this point it is clear the individual in question has no intention of changing their behavior so a ban is the appropriate next step. I pretty clearly warned this individual that this was the next step if they did not stop being disruptive. Beyond that it should also be mentioned that the editor has edited extensively from 4.245.XXX.XXX IPs to make these exact same changes.--Isotope23 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if everyone is discussing a ban, why does it say on Starwars1955's userpage that he is already banned? That template on his userpage is the incorrect template, unless Starwars1955 was banned by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, or community consensus. Acalamari 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect, as far as I know. Jaranda added the template a while ago, but the user is indefinitely blocked, not banned. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to bring this up, as an administrator and I got in trouble about three weeks ago for the banning of a user when we should have discussed a ban with other users and administrators. I just wanted to make sure you didn't fall into the same problem. Acalamari 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tag. WP:AGF, Jaranda just made a mistake. I've seen a lot of people confuse indefs with bans.--Isotope23 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, all these people are trying to do is ganned up on him and revert ebery edit he made, all that is trying to be proved is that the edits by BeverlyHills85 are verifiable, and PSUMark2006 did that, and they belong, I'm a friend of starwars1955 and all he wants is for the info to be added, but he can't get a fair shake people admit that the info is verifiably, but won't add it, MRDarcy banned malibu55 for sock with no proof and I'm diffenatly not a sock, just a friend at a firrerent location, starwars1955 also requested to be unblocked and user Yamla reverted the unblock request which he had no right to do and fully protected the starwars1955 talk page, he's not getting a fair shake and all the people her are the ones that have ganned up from day one, and it's wrong, the only issue its whether or not the info belongs and is verifiable, it is and as far as the sixth link on Peyton Manning, there were 5 to begin with, so what's wrong with adding the sixth ans final, Thanks, GrowingPains1 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

The issue here has nothing to do with the verifiability of edits anymore. That may have been the catalyst, but King Bee provided evidence of the similarity between Malibu55's edits and previously-identified sockpuppets. The information, when confirmed by the sources I've contacted, will be added to the article. If that's your only concern, there's no need to worry yourself about this any further. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sockpuppet? You registered very recently, and seem to know a lot about the situation with Starwars1955. Acalamari 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is exhibiting behavior similar to that of previously-identified and blocked socks, in particular removing comments that challenge his position: [2]. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955, has been editing Brett Favre since October under his IP address, and he created the Playoff stats section and the box above it and most of the records and milestones, the only reason it's come to this is because these people have ganned up on him because they want the Favre page there way or no way, and that's not the wikipedia way, the edits by BeverlyHils85 are correct and verifiable, even PSUMark2006 agrees to that and aviper2k7 and King Bee have personally attacked starwars1955 many times, they tried to provoke him and he handled it maturely, GrowingPains1 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must have edited at the same time, I didn't delete anything, I wouldn't do that, why do you accuse people, that's a personal attack, King Bee removed 3 of Peyton Mannings infobox stats saying three is enough, see it's his way or no way, malibu55 only added 1, there were five to begin with, three is not enough, there are links to all six and people just have to fill in the code, 3 is not enough, wikipedia designed them to be there for people to link too, it has nothing to do with WP:POINT, no point is trying to be made, just links are being added for the community, why is King Bee doing this?, GrowingPains1 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just sort of brings the point home. GrowingPains1 = Starwars1955. The user's first edit after creating the userpage was to hit King Bee's talkpage. He reverted to another SW55 sock edit at Peyton Manning. He commented on Aviper2k7's talkpage. He signs pages the same way. He mis-spells the same words. Yet he still inisinuates he is not SW55, BeverlyHils85, or Malibu55, etc. I think the fact that he is creating socks to continue these edits and mischaracterize other editors opinions really demonstrates that there is no reason to believe this editor is ever going to change their ways.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want the edits to be added, hey are factual, BeverlyHills85 edits are right, PSUMark2006 sats they are all verifiable and will be added, that's a lie, King Bee won't have it, starwars1955 idn't do nothing bad, Yamla fully protected the starwars1955 talk page so he can't have his unblock request, if you can't get a fair treatmant, what do you do, there were 5 infobox stats on Peyton's page before malibu55 added the 6th, I hope your happy with contributing to vandalism on the Peyton Manning page Isotope23, Thanks

Particularly disturbing is the way the individual is aging his socks to circumvent semi-protection and continue to engage in WP:POINT edits (the Peyton Manning edits were done apparently to use as an example in the Favre discussion; i.e. Favre should have this info because it already exists at Manning).--Isotope23 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23, king bee vandalised the peyton page by removeing those 3 infobox stats, Isotope23, check the history in Peyton Manning's page, malibu55 only added one, there were 5 to begin with, check it, do it, King Bee removed three cause he wanted to, so it would be like the Favre page, his way or no way, that is vandalism, there were 5 to begin with, but King Bee wouldn't have it, now you keep reverting to what he's done, you should discuss it on Peyton's talk page whether they wanted to go from 5 to 3, no you do waht you want, now go and really check Isotope23, there were 5 to start, only one was added and King Bee struck again, it's really sad, all I want is BeverlyHills85 edits to stay and even though PSUMark2006 says all that infom is verifiable, King Bee will not allow you to all BeverlyHills85 edits, he has to much of a vandetta and he won't allow it, and you all know this, Thanks

Also, I've noticed that Starwars1955 didn't always sign messages. The message above Isotope23's last message message is unsigned, but I checked the history, and it was posted by FamilyTies82. I think that user is yet another sockpuppet of Starwars1955. It seems too convenient that all these new users know of all the discussions about Starwars1955. Acalamari 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that didn't sign the message above my last message also seems to know about Starwars1955. Acalamari 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, IP 4.245.XXX.XXX is used by this individual to do the same sorts of edits... and they've been removing comments here as well.--Isotope23 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They seem to be removing my messages, as my messages help to prove why some of the messages here are by Starwars1955's sockpuppets. Acalamari 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23, revert starwars1955 talk page to where he requested unblock, give hima a fair shake and this will stop, he requested a unblock and left all this be, but Yamla reverted it and protected the page for a month, and one thing is clear, this site is being run by a bunch of kinds with too much time on there hands, mature people wouldn't act in this manner, and you still didn't look into the Peyton Manning thing I mentioned above, please do it, you have no right to lower it from 5 to 3, delete the one I added cause of the vendetta, but don't delete the other two that were on there to begin with, Thanks

I've not been removing comments kid, I've been editing the same time as others, Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.120.53 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but we don't make "deals" here. Your continued disruption from IP adresses while you are indefinitely blocked makes an unblock request moot. At this point there is no way you would be unblocked. I don't know if you noticed, but there is a discussion going on here about whether or not you should be banned from editing altogether.--Isotope23 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban. There's really no question here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I did in reverting the unblock request was not "illegal". The unblock request was not made by the account requesting the unblock. 4.245.120.12 (talk · contribs) was violating WP:SOCK. Additionally, unblock abuse is considered to have occurred after at least two administrators review the block and judge it valid; the user is not entitled to any further unblock reviews, at least according to the {{unblockabuse}} template. It seemed to me (though I suppose I could have been mistaken) that this user was already well past that. --Yamla 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse also, because it's been proven that the BeverlyHills85 edit is Verifiable and correct and many Brett Favre fans will revert to it and you better check there IP address before you block all of them for being sock puppets, because if there IP address isn't close to mine, then you'll be getting yourself in trouble, the info has been verified at PSUMark2006 talk page, so be more careful before blocking people in the future, remember this info is verified now and blocking them for accusations won't cut it now, Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.120.53 (talk • contribs)

Fine if you want to endorse your ban from Wikipedia, be my guest.--Isotope23 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's his attention to detail that has made him so charming. Adam Weeden 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban. I am/was a frequent editor of Brett Favre, and considered it to be a pet project of sorts. I have frequently worked with others on that page in the spirit of collaboration, and have even seen some ideas that I though would be good shot down. With that said, Starwars1955 is one of the few editors I have not been able to come to a mature understanding with over editing and adding to the content on Brett Favre. One particular instance comes to mind in which I was making additions to the page that he didn't like. At no time did he (other than throwing around WPisms, like NOR, at random points) did he attempt to persuade me as to why he thought my changes were invalid other than he thought that with them, the page "looks awful". When, after some discussion with some other parties, it was pointed out that WP may not be the proper place for such information, Starwars1955 began acting in an immature, uncivil manner simply because I had agreed to remove the content. He has been the subject of at least one (initiated by me), and maybe more, three revert rule violations and has demonstrated a consistent pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and downright manipulation by deleting comments contrary to his own. In summary, as someone who has tried to work closely with him, demonstrating civility and good faith as much as possible, I can't recall one positive contribution he has made to Brett Favre or any other pages that I have seen him edit. This leads me to extrapolate that he will likely not make any useful contribution in the future, and on the contrary will likely cause significant grief and headache. Not only do I endorse a ban, I can only wonder if ban is strong enough for use who has demonstrated such a deep desire to make HIS changes that he has created at least a dozen sock puppets (that we know of) to do so.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Adam Weeden 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdamWeeden is one of the people that started this lynch mob, because he was breaking WP:NOR by putting on current pace crap, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and he was furious that it had to be deleted, in the words of aviper2k7 haha, and everyone knows that all the edits by BeverlyHills85 is correct, factual and verifiable, that's not the point, they all have a personal vendetta and I suggest you see them through and ban me, but other Favre fans will restore the info that BeverlyHills added, it's been verified in PSUMark2006's talk page and it will be added and you can't block them, they aren't socks, don't you see I want banned, so other Favre fans can add the info that's been verified in the PSUMark2006 talk page and that beverlyhills85 added, wikipedia is public and the info has been verified and as PSUMark2006 said, there should be no problem adding it, so please ban me quick so this info can go on the page, I have tons of Favre fans in a fan club and now that it's verified through PSUMark2006, it can be added and the fan club has over 100 wikipedia accounts ready to go, all we want is the correct additions BeverlyHills85 added, and Al Michaels and John Madden talked about on Sunday night football Dec. 31st as part of Favre's NFL Marks stand, and now that it's verified through PSUMark2006 talk page, it can be added, as PSUMark2006 said it should be no problem, so ban me quick, so they can proceed, Thanks

Per what you've said above and WP:DENY anyone coming along and making the same edits you made are subject to being reverted and blocked at a puppet of your account. I just want to make sure you understand that meatpuppeting on your behalf will also not be tolerated if you are banned.--Isotope23 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't block someone for agreeing with the varified material, now do you want to try this, there not my puppets, they are Favre fan club members, now keep up with your threats, your asking for it, the info is verified, and just because you don't like it being there, it's verified and cited and it's coming, Thanks

Yes, I was so furious with you.Adam Weeden 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 4.245.121.179 (talk · contribs) has been reported to WP:ANI for violations of WP:NPA on User talk:Aviper2k7 for this edit. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban. Although I haven't had much direct interaction with this user, I have had indirect interaction through edits on Brett Favre and more recently, now, Peyton Manning, though I think reasons for a ban have already been well explained by other editors - the most significant being personal attacks and general unwillingness to work with fellow editors. Beyond that, I don't believe it necessary to rehash this. Skybunny 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse ban. I'm receiving the same messges and everything that the people above are getting, so I know how it's gotten, they've states it already.--Wizardman 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban Starwars1955 has caused so many problems for King Bee, Aviper2k7, and MrDarcy. Not only that, but he endorses his own ban. This is the only thing Starwars1955 and I agree on: that he should be banned. I posted messages on Starwars1955's talk page a few months ago, and I remember my own messages, as well as other users' messages, getting removed by him. Starwars1955 has frequently shown aggression to other users, and uses personal attacks. On top of this, he has more sockpuppets than any other user I've encountered. Acalamari 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but especially enforce It's fairly easy to tell his sock-puppets. Just look for a paragraph with misspelled words and no periods with the word "factual" in it. This user also has completely ignored WP:V, stating that it doesn't need to be verified because it's "fact". This can be seen at PSUMark2006's talk page. This user has personally attacked me before, and has told several administrators that I should be banned. He has called me a "kid" a couple of times, insulting me because of my age (which is 18 fyi). I'm really sick of dealing with this, and all patience is lost. The user has not made one edit to the Favre (probably any) page that hasn't started an edit war, and has even stated that he doesn't need a consensus. Shows no signs of stopping if unblocked, and hasn't even stopped when he has been blocked.++aviper2k7++ 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban for all of the above reasons. I particularly trust Mr. Darcy's discretion and his inability to reform this editor into a productive Wikipedian tells me that reform is probably impossible. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. I was the original mediator for the case an editor brought up over the edit war on the article. I can't say that he was very civil (making attacks about users' ages, changing !votes, etc.) back in December, and I highly doubt that he's changed since then. Shadow1 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire. Cooperative projects need cooperative users. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys and gals I've been very sad and read through each edit on his/her talk page since the link above and wow! I'm very impressed with the maturity of you all (I only hope I'd be able to remain so calm). I'm not sure if you've actually seen all the personal attacks that he/she made against Mr Darcy and others as he/she tried to cover them up with blank page edits and so forth (and often other users would do reverts) but it was very nasty. It is also quite amusing when he/she asked "who keeps blanking my page" when an IP address did so only to admit several edits further on that it was his/her IP in a seperate argument. Anyway, if this is an open community vote I'll pitch in with endorsing a full ban or block for the user, the sock puppets and the IP based solely on what I've just read. AlanD 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I'm very sorry for any issues we've had in the past and you have my word that there will be no more words or arguments in the future, for all theissues I've had, it was because someone on wikipedia was rude to me, but there will be no more issues with me in the future, all my intentions were is to get the correct factual verified info posted on the page as BeverlyHills85 did, but I have no more accounts, so if anyone else edits, it won't be from me and I ask you please don't ban me and I give my word that there will be no more issues between me and other wikipedians in the future and you never know, someday I might be unblocked from editing, all I tried to do is add those factual verified stats, sorry you guys wouldn't work with me, but I apologize for everything, including the words we had and I just wish you would agree to put all those correct Favre stats on there, I think all the hard works he's done, he deserves to have those correct NFL stats that Al Michaels, John Madden and the NFL always talks about on his page, he deserves that, and as a true fan I would like to see it, I mean BeverlyHills85 edit is almost exactly like the current edit, except for 5 extra stats, but anyway I'm sorry for everything and ask you not to ban me, I have no fight left in and what am I fighting for anyway, the injustace is being done to Brett Favre, not me, once again I apologize for the words we've had, it will never happen again no matter what you guys say, Thanks, 4.245.120.142 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)starwars1955[reply]

The above is clearly a lie; LadyVols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of this user, see this diff. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 03:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Ban Editors like this end up being a time sink for everyone. IronDuke 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse Ban, and delete and salt his talk pages. WP:DENY. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 05:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've enacted the ban. Grand master ka 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]