User talk:Spooky873

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spooky873 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious, which two names? I can't wait to get that person from the Foo postboard to prove it. Spooky873 (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have 18 names now. Please read WP:MEAT. No matter how many people you get to "vote" on the Post-grunge matter it won't change. It doesn't work the way you think it does :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spooky873, I've blocked you for 48 hours, and the 3 other accounts indefinitely as they are clearly sockpuppet, singe purpose accounts. In the future, realize that using disruptive sockpuppets, such as the 3 I've blocked, is prohibited, especially when using them to attempt to gain the upper hand in active discussion about an article. To contest this block, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia utilized by the public. Generally speaking, how can you deny the people that frequently use this site for any information a right to have any say in a discussion, regardless of whether they're regular participants or not? That has to be the single dumbest thing i've ever heard. The people that actually use the encyclopedia (which grossly outnumber the editors) are unable to participate in discussion, as opposed to janitors. That boggles my mind. After all, all that the editors really are, are online janitors. This couldn't be any more clear in the very government we live under. How can you have such a small number of people maintaining this article (when compared to the general public) when there are literally millions of people that use this site, all with considerable opinions on articles ie; adding and removing faulty information. The majority of them have no idea how to even sign up to participate in the first place. The people that actually use the site for information should have just as much a say on discussion matters as anyone else. Just because they may have a life (job, school, family, etc.) that keeps them from posting doesn't mean they would know any less on a subject. I just don't understand how you can deny the people that use this site any say. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're essentially barring the public opinion as a whole. Spooky873 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more than just coincidence that all 3 of the 4 accounts were created within hours of each other (see [1], [2], and [3]). Also, more than coincidence that these accounts only contributions (with the exception of a single edit) were to the page in question. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're all from the FF postboard. If you're implying they're me, again, you couldn't be any more wrong. Spooky873 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Fighters

There is consensus on the Foo Fighters talk page that "The Foo Fighters are" is not needed and it shall remain "Foo Fighters is". Please also be aware that edit summaries such as this one: [4] violate our WP:NPA policy. Please remain WP:CIVIL even if you are stressed. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have gone over the use of "the" in their name before. This band is unofficially referred to as "The Foo Fighters" regardless. The use of "the" stems from the fact that there are 4 members of the band. We've already gone over this, and there are a number of sources which say so that were provided before. Spooky873 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, or personal understanding of sources, does not, never has, and never will trump consensus. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foo Fighters. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Scarian: If the original statement was "The Foo Fighters are" and someone else changed it, and i'm reverting it back to what it was originally, wouldn't they be the vandals? Just throwin that out there, ya know? Spooky873 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours per the three-revert rule for edit-warring on My Hero (song). It is clear that you are using 74.79.76.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a proxy for your edit wars--the edit summaries in these two diffs ([5] [6]) are sufficient evidence. Any further edit warring or abusive sock puppetry will result in successively longer blocks. --jonny-m t 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im too lazy to sign in. Somehow im doing it on purpose though? How stupid. Spooky873 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's not so much the intent as it is the fact that, when the two contribution histories are taken together, you are clearly edit warring. The block is only for 24 hours--I suggest you use the remaining time to think of ways to work more cooperatively. --jonny-m t 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the other user was blocked then. If not for me, "grunge" would still be on there. I guess people are more concerned with edit warring than getting things right around here. Well, excuse me then. Spooky873 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foo Fighters. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

User talk:67.242.56.62

Also, WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:POINT, get over yourself. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Case

Hello, Spooky873. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion of your other IP as detailed at User talk:67.242.56.62 - on the next occasion I will consider an indefinite blocking. You are 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. --VS ^talk 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry - evasion of blocks - reblocked

Block notice following --VS ^talk 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]