User talk:The Great Saiyuki

Do not blank other users' pages. This is considered vandalism. Given your reversion of Otherkin and harassment of SlimVirgin, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're yet another reincarnation of Gabrielsimon. android 79 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

al u gys ever do isf giv me trble ad i really get sic of putin g up wiht it! I haet you alThe Great Saiyuki 17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I just came here to say, "Hi Gabriel, back so soon?" but you beat me to it. Friday (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usualy i dont say thsi, but go fal in a hol a suffer, you al are gong straight to hel! I HATE YOU@! The Great Saiyuki 17:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the arbitration ruling, this sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely, and Gabrielsimon's two-month ban is restarted today, now ending on January 3, 2006. android 79 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth... Gabriel emailed me and said this wasn't him and requested a sock check. On the one hand, he's socked before and denied it. On the other hand, if someone wanted to impersonate him, they'd do exactly what this editor did above. Come to think of it, the spelling above is terrible, even for Gabriel, and the "I hate you" stuff doesn't exactly sound like him, to me. Friday (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't quite fit his characteristic style of misspelling. FreplySpang (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It fits his characteristic style, taken to an extreme. It may indicate that he is extremely upset or hurried – I have noticed in the past that GS's spelling deteriorates the angrier he gets. This edit summary is what tipped me off in the first place. I'm not inclined to believe that this is an impersonator. For purposes of blocking this account, it's irrelevant; it should be blocked indefinitely whether it is a sockpuppet or an impersonator. For purposes of restarting Gabrielsimon's two-month ban, maybe it's sufficient evidence, maybe it's not. Perhaps a sockcheck is in order, though it seems silly to bother David with this. android 79 19:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first diff definitely looks like him. However, to me there's a reasonable suspicion that this could be someone intentionally impersonating him. The comments here sound to me like an over-the-top impersonation of him. I'd love to see a sock check done, and if David Gerard is too busy, it's a great indication that having only one person to do sock checks is bizarre and inadequate. It does directly relate to an Arbcom case though, so I'd assume he'd certainly do it if asked. Friday (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he usually add letters to words? In any case, GS's previous 2-month block doesn't expire until late December (I think) so no hurry on the sockcheck. It seems that additional people will be getting CheckUser powers soon, too. [1] So it should be a smaller deal to request one. FreplySpang (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has apparently emailed David and asked for a check. ~~ N (t/c) 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more info from others at some point, but what I know right now is that the IP check came back to an entirely different geographic region as GS's IPs. Thus, sockpuppetry on Gabriel's part is inconsistant with IP evidence. I've removed the sock notification from the User page. Friday (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Did David do a prelim IP check or something? android 79 01:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]