Jump to content

User:Bcorr/Bird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page preserves some of the relevant contributions of or about user:Bird and his many, many sock puppets

"You are a dangerous cult asshole Bcorr who tries to use force to prevent free speech. I hope you choke in your own vomit. I have eternity and a day to confront pukes like you." -- Bird, 04:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets

[edit]
Banned by me for 72 hours. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not banned:
  • (User:194.200.187.130 contributions) - interesting. This is an IIS box attached to the Internet, showing just a default page. It might be an idea to contact the admins of this machine, and ask them if it should be posting messages here.
All thease IPs (at least last time I checked) Were proxy servers. He is proxying around the blocks. If you do a google search these ips are all on proxy lists. All these users are bird. Quinwound
Ten more IPs BCorr ¤ Брайен

Other pages like this one

[edit]


The talk page of User:Bird as it existed at 04:28, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Please do not revert my user talk page. I am telling you and I will continue to report to the pages where I have contributed that I have no confidence in the information I contributed. You may revert pages to the condition they were before I edited them and I will have nothing to say about my contributions.


Further, after more research, my opinion about the copyright of images I contributed changed. I now know them to be copyrighted image that cannot be used on Wikipedia.

If they are US govt, then it's OK, they are public domain, unless they come from a third-party source. Could you specify where?
No, i don't care to further help you find images for your project. I'm telling you I posted them then later discovered them to be copyrighted. Period.
It would be great if you could just tell me exactly what it was that caused you to do this, then perhaps we can all take a deep breath and figure what's going on. Yours in good faith. --Lexor|Talk 16:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird.  :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written? It looks great to me. What sources did you rely on? If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote. If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time. Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves. I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :) fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird.  :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written? It looks great to me. What sources did you rely on? If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote. If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time. Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves. I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :) fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most
That is because I fabricated a user identity with the intention of creating oen that is favorable to group think her. Nobody here knows me and it is apparent that when my real values show, I require more than some want to put out. the show is over "bird"
but what do you require? I still don't know what you mean. it sounds like this whole thing was an experiment in testing the community, but if so, for what purpose? --Lexor|Talk 16:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What I meant by that was that you care about the content you're adding. Contributors who care are contributors who are valued. Nobody here knows me either, but I believe that I add useful things to this project in my own small way. fabiform | talk 16:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Bird: you know, this is a wikiwiki, not a peer-reviewed journal. We strive for accurate content and we need educated people (like you seem to be) on every subject. If there are mistakes, we hope they will be sooner or later mended, but -in my opinion- a slightly wrong article is better than nothing. Pfortuny 16:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've blanked the brain article within the last hour, claiming that its factual accuracy was questionable and that the images were violations of copyright.

I don't see indications on the copyvio page as to where the images are copies from so that it can be checked as to whether they are really that. You are thus not following standard Wikipedia behaviors which is highly objectionable. You seem to have been here for a bit, so you should have been aware of the ettiquette. Also, disputes as to the accuracy of the article are NOT grounds for blanking the article.

So far as I can tell, this is just a one-off incident, but I will look into it. If I find that you have been blanking without due cause in other places I will take the appropriate steps necessary to start the arbitration process or whichever strand if appropriate towards getting you watched a lot more closely. Your apparent vandalism has been noted and you have been warned about it. David Newton 16:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The history is longer than it looks like, David, I for this time would not call it vandalism. Pfortuny 17:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
David, you might want to look into Talk:Brain to see the source of this issue. Bird is reverting his edits to the state before he started working on them. It appears s/he may have been ticked off about the focus on image trivialites and felt that not enough attention was being paid to factual accuracy and/or peer review (and in fact was perhaps deliberately putting in a few false facts to test the community). We would have to look over the edits carefully to see what was actually done. It's all very strange and vexing, but it appears the reverts have stopped and perhaps Bird has logged off. I suggest waiting a while to see if Bird returns or not, and then doing whatever repairs are necessary. --Lexor|Talk 17:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but blanking an entire article and putting a line of text saying that its accuracy is disputed it NOT the way to go about that. I was just looking at the Recent Changes and happened to see the rather suspicious subject line of bird's last edit of the brain article. I then saw it had been blanked and started to investigate. I called it apparent vandalism, not just straight vandalism. However, given that I have come across several other articles that have been largely blanked over the past few edits, I am more inclined to say it is vandalism. It is a strange type of vandalism, but it is vandalism I am forced to conclude. I am leaning towards putting this on the vandalism in progress page so that other sysops can have a look at and fix some more of the problems and also keep an eye on things if/when bird logs on again. David Newton 17:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's 27 articles I count that were either completely or mostly blanked or had rather odd things done to them. Even the Community Portal had a FAQ link removed for no apparent reason. I have reverted most of those articles that others hadn't found, and I have noted what is going on on the vandalism in progress page. Blanking or nearly blanking over 20 articles is certainly vandalism so far as I am concerned, regardless of whether the person wrote the articles as well. David Newton 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
With regards to the FAQ, I hear tell that he wrote the School FAQ which extolled some of the features of Wikipedia and indicated that it could be used as a resource in schools. However, some of his comments indicate that earlier (check the history of this page, methinks) indicated that he was withdrawing any such support and reccomendation. Fennec 18:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. It's just very strange, because we had a good contributor who felt that there was not enough attention to peer review being done (and too much attention on image formatting), and then disappears in a huff, blanking his/her pages as s/he goes (and not reverting them to the pre-Bird state as s/he had indicated s/he was going to do on Talk:Brain. But it could be even stranger, have a look at Bird's comments on User talk:Fennec to see what I mean. I'm not sure if this entirely premediated, or whether Bird was being ironic. All very odd. --Lexor|Talk 17:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
David, you are right, but as I followed the case in real time, I noticed it more as someone becoming mad and trying to destroy his/her own work than as vandalism. But I am not trying to defend these acts. Pfortuny 18:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Bird,

If you think articles should be deleted, list them on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, rather than blanking them. Please see that page for procedures. -- The Anome 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed content I contributed, I now realize it all to be ridden with errors and plagiarism. I am removing information I contributed which I know to be innacurate. If somebody wants to do the research to contribute accurate information, fine. Otherwise, back off before I begin recalling errors i made while using other information. It is wrong. I am fixing the errors. Don't try me. Not a bird

Before deleting anything for plagiarism we'd better know where it has been plagiarized from. Otherwise, your claims are void. Pfortuny 19:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about I tell you i made up everything I posted and what I didnt' make up I copied. And how about I make press releases citing many other articles I made up with no research besides an old textbook. In some cases I even OCR'ed the text directly into wikipedia. Don't cross me. This site lacks the resources do anything by cry and wish it had not lost the integrity I contributed. There is nothing you can do to restore integrity to anything written under this user name and I will make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of my testimony to the inaccuracy of my work. Go ahead, poke me with a stick some more....
Oh, no. I insist, this is a wikiwiki, not the Annals of Mathematics. So nobody should take WP as a definitive source for anything. Just a starter. Pfortuny 19:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello again Bird. The correct way to deal with copyright violations on Wikipedia is to list the relevant articles on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Just blanking pages is against policy and will likely be reverted. If you have added copyvio to Wikipedia, then it should be deleted not blanked. Only administrators have the power to delete. What you're doing achieves nothing as everything you've ever written on Wikipedia is stored in page histories. If you carry on breaking Wikipedia policies by mass blankings etc you aren't likely to have the chance to "make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of [your] testimony to the inaccuracy of [your] work" as you will be seen as a vandal and banned. fabiform | talk 19:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Use whatever euphemism you want to shape the situation to conform with your personal reality. I am a writer who realized after the fact that I had contributed unreliable information. I will make every effort to assure that anyone who attempts to read the false, innaccurate, copied information I submitted knows that it is in fact unreliable. If you want to spend the next six months playing vigilante, ignore the subject matter and continue to go after thye person. The best thing for you to do would be shut up and quit trying to control my actions. Leave the articles the way they were without my contributions and there will be no reason for me to expose the errors in the articles. There is no correct way. The correct way is to acknowledge you have learned nothing from me and that I will not allow you to consider anything I have written or copied to the site as credible. It seems folks here are much better at fighting vandals and moving around pictures than they are at discussion biological phsycology. If that's the arena you want to play in - fighting vandals, have at it. On the other hand, if you have an interest in biological psychology, go read the 20 blank talk pages where nobody had nay interest in the subject matter. Of course the pages maintain history logs. That is where I am addressign these comments, so that anyone who studies these articles can review the history pages and realize the author fabricated or plagiarized the content. Get over it and start over.
"so-called bird"


The image blatted from the deleted version of Human brain is in the public domain. I made it myself as described on the image page. Accusations of plagiarism should not be bandied around lightly. Especially when wrong. Washington irving 19:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Make no mistake, I do not bandy lightly. My approach is forceful. If you created an image and would like to place it on a page, do so. If you would like to compile a list of regions in the human brain, do so. But if you want to create an encyclopedia based on what you think you learned from this username, you can rest assured the accuracy and plagiarism challenges will endure as long as anything sourced from this writer returns to the pages in its original form.

The list of human brain regions is based on nothing but my fancy and speculation. The image I posted there was copyrighted. If you want to start over, find some time and do so, based on your own research, and compile it in such a way that it does not mirror text I have repeatedly stated now is copied right out of a book. . "so-called bird"

Maybe I shouldn't reply, but I feel that I should repeat (forcefully) that the image currently shown on Human brain and List of regions in the human brain are in the public domain. The content I added to these and other pages is not plagiarized. I take the accusation of plagiarism very seriously. It is insulting and wrong. I think this will be my last comment on this page. I'm sorry you chose the important topic of the Brain to make an example of. Many honest and creative people have been contributing to these pages in good faith. Washington irving 19:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protection of Vandalised Pages

[edit]

OK, this has now escalated rather seriously. Your persistent failure to follow the established ways of doing things has meant that I've protected a whole slew of pages that have been involved in your reversion attempts. I have also added disputed accuracy notices to most of them, so they should be fact checked as well. Any further vandalism will result in protection of those pages as well, and yes we know about Accuracy dispute your sock puppet.

You are going the right way about being banned completely from the Wikipedia. That is now a long process, but it can happen. So, here's what's going to happen:

  1. You will refrain from any more reversions or blankings of pages that you have edited.
  2. You will go about things in the correct manner for the Wikipedia (within the limits that page protection imposes). That means that if you want a page deleted you will list it on votes for deletion. You can't actually follow the copyright violation policy of the Wikipedia now that the pages are protected, so as a substitute I would suggest putting a message on the relevant talk page giving a reference as to where the copyright violation comes from. It can then be checked.

So far you have made one solid point in one of your reversions, claiming that a page was copied from a particular book. That can be checked, but your other edit summaries have been useless in that respect, as well as being the wrong way to do things.

It would also help immensely if you would sign your posts. To do so please use ~~~ to sign without a date and ~~~~ to sign with a date and timestamp.David Newton 20:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It's now reached the stage where the vandalism has reached the user's own talk page. Bird makes the completely false claim that he/she is being blocked from editing this page. It has not been locked down. It has had blankings reversed. After this message, I am going to retrieve the blanked messages. After that, I am going to start the process of getting the username banned. David Newton 21:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Messages that have been reverted

[edit]

"How about all of you middle class pigs mind your own business and stop trying to play dictator. Nobody had any interest in this contributor until they smelled blood in the water, and now out of the woodwork crawls a dozen cockroaches clamoring to say how things should be.

There is a real simple way to get respect out of whoever created this former user name. If you have something to add, add it. If this user name reverts copy that it wrote, for whatever reason, accept it and come up with something to replace it. Otherwise, this is not an encyclopedia it is a game environment for people whose life is built around dictating the behavior of others.

My testimony is that the site is not designed to attract contributors, but rather to attract humans with serotonin oriented systems for the dopamine governed power elite who rule the site, as I so adroitly explained in the article on HPA_axis but which I later refused to validate as original or accurate because nobody cares enough to go out and bother to find out if the information that is coming over the transmom is accurate. When the information was preseneted as article, it was all good. But when it becomes a reality in your power game, I am certain one of the first replies will be to imply that I am incoherrent and that attempting to understand my reasoning before rebutting me is irrational because I offer no reason.

Lexor is so wrong to chime in with the projection that my concern is attachment to articles. I have produced far more and affected more action in this world that I will ever be able to attach to. That is the fundament of this users approach, which I stated and which Lexor failed to acknowledge - that I resent being asked to use a user name, and did so only as a concession to dominant factions in a group. The material I submit should be reviewed for accuracy, not for my reputation. I assure you, i will not allow this group to establish a sense of credibiltiy around any user name I create. This is a very intentional effort to destroy any credibility associated with this handle.

This site attempts to identify and type casting people. Editors are allowed to contribute unaltered text based on their reputation among the dopamine crowd here, not because other editors knowledgable in the field have reviewed and checked the work. I will not allow credibility to attach to the bilines of articles I write here, no matter how profound my contributions. The bottom line is none of you have the skills to work with me and you lost me in part. I will do my work from some other approach, and will advocate the same causes in whatever I do here."

"Yeh, ask a person to talk, reject what they say, lock them out of the dialogue. I can see a few Wikipedians are having a real big day in their careers here, finally with some conflict into which they can inject their confident demands."

"This page edit was made by USER:BIRD who was blocked from managing this user page. My preference is to archive all discussion so far and that is the status to which I am setting this page. If anyone tampers with it by reverting, they are not only vandalizing my creative work, they are committing an act of aggression toward me. I encourage all of you to forget about this user except that if this user announces a lack of confidence in something this user created, you go back to where the work started and pick up from there."

These were reverted, once by me, once by User:Jwrosenzweig and once by User:Ahoerstemeier. The talk page was blanked in each case and replaced by the message in question.

This is now a replacement for a page blanked, presumably by Bird. David Newton 21:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I am NOT reverting your user page. I am reverting your TALK page. Those are two entirely different things. Your talk page has not been protected, although you are actually tempting me sorely to do so. However, that would be contrary to Wikipedia policy, since I am now involved rather heavily in this situation and also because it is bad form to protect someone else's talk page. David Newton 21:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Just tracking the netblock for 210.177.229.13: 

inetnum:      210.177.128.0 - 210.177.255.255
netname:      PCCW-BIA
descr:        PCCW Business Internet Access
country:      HK
admin-c:      TA66-AP
tech-c:       TA66-AP
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA
mnt-lower:    MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA-CS
changed:      jacky.sm.lam@pccw.com 20020815
status:       ALLOCATED PORTABLE
source:       APNIC

role:         TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATORS
address:      Pacific Century Cyberworks
address:      Room 280, 2/F Telecom House,
address:      3 Gloucester Road,
address:      Wanchai, Hong Kong.
country:      HK
e-mail:       noc@imsbiz.com
admin-c:      NOC18-AP
admin-c:      JL1059-AP
admin-c:      DL430-AP
tech-c:       NOC18-AP
tech-c:       JL1059-AP
tech-c:       DL430-AP
nic-hdl:      TA66-AP
notify:       noc@imsbiz.com
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA
changed:      jacky.sm.lam@pccw.com 20020606
source:       APNIC


Addition to User:Sam Spade's talk page on 3/8/200420040309brd

[edit]

Wikipedia vigilantes

[edit]

Jack, I notices your lynching party over on the requests for deadminship page and thought it appropriate to nod your way in support. It's not that I want allies on the battle field - I am not even my own ally. But it is interesting to see the same adolescent pattern employed against other editors.

It appears the trend here is for people to join the site, write a few articles, mob up with a few allies and gain admin status. The admins that rush in when they smell conflict unversally take a side and begin slandering the other party in the conflict with insults like "vandal" and on-line versions of the "n" word. (it starts with "t").

Essentially, these are probably people whose parents suppressed their expression as children and now these people need an opportunity to suppress and dominate someone else. An on-line environment provides an excellant oppurtunity for some people to recapitulate childhood conflict, and we see probably three dozen or so administrators here actively spending their days behaving in ways any reasonable pschoanalyst can recognize as neurotic or representative of a personality disorder, usually relating to social interaction. Of course the most common form of communication from these vigilantees is demands phrased to sound parental. Usually they speak in orders such as to "comply with my demands, please or I will force you to join our concensus."

A few research assistants here at the department are gathering some data to scope out a possible study of the phenomenon. There is an abundance of literature available describing these behaviors in on-line environments, but we have never before had an opportunity to study them is a group, except for the research that has been gleaned from studies of USENET. In this case, the authoritarian component is unique, and it is uniquely attached to a sense of intellectual credibility becuase of the ostensibly educational nature of the project.

The lynching of bird is classic. User:bird is a surly editor who has little patience for innaccuracy, in bird's own writing or in the work of others. Bird is likely to return to articles bylines Bird and remove Birds own statements that appear to be generalities rather than specifics. When bird began exposing the innaccuracy of several articles, somebody went for a rope and the lyching was on. Apparently, the lynch mob so likes birds self critique, they want to ban the user name so the technique will reappear under several other names before they eventually begin to recognize the humanity of editors such as bird who contributed for several weeks without interfering with any other editors.

One editor, however, Washington irving had the gaul to claim he had textbooks on his shelf to tell him the cerebellum is not part of the archipallium, but he failed to correct the error for several weeks because he knew bird to be insane. now there is some freindly collaboration. Irving had little to contribute and is the major instigator of the Kill Bird Campaign. OF the others who jumped into the fray, none had any interest in the articles in question before they joined Irvings posse, and none has communicated with Bird in an honest effort to understand bird's concerns (which are easy enough to understand from the statements bird made when starting to review earlier contributions for accuracy).

My personal opinion is that this site represents a microcosm of the imperialist attitudes of Americans and Brits. It might be a good thing that editors expose their behavioral styles here, because so exposed, intelligence agencies from nations threatened by these empires can better study the sociopathic psyche of the Western Capitalist mind.

Additions to User:Washington irving's talk page on 3/8/2004

[edit]

I've protected a whole slew of pages involved in the Bird dispute, and if possible they need to be fact checked and/or listed for deletion. David Newton 20:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How do I go about doing this? Some of the material contributed by Bird is questionable, and the prominence given to different topics is debatable. However, the bulk of what s/he has contributed seems to me (a cognitive neuroscientist/biological psychologist) as accurate as any other article in the early stages of a major rewrite. I always planned to go back and review the text once s/he'd calmed down a bit. The edits were coming thick and fast for quite a while -- with no summaries, so it was difficult to check the changes as they occurred. Plus, I always thought there was something a bit funny about Bird's interactions with other wikipedians (see early versions of Birds talk page), and that made me avoid direct contact. Bird has suggested that s/he copied chunks out of books. All I can say is that if Bird most of his/her material from books/internet sources, the nature and number of the edits alone suggests to me that there is little direct plagiarism here.

If left to my own devices I would revert to the last pre-Bird versions of Brain and List of regions in the human brain and then begin adding Bird's material back in, checking for factual accuracy and rewording/restructuring to avoid any possible plagiarism in the original version while doing so. The Human brain page was started by Bird, so it could be started again from scratch. Much of the content seems accurate if rather unbalanced. All this will be a big job. It is a shame Bird picked on the brain, cos it's an interesting and important topic, and not that controversial at this level. To be honest, I expect Bird will be back in some form or other (phoenix perhaps) to disrupt whatever efforts I or anyone else makes. Washington irving 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your assumptions are unfounded and slanderous. You blamed bird for your failure to participate in an editorial process despite repeated posts by myself and bird to encourage qualified collaboration. Now you claim you knew all along bird was disruptive. Hmmm. But you feel it important to find out by jumping in and moving images around without comment and after bird has invited discussion of the matter.
I now understand why the brain list was wrong when I arrived and the article was a jumble of sophomoric recollections left over from todays' physiology class - Washington Irving was watching the page.
You apparently feel yourself qualified not only to say how these pages should develop but to also diagnose the condition of other writers. If I find you hold a medical license, I promise I will complain to your state licensing authorities that you are practicing out of school.
What is apparent is that the whole sad lot of you who have made it your mission to adopt a confrotational posture are quite comfortable talking about a person and talking to a person, but you lack any skills for talking with a person whom you think might challenge you. That is why you backed away from this user name and from bird - you knew you were facing responses prepared with sufficient mental resources to challenge you in your own field. If Bird thought there was a hint of cooperative spirit among this group I am certain the user would willingly continue to develop articles. But it appears you have a different reality designed, in which bird is a vandal and you are the do-good who came along and fixed it. I'm sure you can find plenty of people here who will play along with your fantasy role play game. But it appears the popular rumour in newsrooms nationwide is being confirmed here - Wikipedia looks like an encyclopedia but it is really a place where academics can hide behind a computer and try to bully people with their knowledge.
Bear in mind as you fact check but fail to verify if what I contributed is in fact original intellectual product, you watched a page that said the cerebellum is part of the archipallium for weeks and had nothing to say, you say because you wanted to exploit a manic who was producing free articles for your project before the inevitable burnout, which you of course anticipated. Says a lot about your people skills. And your ethics. Hide and rush out on the attack when whoever challenged you is retreating. Your a real big man today, Irving. I'm so impressed. SoCal 02:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


It turned out to be Raptor! (see [2]) So I wasn't far wrong. I liked the bit on Bird's talk page about "none of you have the skills to work with me", an interesting turn of phrase, and remarkably insightful. Washington irving 21:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well, yes, how ignorant of bird. We all know anybody from the more cosmopolitan and wealthy regions of hte Western world would say "none of you has the skill to retain Bird as a collaborative partner" It sounds like you are already celebrating birds flight because you wont have to read any more articles and think "I wish I wrote that." SoCal

How about this: How about you go do the legwork to find a public domain brain image, of a non-hominoid species but which is larger than the cat brain so it will fit in a close series of three images that I tried and thoughtfully found to be too imposing with the human brain there. You cut out the background pixel by pixel and you deal with uploading and well, golly gee, you already know the layout language, so you wont' even have to bone up to participate, you can just throw that image right on the page where you threw the human brain image and find out if users are a little more comfortable with that configuration. And then I can stand back and say, no it looks better over there. And chances are I might consider three images in the middle space to be balance. But my opinion might be based on nothing more than what you base your opinion opinion about image placement
But that would run the risk for you of falsifying your theory that you didn't participate in editing these pages because you knew the writer to be insane. I doubt you know how to hike up to the high road.
Oh, this one is really irking me. You intentionally overlook factual errors in an open editorial project and say it is because you knew the contributor to be insane. God. I suggest you delete your user name and spend some time thinking about who you've become. SoCal 02:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hang in there

[edit]

This will blow over. -- Decumanus 07:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. These users/this user is so far out of line it's not true... you have the support of the community. You might just have to ignore their rantings for a while until they are banned/dealt with.  :) fabiform | talk 14:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whatever fabiform. My advice to irving is to cash in the user name and come back with a pseudonym that has no reputation other than the credibility that affixes to what they wrote in the last few hours. I don't hear anyone paying much attention to Bird's concerns about level of accuracy in neuroscience stories, so it appears this community needs somebody to get way out of line because this community is lined up in the wrong place. This community is about power and prestige and I am about crashing that sick party with a technically accurate diagnosis of the disease, which is exactly the content I submitted and you sad souls are now falling all over yourself to keep - The neurochemistry of oppression.
I can confront your oppressive language as quick as you can shape the words An angry mob has seldom backed me down before and it won't interfere with my ambition here to expropriate knowledge from power-lords who use it to enforce their political will. Bird
Bird seems keen to replace IP addresses. I have noticed one or two, that have been replaced. (e.g., see Bird's edit before this one). Might be worth keeping track of for future reference. Washington irving 16:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Washington Irving seems keen to attribute malicious motive rather than consder the obvious solutions first. Bird likely failed to log in, then noticing that the post was signed with an IP rather than a username, reedited so the posting would be signed.
The propaganda technique Washington Irving is applying here is to frame the discussion in terms of policing another person, implying that force and domination is the appropriate approach because the other person's concerns are not worthy of consideration. Irving appears to be a regular propagandist at this site, who drivled together a few articles on brain science to lend credibility to the campaign which followed, which was a series of articles describing public discourse in terms of propaganda, as propaganda is described by Democrat or Green political interests. Reality check

You definitely have our support. I combatted him briefly yesterday and got a taste of the vandalism you appear to have been facing: let me know if he resurfaces, and I'll be happy to help run interference. Jwrosenzweig 16:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you enjoyed some combat yesterday. Is that why you participate in Wikipedia, Jwrosenzweig?Reality check


Addition to User:Ed Poor's talk page on 3/8/2004

[edit]

Ed Poor you are a malicious vigilante who is easily swayed by group pressure to avoid the difficult work of examining the accuracy and provenance of what is contributed to an open document. If a band of thugs have formed a neighborhood safety committe and now wants to arbitrate to whom this document is open adn to whom it is not, go ahed and try, because one, you can't keep anyone from editing, and two, the more times you thugs say "open except to that person and that one and that one" the more rediculous becomes the claim that this is an open document.

You claimed to be on vacation but just couldn't avoid the chance to feed when you smelled blood in the water. If this matter is important to you, kindly post links to your so called "Arbitrary Committee" so I can tell them to thier face they are a bunch of thugs with no legitimacy, no democratic foundation and no purpose but to exclude effective criticisms from this liberal propaganda effort.

If I recall, you have been the target of repeated complaints about your abuse of authority. Why don't you honor your promise and go on vacation. The people on the mailing list were spending their time slandering Bird rather than edit articles and improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia. If that is the game you play that is fine because it is easy to expose there is no way you can prevent further exposure, or recruitment of others who will even more scornfully ridicule the malicious games you play in the name of producing and educational document. USER:BIRD

Addition to User:168...'s talk page on 3/8/2004

[edit]

your caustic demeanor: Right ON!

[edit]

168, you are a surly and abrasive editor who seldom gets along well with others. Your attacks on articles that lack credibility are forceful and show little patience for writers who employ weasle words and vague generalities. It is no wonder you have been the target of a lynching. I am very glad someone from my posse recently reinvigorated the complain about admins page. We now have an excellent oppurtunity to observe the behavior of the vigilantes who comprise the active sysop cadre and who can be expected to commandeer the arbitary committee.

168, you are exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia needs. Wikipedia is not a social club. Cordiality and trust among editors offends the need to challenge and inspect each other's work. The predominant trend is that people gain status and their work goes unchallenged unless somebody disagrees for political reasons.

In your honor I promise to increase the abrasiveness of my demeanor until other wikipedians accept that is their privilage to critique what i submit as articles, but not the way I choose to relate as a person. If I am inspired to review my edits, that is nobodys business but mine, unless they can present facts that show the words I submitted were in fact true and original. What these overgrown teenagers are failing to understand is that it is not their choise how you or I act, if we want to be abrasive, surly, flippant, that is our choice and they have no basis to demand otherwise. I will continue until the culture here becomes one of factual challenges instead of dehumanizing personal attacks. Eventually, the culture here will understand that abrasiveness is not the same as accusing someone of malice, which unquestionably the primary modus operande for the current cadre of sysop/vigilantees.

Whatever is the need for sysops at this site, what is happening here is not meeting that need. We have a gang of vigilante thugs who race to kangaroo court everytime the come up against an editor they feel they cannot back down by requiring the abrasive editor to accept milquetoast polite mealymouthed articles that contain litte factual information.

the biggest joke is they keep threatening to "block" me. woooo..... That might mean I would have to sign off and log in again. Ouch. someday they might realize the absurdity of their mockery of a process and start learning to interact with people who challenge them. Teaching that lesson makes all of the abuse more than worth it. Keep on but don't be nice to me just because I patted you on the back once. Surly, flippant skepticism makes for an accurate and cautious editorial team. Face down a mob

From the village pump on 3/9/2004

[edit]

I am finding it hard to deal with the unreasonable personal attacks from this user or users (see my talk page and those of the pages to which I have contributed). Do I have any support. What should I do, because I feel like quitting? Washington irving 07:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why do you think they're the same person? Oh, and a quick look says thatBad faith appears to be living up to the username. Check user contributions. Isomorphic 08:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It appears Bad Faith is throwing down more truth than Isomorphic cares to tolerate.Bad faith
I am not sure that they are all the same user. For more information, check out the talk pages/histories of the following pages:

And see below... Washington irving 08:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Bad faith removed by Angela.

NOT. Legitimate participation censored by Angela from England, who rarely contributes anything of substance and only shows up to interject herself when there is conflict and she has an opportunity to take sides. Angela should recuse herself from this conversation, or at least restrict her activities to contributing her bizarre comments and "STOP CENSORING OTHER PEOPLE" The British Empire is OVER, honey.
Bird and SoCal look to me like the same person. The others I do not know. Pfortuny 08:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please see User:David Newton/Bird Dispute and the talk page User talk:David Newton/Bird Dispute for talk on the problem and suggested solution -- sannse (talk) 12:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the comments USER:Angela deleted were exactly germaine to this discussion. Washington irving is the sole editor and author of pages that are plainly point of view and have no basis in scholarly research. The pages were laced with links to another left-leaning site which in turn is networked to direct-mail fundraising efforts of Democrat organizations.
While Irving was busy creating those political pages, at least one of which is buried in comments about bias and lack of foundation, he overlooked for several months patently erronious information on a brain page he claimed to be watching. When someone showed up to correct the errors, Irving still stood back. He later explained that he thought bird was insane and was afraid to collaborate in an open editorial process with bird, who was writing several profound articles that still don't rise to Bird's high expectations for accuracy, despite Birds earilier best efforts.
Yet, admittedly beleiving insensitive interaction might seem abrasive to another user, Irving chose not to go to battle over something substantive, like whether the cerebellum is part of the archipallium, an issue bird was tediously trying to sort out, but rather, Washington Irving felt he was better qualified to wake up and make a snap judgement about image placement with images Bird had been studying and experimenting with for several hours. Washington Irving's position, like that of slanderer David Newton, is that Bird is insane and that they have no obligation to consider Birds concerns. Would that bother bird? Has lack of consideration ever stopped Bird from delivering a message? I doubt it.
So now Irving and Newton are down here campaigning against a contributor and Newton has the pages locked in a status in which at least Irving knows there are gross errors. I wonder if there is a reason some people might want Wikipedia readers to remain ignorant of science but be interested in political writing?Bird

About drying up the Village Pump on 3/10/2004

[edit]

From Talk:Village pump 05:21, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC) [[3]]:

You can either start allowing open discussion within the Wikipedia namespace, allow writers to rework or totally repudiate their earlier work, and deal with me as a surly collaborator, or you can deal with my effort from outside your so-called community for a long, long time. And it appears you have the hard part of the bargain, because all I have to do is watch and decide if I will make quality contributions that advance human understanding or if I will battle this collectivity to my last breath because I have found it to be a dangerous authoritarian cult.

If you don't like being pushed around and feel you have the moral high ground, I know how you feel. Because I am absolutely confident of my stern approach, am completely fatigued of a mealy mouthed lies from educators who are trying to make knowledge a trade secret, and I have little to loose and everything to gain by fighting with all of my might wherever the battle might present.

The Block log back to 19:00 UTC 3/9/2004

[edit]
  1. 19:16, 10 Mar 2004 Imran blocked "209.175.100.34" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandal)
  2. 19:10, Mar 10, 2004 Angela blocked "172.193.54.149" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  3. 18:39, 10 Mar 2004 Imran blocked "200.32.83.74" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  4. 18:38, Mar 10, 2004 Angela blocked "200.32.83.74" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  5. 18:30, Mar 10, 2004 Dori blocked "195.137.69.149" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  6. 18:24, Mar 10, 2004 Dori blocked "142.163.120.243" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeat vandalisms after having been warned twice )
  7. 18:04, 10 Mar 2004 Imran blocked "64.81.204.135" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  8. 16:52, 10 Mar 2004 Pakaran unblocked "67.74.64.0/18" (This block is affecting legit contributors. )
  9. 09:07, 10 Mar 2004 Theresa knott blocked "24.73.106.122" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  10. 08:55, 10 Mar 2004 Theresa knott blocked "Your Love is Hollow" with an expiry time of 24 hours (reincarnation of user:Bird)
  11. 08:54, 10 Mar 2004 Ahoerstemeier blocked "Your Love is Hollow" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  12. 08:54, 10 Mar 2004 Ahoerstemeier blocked "User:Your Love is Hollow" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  13. 08:37, 10 Mar 2004 Fuzheado blocked "80.206.33.58" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  14. 08:36, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "80.206.33.58" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  15. 08:36, 10 Mar 2004 Tannin blocked "80.206.33.58" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  16. 08:21, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "194.200.187.130" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  17. 08:15, 10 Mar 2004 Fuzheado blocked "194.112.246.174" with an expiry time of 240 hours (bird)
  18. 08:15, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "194.112.246.174" with an expiry time of 48 hours (bird)
  19. 08:05, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "80.58.46.42" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  20. 08:02, 10 Mar 2004 The Anome blocked "80.58.14.42" with an expiry time of 1 month (blanking of VfD and Village pump)
  21. 08:02, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "80.58.14.42" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  22. 07:46, 10 Mar 2004 Tannin blocked "194.212.159.142" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  23. 07:46, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "194.212.159.142" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  24. 07:45, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "192.246.234.55" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Transylvania U vandal)
  25. 07:43, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "217.219.151.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  26. 07:39, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "203.71.62.249" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  27. 07:38, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "202.84.159.76" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  28. 07:38, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "202.84.159.76" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bad bird)
  29. 07:37, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "211.28.173.194" with an expiry time of 24 hours (the == Headline text == vandal)
  30. 07:37, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "202.84.159.76" with an expiry time of 24 hours (no reason needed)
  31. 07:36, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.4.44" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  32. 07:36, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "80.58.4.44" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  33. 07:36, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.4.44" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  34. 07:35, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "192.246.233.206" with an expiry time of 24 hours (nonsense articles)
  35. 07:32, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "210.23.153.20" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  36. 07:32, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "210.23.153.20" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  37. 07:29, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "211.147.107.118" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  38. 07:29, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "211.147.107.118" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  39. 07:28, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "211.147.107.118" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  40. 07:27, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.33.170" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  41. 07:26, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.33.170" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  42. 07:23, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "210.177.229.13" with an expiry time of 10 days (bird....an IP used more often)
  43. 07:22, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "210.177.229.13" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  44. 07:22, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "210.177.229.13" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  45. 07:20, Mar 10, 2004 SimonP blocked "195.101.208.137" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  46. 07:19, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "195.101.208.137" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  47. 07:18, Mar 10, 2004 Morwen blocked "195.101.208.137" with an expiry time of 24 hours ('bird' vandal)
  48. 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "195.101.208.137" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  49. 07:14, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "194.63.235.139" with an expiry time of 24 hours (168.243.73.3)
  50. 07:13, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "194.63.235.139" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  51. 07:13, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "194.63.235.139" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  52. 07:08, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "168.243.73.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  53. 07:08, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "168.243.73.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  54. 07:02, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.217.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  55. 07:02, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.215.137" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  56. 07:01, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.231.10" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  57. 07:01, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "138.87.231.10" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  58. 07:01, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.210.4" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  59. 07:00, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.222.38" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  60. 07:00, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "138.87.222.38" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  61. 06:59, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "138.87.217.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  62. 06:59, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "138.87.231.155" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  63. 06:59, 10 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "138.87.217.3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  64. 06:57, Mar 10, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "210.0.186.247" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  65. 06:57, Mar 10, 2004 TUF-KAT blocked "210.0.186.247" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  66. 06:57, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "210.0.186.247" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  67. 06:56, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "210.0.186.247" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  68. 06:54, 10 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "217.117.14.167" with an expiry time of 24 hours (same)
  69. 06:53, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "217.117.14.167" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  70. 06:50, 10 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "212.253.2.205" with an expiry time of 24 hours (same)
  71. 06:49, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "212.253.2.205" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  72. 06:48, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "210.215.23.2" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  73. 06:48, 10 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "210.215.23.2" with an expiry time of 24 hours (same)
  74. 06:41, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "80.53.204.94" with an expiry time of 24 hours (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
  75. 06:39, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "202.54.65.65" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  76. 06:38, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "202.54.65.65" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  77. 06:38, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "202.54.65.65" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  78. 06:37, 10 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "65.107.219.194" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Attack/Vandalism on Admin page)
  79. 06:37, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "65.107.219.194" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  80. 06:37, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "65.107.219.194" with an expiry time of 24 hours (yawn)
  81. 06:36, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "65.107.219.194" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  82. 06:33, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "198.188.134.105" with an expiry time of 99 hours (boring)
  83. 06:33, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "198.188.134.105" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  84. 06:33, 10 Mar 2004 Tannin blocked "198.188.134.105" with an expiry time of 24 hours (as above)
  85. 06:32, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "198.188.134.105" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  86. 06:31, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "66.192.30.141" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  87. 06:30, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "66.192.30.141" with an expiry time of 99 hours (once again vandalizing page that should be blocked)
  88. 06:30, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "66.192.30.141" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  89. 06:28, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "163.17.64.123" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Been fun. Last block for me. Have fun guys)
  90. 06:28, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "163.17.64.123" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  91. 06:27, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "163.17.64.123" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  92. 06:22, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.32.235" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  93. 06:22, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "80.58.32.235" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism)
  94. 06:22, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.32.235" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  95. 06:22, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "80.58.32.235" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  96. 06:20, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "209.210.176.33" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  97. 06:20, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "209.210.176.33" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Troll)
  98. 06:20, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "209.210.176.33" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  99. 06:20, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "209.210.176.33" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird: persistent vandalism)
  100. 06:16, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "202.153.32.60" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  101. 06:16, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "202.153.32.60" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  102. 06:15, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "202.153.32.60" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird:persistent vandalism)
  103. 06:12, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "211.248.240.211" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird: persistent vandalism)
  104. 06:10, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "61.131.62.70" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persistent trolling, vandalism)
  105. 06:10, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "61.131.62.70" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  106. 06:06, 10 Mar 2004 Fuzheado blocked "209.61.183.232" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  107. 06:05, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "209.61.183.232" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  108. 06:05, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "209.61.183.232" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Revert. Block. Repeat.)
  109. 06:05, 10 Mar 2004 Fuzheado blocked "67.123.238.90" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandal)
  110. 06:04, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "209.61.183.232" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  111. 06:03, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "61.157.138.17" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  112. 06:03, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "61.157.138.17" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship)
  113. 06:03, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "61.157.138.17" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( )
  114. 06:02, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "210.226.82.50" with an expiry time of 76 hours (psycho)
  115. 06:02, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "210.226.82.50" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Troll - who is first on the blocking this time?)
  116. 06:02, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "210.226.82.50" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  117. 06:01, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "80.58.51.109" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Troll)
  118. 06:01, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.51.109" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird vandalizing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship)
  119. 06:01, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.51.109" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  120. 05:58, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "203.90.127.85" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  121. 05:58, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "203.90.127.85" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Troll)
  122. 05:58, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "203.90.127.85" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  123. 05:56, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "202.106.182.176" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  124. 05:55, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "202.106.182.176" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  125. 05:53, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "172.198.243.59" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  126. 05:53, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "200.11.203.100" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  127. 05:53, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "203.170.235.4" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  128. 05:52, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "219.166.216.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  129. 05:52, 10 Mar 2004 WhisperToMe blocked "172.198.243.59" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  130. 05:52, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.50.174" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  131. 05:52, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "66.192.236.118" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  132. 05:52, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "200.252.72.9" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  133. 05:52, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "80.58.10.170" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  134. 05:51, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "203.162.21.69" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalizing Village pump)
  135. 05:51, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "217.45.15.242" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persisent Bugger)
  136. 05:50, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "217.45.15.242" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  137. 05:49, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "80.58.50.107" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Birdbrain)
  138. 05:48, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.50.107" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  139. 05:43, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.58.22.44" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  140. 05:39, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "203.215.73.62" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  141. 05:39, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "203.215.73.62" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  142. 05:39, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "203.215.73.62" with an expiry time of 36 hours (troll)
  143. 05:38, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "213.170.61.219" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  144. 05:38, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "213.170.61.219" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  145. 05:37, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "193.170.65.249" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  146. 05:37, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "193.170.65.249" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  147. 05:36, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "193.170.65.249" with an expiry time of 36 hours (troll)
  148. 05:36, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "80.53.1.130" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  149. 05:36, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "80.53.1.130" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  150. 05:34, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "216.72.233.134" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  151. 05:33, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "216.72.233.134" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  152. 05:33, Mar 10, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "216.72.233.134" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  153. 05:31, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "63.159.212.200" with an expiry time of 36 hours (troll)
  154. 05:28, Mar 10, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "211.20.156.242" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  155. 05:28, Mar 10, 2004 Silsor unblocked "65.97.8.202" (only three contributions, no warning)
  156. 05:22, Mar 10, 2004 Tim Starling blocked "194.206.194.129" with an expiry time of 24 hours (bird)
  157. 05:21, Mar 10, 2004 Dori blocked "64.166.22.229" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)
  158. 05:16, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "LordZarglif555" with an expiry time of 24 hours (100% vandalism, warned)
  159. 05:11, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "203.162.21.69" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  160. 05:10, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "80.58.10.170" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  161. 05:10, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan unblocked "80.58.10.170" (changing block to expire in 24 hours)
  162. 05:09, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "203.162.21.69" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  163. 05:09, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "203.162.21.69" with an expiry time of 24 hours (thank you for making me feel useful)
  164. 05:07, 10 Mar 2004 Cyan blocked "80.58.10.170" with an expiry time of indefinite (you sad, sad man)
  165. 05:06, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "200.252.72.9" with an expiry time of 76hours (Bird)
  166. 05:06, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "200.252.72.9" with an expiry time of 24 hours (This Bird person, I guess)
  167. 05:04, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "80.58.50.174" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  168. 05:03, 10 Mar 2004 RadicalBender blocked "219.166.216.98" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Same user keeps screwing up Village Pump for whatever reason (not following discussion))
  169. 04:58, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "203.170.235.4" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird)
  170. 04:54, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "200.11.203.100" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  171. 04:43, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "63.227.61.66" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)
  172. 04:43, 10 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "63.227.61.66" with an expiry time of 76 hours (Bird)
  173. 04:42, Mar 10, 2004 Bcorr blocked "68.210.135.52" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated creation of article that are just links to websites -- warned repeatedly)
  174. 04:28, 10 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "67.114.247.104" with an expiry time of 48 hours (John Hassle)
  175. 03:22, 10 Mar 2004 The Epopt blocked "Love over Money" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Bird sock puppet)
  176. 02:57, Mar 10, 2004 Eloquence blocked "168.37.252.8" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeat vandal)
  177. 02:44, Mar 10, 2004 Eloquence blocked "80.58.11.44" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated vandalism)
  178. 02:33, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "212.130.191.141" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)
  179. 02:19, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "194.126.99.88" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)
  180. 01:39, 10 Mar 2004 Pakaran blocked "67.74.64.0/18" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Sorry, this range has been used by Bird a LOT. )
  181. 01:35, 10 Mar 2004 Kingturtle blocked "Fuck" with an expiry time of indefinite (was recently unblocked. this is an account of Michael's, a banned user)
  182. 01:35, 10 Mar 2004 Maximus Rex unblocked "24.69.255.203" (I think px2wh.vc.shawcable.net may be a proxy server for shaw cable)
  183. 00:36, 10 Mar 2004 The Anome blocked "66.185.84.208" with an expiry time of 14 days (blocking recidivist vandal who has added profanity to Henry VIII article after many other warnings)
  184. 00:23, 10 Mar 2004 172 blocked "67.74.103.79" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Damn shifting IP addresses!)
  185. 00:08, 10 Mar 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "#2248" (If Optim wishes to leave the project, sie can simply refrain from editing)
  186. 00:08, 10 Mar 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "Optim" (If Optim wishes to leave the project, sie can simply refrain from editing)
  187. 00:08, 10 Mar 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "#2243" (If Optim wishes to leave the project, sie can simply refrain from editing)
  188. 00:08, 10 Mar 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "#2252" (If Optim wishes to leave the project, sie can simply refrain from editing)
  189. 21:54, 9 Mar 2004 Evercat blocked "139.142.154.105" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism, adding misinformation)
  190. 21:13, 9 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "67.74.103.79" with an expiry time of 24 hours (threat on user talk page)
  191. 20:30, Mar 9, 2004 Raul654 blocked "Handle this" with an expiry time of indefinite (Bird reincarnation)
  192. 20:19, 9 Mar 2004 Texture blocked "61.218.217.246" with an expiry time of 24 hours (returning vandal)
  193. 20:00, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "194.200.187.130" with an expiry time of 4 hours (Opposes the purpose of this project)
  194. 19:54, 9 Mar 2004 Jwrosenzweig blocked "194.200.187.130" with an expiry time of 24 hours (returning vandal)
  195. 19:20, 9 Mar 2004 172 blocked "67.74.94.168" with an expiry time of 99999 hours (non-stop vandalism for weeks)
  196. 19:06, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor unblocked "#2262" (I'm back)
  197. 19:05, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor unblocked "Ed Poor"
  198. 19:05, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor unblocked "#2230"
  199. 19:02, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Reality check" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  200. 19:02, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Bad faith" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  201. 19:01, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "SoCal" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  202. 19:01, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "B.ird" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  203. 19:01, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Accuracy dispute" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  204. 19:01, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Raptor" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)
  205. 19:00, 9 Mar 2004 Ed Poor blocked "Bird" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Vandalism rampage)

Mediation

[edit]

removed as the information is no longer posted publicly at http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewtopic.php?t=43

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bcorr/Bird&oldid=58900085"