User talk:Afterlife10

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Homebirdni for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. O Fenian (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Very funny, not! :(  Afterlife10 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Belfast. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Canterbury Tail  talk  11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Block, January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at User talk:O Fenian. In addition, your editing on that page amounted to harassment. This is not acceptable and will result in a longer block if repeated. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rockpock e  t  21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit summaries: "smirk", "lol" are not those of an editor unaware of the consequences of his reverting. Nevertheless, another admin will review the evidence and they can unblock you if they see fit, with no objection from me. Rockpock  e  t  22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just thought it was funny that the User account had requested so much that I answer to everyone of his points on the Belfast WP talk page that when it came to the user answering my questions, they were not prepared to do so. If I hear another user say that WP is a collaboration, only has to take at look at the inflexibility of O_Fenian to see otherwise. Obviously if I had known there were consequences I would not of reverted but given that O_fenian left no summary in the revert, how was I to know I was doing anything wrong?Afterlife10 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok worth a try. I would not of reverted but given that O_fenian left no summary in the revert, how was I to know I was doing anything wrong? welcome to Wikipedia.ill remember this. when i am faced with a content dispute, just be obnoxious, fail to collaborate or compromise then report opposing editor for edit warring. got it!Afterlife10 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A plea of ignorance might have some credence if it was not for the fact, in the section directly above this, you received a warning of these consequences: In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Rockpock  e  t  23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah but come on, I was editing on a user page. I assumed it was different given that a user page is not reader facing.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you take this 24hr break to read some of our policies to make sure you don't make such incorrect assumptions in future. Start with Edit warring. Rockpock  e  t  23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a law against an uninvolved user removing my comments from O_Fenians talk page? Afterlife10 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There are no "laws" here, just guidance on how to act sensibly. If you called someone and they declined to talk to you for the 6th time, do you really think trying again is likely to be more successful? Is it really not clear that they might not actually want to talk to you? How is posting to their talk page any different? Just take a break, ok? You will be very welcome to return this time tomorrow. (And one last thing, you are welcome to remove other editors comments from your page also, but its generally seen as impolite when they are trying to help you. And if you do it to interfere with admin action, then you are likely to be blocked from editing this page too.) Good evening. Rockpock  e  t  23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

blocked
Here is the SPI case raised against me, though I'm pretty sure I should of been made aware of this, I wasn't. []

In this SPI case I apparently sometimes end my signing with '. Afterlife10' and '.Afterlife'. This is exhibit A. Hard hitting and condemning.

And I edit sometime on the same pages as another blocked user. Ohh just so you, the accuser also contributes on the same pages with a number of other uses that also side with the accuser. hmmm..if your thinking this is some of way of muting me, you would be right. Sadly I'm not the first.

And the 3rd piece of evidence is that I joked that a friend emailed me to come on to wiki and take a looksie. I think the accuser has forgotten what a 'watchlist' is.

All this needs to be looked at by another admin with common sense.

Now to the tricky part, how should i finish my signing. ?@£$Afterlife10 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohh also look at the 2nd user mentioned in the spi - IP 212.183.128.33. here are the article contributions he made. This conbtributions were made before either myself or homebird were blocked and commented on a broad range of articles, all except carlingford lough were I think he agreed with me. Must be guilty? Goes to show how easy it is to get blocked if this user appears completely unrelated to me or homebird or factcop. %$%$Afterlife10 (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Homebirdni doesnt know how to short link to a url as here. *Afterlife10 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And finally a checkuser had previously been run in an older SPI case between myself and Homebirdni. Unrelated! ##Afterlife10 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Checkuser cannot prove innocence. That simply means there was no technical link between the accounts, that is easy enough to do if you use different computers in different locations. That is the reason I presented behavioural evidence. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry O_Fenian(yes I used the underscore) but I have presented just as much evidence to counter your argument. Yes I agree with Homebird, but you also seem to share a similar stance to NorthernCounties, Mo ainm, Bjmullan and HighKing. Does that mean you are socks? Also NC and HK  both sign off the same. This was pointed out by Homebird and subsequently NC removed the space in his signing. See here.. So are they socks of each other?Afterlife10 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also the IP was blocked, just because they edited on Carlingford Lough WP? look at the contribution history. The topics are so broad and spread over a period before you had either myself or Homebird blocked. Why did you pick on the IP? Afterlife10 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This looks remarkably similar to your last request. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added 4 points of evidence which you may of missed.Afterlife10 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, whatever happened to assuming good faith? I am not homebird, but looks like in this case you made another bad judgement and failed to read my comments fully. Ohh well. Guilty by use of punctuation, just as well this isnt a court of law or i'd fear there wouldnt be enough cells in the uk to cope. Can my account just be deleted? If my talk pages are to be revoked and there is not single admin available with common sense, then I'll not be able to make a single edit. Afterlife10 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Danny, your credentials as an admin are highly questionable with comments like this.. Put simply - you are a joke!.Afterlife10 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
Further to this request for arbitration enforcement, I have indefinitely blocked your account, because you violated the revert restriction set down at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Your account was already blocked indefinitely by User:Daniel Case because you abused the block appeal process. I have removed this block, and replaced it with an indefinite block of my own, marked as an arbitration enforcement action, so that your editing privileges are not restored through a request to have talk page access returned (the standard for which is lower than for appeals of misconduct blocks). There is no expiry time for your block, because serial edit-warring causes significant damage to our articles, and is especially damaging in a topic area as contested as The Troubles. You can appeal this block in writing to the ban appeals subcommittee (BASC) of the WP:Arbitration Committee. AGK [&bull; ] 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)