User talk:Dyinghappy

Hrm
It seems that I got banned. I tried my best not to tread on any toes but I must have upset User:Viridae. What a fickle world we live in! Dyinghappy (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Activate your email or send me one please. Viridae Talk 12:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done I think. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some responses
It is annoying not to have the last word, so here we go.

This was my last post before the ban (oddly put in place by someone I had never talked to). So I have to presume that this was the reason for the ban (although it was not explained). So here is my explanation, which I would normally have written either in Talk:Wikipedia Review or in User talk:Giggy:

It is surely normal practice to list all of the sites that are controlled by an entity or related to that entity. The ProBoards site doesn't get many hits, but it is nonetheless also called Wikipedia Review, and not by coincidence. It is run by one of the founding members of Wikipedia Review, therefore it is relevant. wikipediareview.net would also be relevant, if it were still up or if it were archived somewhere, but it isn't. All other versions of a Wikipedia Review article include a link to that site, so why not Wikipedia?

Re by User: J Readings:

I actually wasn't planning to comment on this at all, since to me it is pretty obvious what the reference says, and I have quoted it. Furthermore, the reference backs up the content of the site. Perhaps stating something along the lines of "Encyclopaedia Dramatica writes in a style that is a parody of Wikipedia whilst writing about anything ranging from MySpace to LiveJournal to 4chan to Habbo Hotel to anything in between, including Wikipedia itself" would be accurate. My concern is that the opening sentence misleads the reader into thinking that the sole reason for Encyclopaedia Dramatica's existence is to criticise Wikipedia, which is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Nonetheless, this has gone on long enough, and I will leave it up to sensible others to sort out. - issue now resolved

To User:Sfan00 IMG re: which should be in Talk:Australian_Idol_%28season_5%29:

I really don't understand why it is considered to be bad to have a link to a YouTube video of the show itself to prove that something happened on the show. I don't believe that Channel Ten has tried to sue YouTube to take down the videos, and furthermore it is acceptable to copy the videos onto YouTube or anywhere else, so long as it is not for profit. Why then is there a problem with it being in Wikipedia? Furthermore, if you insist that there is a problem, why replace verified references with (fact) tags? Why not just get better references? You are just being painful and creating problems for everyone else. I hope that this issue is dealt with in the future by sensible others. There undoubtedly are links that prove it, aside from video clips of the episodes themselves, but it is puzzling that we aren't allowed to use video clips of the episodes themselves. In my mind, this is quite an insane thought process.

- Now I guess that I am not allowed to talk to anyone to tidy things up, so that will have to do.

I didn't get any warnings, wasn't in any serious disputes with anyone, nor had I been in any disputes in the past, so suddenly being banned seems odd to me. Was there something wrong with my contributions? Anyway there is no real point fighting this, so there we go. If Wikipedia doesn't want my contributions, then they don't want my contributions. It's as simple as that. I don't think that I broke any of their rules anywhere, and that all of my contributions were positive. But hey, what can you do when a site doesn't want you? Dyinghappy (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses answered
Whether or not they read my talk page, one of the issues mentioned above has now been resolved.

See here:

Describing Encyclopædia Dramatica as

"Encyclopædia Dramatica' is a central catalog for organized reference pages about drama, memes, e-pals and other happenings on the internet. Itself it's a parody of a 'much less funny online encyclopedia'"

is accurate.

Thank you User:Enric Naval.

It is a pity that this wasn't sorted out earlier. A bit of stubborness and refusal to actually visit ED's actual site was the main issue, it seems. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems that it was no fluke. This comment by User:Howa0082 hits the nail on the head - ED writes very little on Wikipedia, making up less than 0.1% of their total articles. However, as User:Enric Naval correctly points out (and what I was trying to say before), ED *DOES* write in a style that mimics Wikipedia. Good thinking there. Tis a pity that incivility caused problems. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional problem
I now see another misconception added, also about ED. This comment by User:Dreaded Walrus is well off the mark. Actually, ED uses æ in their logo and DOES refer to themselves as Encyclopædia all over the place. A few people who write there get lazy and just write Encyclopedia, but officially they are Encyclopædia Dramatica.

I would have moved the page (redirects from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Encyclopaedia Dramatica would be fine) but because of the semi protection I wasn't able to move it. Of course, now I can't do anything but comment but hey.

Hopefully someone will come back and read this and then deal with it.

It is difficult to deal with ED, when Wikimedia's spam blacklist prevents direct linking to the site. This is of course well deserved, as ED has many shock images, including GNAA tactics to basically wreck your browser and flood your internet connection. Nonetheless, without being able to link to the site, it makes it difficult to write an accurate article on it. It would help if the folks at Wikimedia could allow a partial whitelist within the site, to allow linking to their main page and any important pages used within their article. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to opinions asked
Re: :

Actually "The Wikipedia Review" is false in a historical context. For most of its life it was known simply as "Wikipedia Review" and it is only recently that the "The" was added; indeed most people do not refer to it as "The Wikipedia Review". It is shortened to WR, not to TWR, as would be the case if "The" was relevant. Nonetheless, a Redirect from "The Wikipedia Review" would be acceptable, perhaps with something in the top saying something like:

"Wikipedia Review (sometimes known as The Wikipedia Review) ..."

That's what we normally do. It's no big deal and shouldn't be controversial at all. Dyinghappy (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I banned forever?
I am not sure what this sock puppet thing means. Does it mean I hacked something? Who do I ask or what do I do to get to edit again? Do I have to promise not to edit certain articles? What's the deal? I added my e-mail address as User:Viridae said but nothing has happened. Dyinghappy (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In his log summary, Viridae said "Sockpuppet of banned user Internodeuser". This means that there was sufficient evidence to suggest this account is "an alternative account used deceptively. Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies." (quote from WP:SOCK. I suggest you read it). Activating email is the first step to contacting Viridae; he will not be aware you have done this, so it is best you email him to ask what the whole story is. He should have a range of diffs to show that you are a sock. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  10:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't voted in any polls. I don't know what I am supposed to have done.  Also, I activated my e-mail a day or so later, and said so.  I e-mailed him several days ago, but still no response.  All that I am getting is abuse here. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is User:Viridae ignoring me?
I have written many e-mails now, still no response. What is going on?

I noticed this link:

.

In case that gets wiped there is this link.

It seems that User:Viridae is an active member of Wikipedia Review, which would probably explain this comment. It also seems that he is attacking User:MONGO (or is it the other way around)?

Given that, I wonder if another administrator could perhaps deal with this. If I did something wrong, I can undo it. Nobody has explained what I am meant to have done wrong.

As for this Internodeuser person, they use Internode, right? I don't. Check the IP logs.

Please can this be fixed. You will see that I only made good contributions. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow
Consider this, which looks to me quite a lot like stalking, or at least harassment by User:Viridae, can I get another admin to deal with this? No explanation was given for my ban, and I am not sure what I did wrong, other than what Dheyward and MONGO did, which was to disagree with Viridae. In my case, we didn't even have an argument, he just up and banned me no questions asked. Dyinghappy (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a message at Viridae's talk page on your behalf. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  23:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he was upset that I had edited the Wikipedia Review article, in particular adding in material that is in all other versions of that article, that include a link to the other Wikipedia Review forum. I am confused why that is bad though. Is it a bad thing to note the existence of existing Wikipedia Review articles and trying to get information from them? I thought that that was pretty normal. Why is it bad to include links to other versions of the same site? Once again, that is pretty normal.

I don't know why I am meant to be banned from editing that article, but if those are the conditions of my release then I will go with that. It's not like I have any choice, is it? Dyinghappy (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Dheyward has brought this up at the administrator's noticeboard. Hopefully someone will clear things up re the blocking, or reinstate your editing privileges. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Supposedly it is confirmed. But where is the proof?  I didn't see anything.  Are they not required to provide evidence?  We just trust what they say?  I didn't make a single unconstructive edit.  All I see are a lot of people banned as sock puppets of someone, but no evidence that any of them are that person.  If there is a concern about privacy, none is required.  What they should be doing is getting proof.  Otherwise they are no better than the people at Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review. Dyinghappy (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:DHeyward
It is a little surprising that you would do something, but hey that is your wont. Nonetheless, thank you. All it did is to get a lot of innocent people banned alongside me. It seems that in order to make what I supposedly did stick, they banned a number of other innocent people alongside it. But where is the proof? Someone who uses the name User:Internodeuser it is quite clearly a user of Internode. I am not. Yet not only did they manage to ban dozens of people from internode, but also people from other systems all across Australia and the world. Quite preposterous.

And my crime? My crime was to add in a legitimate link to the article on Wikipedia Review, a link that is included in both the encyc and the Encyclopaedia Dramatica versions of the article, the only 2 articles on that topic that exist anywhere (and which, surely, we should be using as a reference). So I get banned. I am sure that dozens of people thought that hey adding in a link to another version of the same site was reasonable. Indeed, I am sure that long term that article will have that link in there.

So we continue on. I did see the message on the thread on Wikipedia Review that involves me. It seems that this Somey is upset because he got caught stealing Wikipedia Review from its rightful owner, so he wanted to hurt Blissyu2 by making it look like he has even more sock puppets than he has. And Viridae is Somey's friend, so helped to do this. Yes, I know what really happened. So we here at Wikipedia, going about our business adding constructive content to articles, get rubbished in with a stupid little political war on Wikipedia Review. Soon Wikipedia Review will control Wikipedia, if this kind of nonsense keeps up. And perhaps Somey will hack Jimbo's account like he did to Blissyu2's. Yes, we know, we've seen the evidence, and its pretty much undeniable. Dyinghappy (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence and contributions
Without invading anyone's privacy, let's look at the evidence:

User:Internodeuser per contributions, spent a lot of time in AFDs. Also edited about various murder mysteries and something about Alice Springs. Was a user of Internode, a nationwide ISP, said so and it seems from their IPs that they used, were indeed using Internode.

User:Blissyu2 made 1 and only 1 edit that edit being to add a disambiguation about a serial killer. The only evidence that they might be the same person is some off wiki evidence, that Blissyu2 used Wikipedia Review. But it is quite possibly or even likely that Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is an imposter.

User:Zordrac per seems to have been a constructive editor over a very very long time (I can go back the 100s of pages of that list, but no thank you) whose only crime was to protest the ban on User:Poetlister (who is now unbanned). A pretty simple case where the letter of the law was enforced, in spite of being a good user. Ban was made indef by User:SlimVirgin with a major conflict of interest, given her involvement in Poetlister's ban. No reason ever given for why the ban was indef.

Others listed don't even seem to have made any contributions, so likely were imposters, banned so that people on Wikipedia can feel like they've caught a sock puppeteer, when in reality they were banning innocent people so as to push forth a false agenda.

User:Nova63 has a total of 4 contributions. Let's see if they are bad at all:. 4 quality contributions. Not even hard to figure out. So people are being banned for the letter of the law rather than the fact that they were a good user.

User:Akmereal similarly has only 4 contributions. . Once again, nothing bad or controversial. No Wikipedia Review edits there!

User:Myrrideon has a few more edits. Cricket related entries by the looks of it, mainly in relation to a dispute about T. K. Sukumaran. Was Myrrideon doing the bullying or was Myrrideon being bullied? Hard to say with such things. But worthy of a ban? Hardly! They even quit Wikipedia so what is the point of the ban?

As for me, well, if I must go, I am guilty of getting involved in a couple of obvious no-go zones. No warning, no explanation, but, according to Somey on Wikipedia Review, "Only one person would mention that other site, and that is Blissyu2". Except that 3 other people in the same thread (who surely aren't also Blissyu2?) also said it, and it looks like Dheyward tends to agree there too.

The only evidence that exists here is that I use several different IPs when I log in, and, unsurprisingly, these IPs are shared. Perhaps at one point in time someone went to the same public library, or worked in the same workplace, or even used the same ISP. We are talking about large, nationwide ISPs here. Not Internode, even bigger.

And the odd thing is that User:Internodeuser never used anything other than Internode to login. I don't use Internode, so how can I be the same person?

The only other "evidence" can be something from Somey on Wikipedia Review, which surely isn't a reliable source. Dyinghappy (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If I am a sock, I may as well defend that sock!
Well, if the only way that I am allowed to edit Wikipedia is to defend the person who I am supposed to secretly be, then I will do it. So here you go. Why Internodeuser should not have been banned, or at least should not still be banned:

Internodeuser was not a vandal. The vast majority of the edits made by Internodeuser were positive edits, as you can see through looking through the contributions. There were a few arguments, as there always are with new people. The problem seems to have been based around Internodeuser being an eye witness to the Port Arthur massacre and because of that not liking the content of that page. The thing is that most people who were there do not like what Wikipedia has written, because what Wikipedia has written is blatantly false. Being an eye witness, he obviously had detailed information about it that isn't available publicly, and he misunderstood Wikipedia's rules about "original research", thinking that they would allow and indeed encourage people to add in truthful comments about what happened. Internodeuser may well be the most knowledgeable person in the world about the Port Arthur massacre, and he has been sought ever since it happened to explain what had really happened. A large part of the reason for this is because Internodeuser posted in 1995 throughout the internet warning people that it was going to happen, warning people not to go there, handing out flyers, begging to police. Every single one of the conspiracy theories in existence about it began in part on the truthful things that Internodeuser said about it. It is a great shame that Wikipedia has such a woefully inaccurate article on that important topic. I also see from the edits to the article that the vast majority of people on Wikipedia who have tried to edit it generally agree with Internodeuser about what happened (although perhaps without the same level of knowledge of the case). The vast majority of the internet also agrees with Internodeuser, at least with the bulk of what he is saying. However, Internodeuser does not want Martin Bryant to be released, he just wants his charges altered - from murderer to conspiring to assist someone with murder. All he wants is the truth to be out there. For him, it is important.

For all of that background, obviously there is a conflict of interest. But experts should be allowed and encouraged to be involved in articles and spheres of their expertise. An eye witness to a murder is obviously someone who is going to be knowledgeable about that situation, although also obviously they won't be able to agree with Neutral Point of View. They will be horribly biased. So what is needed is some form of mediator.

Internodeuser was also obviously a new user, who didn't know the rules and reacted harshly to criticism, particularly as it was such a personal issue for him. It isn't difficult at all to read throughout the internet the thousands of pages that he has written about the Port Arthur massacre, which have been quoted everywhere.

In his 2nd "incarnation", as Zordrac, which it seems he eventually confessed to, he was a good quality user, who, whilst having a few disputes here and there, was generally good. He did not receive a single ban and had over 5,000 edits, with no warnings at all. This came to a head, however, after Zordrac had already quit when he was asked to help with a mediation involving Poetlister. You can read about this on the Encyclopaedia Dramatica pages if you like, as it is quite detailed there. It is also in Wikipedia Review in some detail, but a bit harder to find. So he was given a 1 day block by Kelly Martin, only it was extended because he was Internodeuser. Not because he had done anything wrong. He was a reformed user, a good user.

Internodeuser had initially been banned for 1 year, but 9 months into that year he used Zordrac, for a period of about 6 months. For reasons best known to themselves, Zordrac was given a fresh 1 year block, as opposed to the 3 months left to serve.

Nonetheless, after serving that year, with no hint of any sock puppeting, he came back, only to be given an indefinite ban by SlimVirgin, one of the key figures in the Poetlister ban that he had protested.

SlimVirgin never officially said, but others have since interpreted the reason for the ban that he "ran an attack site", that being Wikipedia Review, which he owned and ran.

In November 2007, he stopped running that site, after his account was hacked by Somey. He has posted evidence in the form of screen shots and headers from e-mails that prove without any question or hesitation that his account was stolen by Somey. Not to mention that Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger and Ben Kovitz all communicated with him and did so in full knowledge that he was the owner of Wikipedia Review.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that he no longer runs that attack site, and furthermore that the attack sites policy has now been altered and no longer exists.

If you are banned for a policy that no longer exists, surely the ban can be lifted?

Secondly, if you are banned for running an attack site, but stop running it, surely the ban can be lifted?

Furthermore, the nature of his departure involved an incident in which SlimVirgin was attacked by a Wikipedia Review user called Kato. He protested the attack, citing extreme manipulations. Whilst it is a little hard to follow what went on, it seems that the crux of it is that he did not approve of stalking, and was upset that they may have been stalking SlimVirgin.

I believe that SlimVirgin would today approve for the ban to be lifted, on the basis of that.

If the ban were to be lifted, would all of the false accusations of sock puppetry bans also be lifted? I can make sure only to use one account, use my real name, and all of the rest.

You will see from my contributions that I made 100% worthwhile contributions here. So I am accused of being someone who made 100% positive contributions. Where is the reason here? Why is the common sense?

Thank you. Dyinghappy (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some advice for User:DHeyward
Don't ever protest someone's unfair block/ban. All it will do is have unseen "evidence" (which nobody is allowed to see) be presented that "proves" that they are secretly whatever they are accused of being - especially bad in sock puppet cases it seems. They will then ban others just to support it. Innocent people who had nothing to do with it. Ultimately they might also ban you. In the future, well, don't protest bans like this. You would have been better off to have either written on my page or else sent me an e-mail to discuss it. Then I would have told you not to. Thank you though, but sadly it just made things worse for all concerns.

Still, I think that if some common sense prevails, the ban will be lifted. But I fear that it will nonetheless be used unfairly against you in the future, DHeyward. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really Blissy, I have indicated how you might contest the ban (and therefore the block) - but if you wish to do so, long protest spiels aren't going to help. Viridae Talk 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My only concern was the abuse and heavy handed use of admin tools without rationale thought or evidence. I don't take a position on whether you should or shouldn't be banned.  But I did take exception to a permanent ban as a sockpuppet without evidence or confirmation and only the block summary given as justification.  I particularly disagreed with the "go away" comment when the block was questioned.  I have done done nothing bannable and in the end, when the process was used (i.e. checkuser, admin review) more evidence was uncovered and acted upon.  I find it somehwat ironic that the anitpathy you face is related to your participation in offsite Wikipedia Review considering the opposition to WP:BADSITES but I am not hypocritical enough to give you an exception to what I think.   --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No Checkuser - didn't happen
If there was Checkuser done, why aren't the details and evidence displayed? If there is a concern about privacy, don't mind me, I permit for the details to be produced. I think that you will find that there is no evidence to prove that I am guilty of sock puppetry, and that the allegations simply do not add up.

Please can the user page be deleted, as I had previously requested, because I had used this from work and my boss wouldn't necessarily approve of my using work time to edit Wikipedia.

Additionally, please don't rubbish my page with false allegations, especially not on the user page. If you must make an allegation, at least put a link as to why you think that it is true. At least then people can look at it and see why you are wrong.

Thank you.

I look forward to this ban being overturned and returning to improving Wikipedia articles. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I believe that you have a policy about biographies of living persons, that insist that anything written about a living person must be sourced exhaustively. I am a living person, and you are writing on my user page something which I assert is false. Please provide exhaustive references to prove this, or at least something that casual observers can look at as to why you think that it is justified. Dyinghappy (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone looking at this, check the evidence. There is no sub page on Request for Check User, or any other pages that submit the evidence or show any proof. We are expected to believe the "evidence" (read: no actual evidence at all, just a statement) of User:Alison and/or User:Viridae (who also had zero evidence, just that he was told so by Somey) and most particularly to accept the evidence of Wikipedia Review owner Somey, who in a post on Wikipedia Review just minutes before my block, told Viridae to block me, because he said I was "obviously Blissyu2". In reality, that is the real reason for the block, and quite frankly it's disgusting. Presumably, Somey, who has been exposed on Encyclopaedia Dramatica to have spied on his own users on Wikipedia Review and to have stalked Wikipedia administrator New York Brad, claimed to have also spied on Blissyu2, and did this. Very, very wrong. Dyinghappy (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide actual evidence
P.S. At least one of the accounts that was supposedly a sock puppet, Nova63, was created during the well publicised 1 year period when Wikipedia Review user Blissyu2 did not have access to the internet, and did not even post on his own project. That account could not possibly be related. Surely that then proves that you are merely banning a bunch of people that use the same workplace, a place that employs over 5,000 people. I mean seriously, isn't that a little naive? Dyinghappy (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I only reviewed the block itself, which specified sockpuppetry (with checkuser confirmation) as its rationale. I haven't looked specifically into any links posted, or into any edits you made which may or may not be disruptive, or into when any other accounts were or were not editing; I merely reviewed the block itself, which appears to be in order and backed by checkuser evidence. I note, though, that if Alison says the checkuser evidence confirms sockpuppetry, then it confirms sockpuppetry. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's get to this. I share IP addresses.  When I login from work, I login from the same IP address that is shared with 5,000 other employees.  Since a number of us legitimately use the internet and indeed Wikipedia as part of our work (not as a primary reference, but as part of our fact checking), there is every chance that there were 3 other people from my work place who had edited Wikipedia recently.  Indeed, I was forced to create an account from a friend's house because my work IP address was blocked, and has been for a pretty long time.  It seems that people from my work IP address have regularly vandalised Wikipedia.  I didn't want to be associated with that vandalism so I created my own account.  I also use an IP address from home that is from a large nationwide ISP, with over 50,000 users that share the same IP address.  That ISP is not Internode.  Once again, it is not theoretically possible that I ever used the same IP addresses that User:Internodeuser used.  I challenge people to try to prove this, because I know that it couldn't possibly be true.  All of the IP addresses that were listed as being used by Internodeuser can all be traced back to the Internode ISP.  A third argument that proves that the CheckUser results (if there were any) were false is the fact that Nova63 was created in April 2006, during a 12 month period of time when Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review, aka Internodeuser / Zordrac on Wikipedia (but did not ever use Blissyu2 on Wikipedia, apparently).  How could that account have been created by someone who had no access to a computer?  It is not theoretically possible for that to be connected.


 * The evidence provided revolves around evidence provides by Somey from Wikipedia Review, evidence provided on Wikipedia Review itself. Somey is not a reliable source, as he has recently been proven to have spied on his own users, to have stalked a Wikipedia administrator, and to have lied copiously about it, and about many other things.  He has an axe to grind.  It was in his best interests to try to make sock puppet allegations.  He was undoubtedly annoyed that I was trying to encourage a more balanced approach to the article, so that it included negative as well as positive aspects.  Hence the ban.


 * Bottom line is that I did not have a single disruptive edit, and would not have been banned were it not for this obviously false accusation. Additionally, whilst Internodeuser was initially banned by the Arbitration Committee, that ban expired.  The ban on Internodeuser (and hence on Zordrac et al) is a community ban, made by User:SlimVirgin, hence could be lifted by any administrator.  As the two of them have made up already, the ban seems superfluous.  Once again, please can you undo the ban and allow me to edit.  Dyinghappy (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Please see this evidence of socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And with THAT piece of evidence, I'm withdrawing talk page rights as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)