CompScientist

November 2007

Thanks for experimenting with the page Vietnam War on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Alexfusco5 18:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do fewer, more complete edits

Hi there.

Could you please try and make fewer, more complete edits? Rather than editing a statement again and again and again until you like it, please use the "preview" button to review your edit and then make any necessary changes before hitting "save page". Although you are of course welcome to correct any edits made, having so many edits done in a short time period can make it difficult to follow the page history. Thanks! --Hugzz (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nissan GT-R. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your persistent 3RR vio. has been noted here. Please cease edits on the article and attempt to gain consensus through discussion, not pointless edit warring, as you have well overstepped the bounds of 3RR. There is already a consensus to keep the current status of the page, to which you have offered no discussion or comment to. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for your edit warring. That your edits are sourced does not exempt you from the prohibition of edit warring. In the future, you must seek consensus by discussing on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. If this fails, pursue dispute resolution. If you wish to contest this block, you may write {{unblock|reason}} on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, everything on Wikipedia must be backed by consensus among editors and keep in mind you have violated the three revert rule many times over, edit warring like this is counter productive. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CompScientist (talk · contribs) has briefly contributed to the discussion at Nissan GT-R regarding the terminology. Although a statement may be cited doesn't make it neutral or factually correct, such as what you made in this edit -- and other sources can contradict what you added in. Currently, editing at the page is restricted only to administrators, so it would be in your best interest to attempt to gain consensus through discussion, not edit warring or pointless bickering. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All I have done is contributed with strong sources added to my edits, others want to revert it continiously back to their POV's without providing sources of their own(see talk page, it's hilarious), there is no consensus, and keep ignoring the fact that they provide no facts, just POV's, so it is perfectly fine to use that edit I've added since it is not my own POV, but from a published source, in fact, many sources, have this CONSENSUS in which I'm trying to add to the wiki article. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This does not justify violating WP:3RR and WP:EW. Please read these pages. — Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no consensus to begin with, first of all the original is not valid, just POV. I have made a valid addition, not revert, so no violation. The others are reverting and violating the rule as they do not provide sources and only POV's. They are violating the rule when they revert my SOURCED edit/contribution.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Suspected sock cases

75.8.98.85 (talk · contribs) 75.7.233.121 (talk · contribs) 71.156.48.66 (talk · contribs) 75.4.15.234 (talk · contribs) Suspected sock cases of CompScientist (talk · contribs). _{More in a short bit...} Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Seicer (talk) (contribs)

You have been blocked for a period of 96 hours for using sockpuppet IP accounts to make malicious reports to WP:AIV against other users. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is obviously trying to silence my position in the debate, if there really is one at all. I provide the sources while they do not. Unaware of such socketpuppets as password has been lost recently. I log in and contribute to the

debate as much as I can. Now I'm aware of such a thing.CompScientist (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Take this time to read over policies while sipping a nice cup of tea. — Lara❤Love 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admins, compare this user's history and the IPs in the sock case first. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing my talk page

In the future, please refrain from putting AfD notices on my talk page. It's considered vandalism. Consider this a warning. Do it again anywhere else and you will be blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I reported that to WP:AIV so someone other than me takes whatever action is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate.

Blocked
You have been blocked for one week for harassing another user (namely myself) by placing phony deletion notices and sockpuppetry accusations on my talk page. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Longer block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

A checkuser has confirmed that you have been using IP accounts to evade the above block, and to continue the past pattern of disruption and harassment. As a result, I have extended your block to one month. If there is further sock puppetry, the block will be extended again, and I may propose a community ban. Should you wish your block to be shortened, you can post an unblock request, per the instructions on the block notice. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CompScientist, you have been found to have been engaging in further sock puppetry. Your blcok has been extended to one month from today. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Nissan GT-R. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. After coming out of a lengthy block, where you misappropriated much text and used sockpuppets, have you not learned anything? seicer | talk | contribs 03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Nissan GT-R has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{{User:21655/D'oh!|Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

After many prior blocks, including repeated sock puppetry, you have returned to edit warring at the same article, over the same issue.[1][2][3] It appears that you choose not to work collaboratively with other editors. Until such time as you demonstrate a willingness to compromise and listen to other people, your account will remain blocked to protect Wikipedia from further disruptions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I clearly didn't even violate the 3 revert rule.

Decline reason:

You clearly have continued to engage in edit warring after a history of edit warring and abusive sockpuppetry. 3RR does not entitle you to at least three reverts in a day. You have shown that after your prior block for edit warring, you have every intention of resuming your edit war. The block is valid. — Yamla (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking someone indefinately under a presumtion of what they were going to do is not sufficient enough.

Decline reason:

On the contrary, blocking is done to prevent future damage to Wikipedia. Based on you past history of disruption (which is ALL we have to judge you on) it is clear that this block is needed in order to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption. Since you show no contrition, or even recognition of what you have done wrong, I see no need to unblock. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Lesson learned, I will always post on discussion forum, if there is no opposition, then revert(provided a reputable source

Decline reason:

Looking at your history, it seems odd that you would suddenly learn your lesson now, yet didn't manage to learn it the previous times you were blocked. There's no evidence of sincerity here. — Golbez (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I do not want to abuse the unblock tool. But I will contribute to wiki with a lot of patience from now on.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I'm still not getting any sense of sincerity here. You were blocked for edit warring multiple times - multiple times you claimed to understand our policies, but you clearly didn't. You were warned for sockpuppetry once, and claimed to understand that policy, but then did it again to evade a block. You can only cry wolf so many times until your plea falls on deaf ears. Unless you make a really convincing statement, I don't see you getting unblocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

O.K. It seems like I'm getting into a pseudo edit war here requesting for an unblock. So I will stop for a while with my request for an unblock and hope that someone has faith that I will contribute to wikipedia in a constructive way.(crossing fingers)

Decline reason:

Still aren't answering the questions. Declined and page protected to prevent further abuse. Take it to "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org" — MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do you have any other accounts that you are using? If you are unblocked, which articles would you like to edit? Will you stay away from articles where you have edit warred in the past? Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Compscientist has attempted to evade the block by using a sock puppet account: User:Spell123. IP User:71.156.63.61 is also a likely sock. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)