User talk:Human, All Too Human

Welcome!

Hello, Human, All Too Human, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump-Russian prostitutes orgy sex tape

Wikipedia is not news. Usually we wait until we know events are not "flash in the pan"/"news today, forgotten next week" events before creating articles about them. Please consider moving the page to Draft:Donald Trump-Russian prostitutes orgy sex tape until it's clear that this event is more than a "flash in the pan" event.

You may also want to see if anyone has written on this topic at WikiNews. If they haven't, consider starting an article there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Use your head. If it was notable enough to require briefings for both Obama and Trump, it is notable enough for Wikipedia. This is like saying Wikipedia couldn't add Watergate (also reported by the invaluable national treasure Carl Bernstein , incidentally) until a week passed first, or that the September 11 Attacks or Pearl Harbor required a waiting period first before getting encylopedia articles. Simply consider the fact that even if there turns out to be no video , and the report is a hoax, the fact of its allegation and its being reported to both Obama and Trump by U.S. intelligence is already quite sufficient to assure it a place in history and meet Wikipedia's notability criterion. You simply do not understand whatsoever the types of articles the "not news" statement is meant to exclude-- not internationally important, historical events that invovle multiple presidencies and possible imeachment and transfer of power. There are how many pages on people who have appeared in 1 episdoe of a reality show or are video game characters, and you suggest this is non-encylopedic? Please re-consider your indefensible position. Thanks for your time. Human, All Too Human (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - these remarks were prepared prior to All Too Human's reply above, dated 04:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)) Another editor has requested that the page be deleted as an "attack" page. I considered asking for the page to be deleted myself, but as Trump is not only a public figure but 1) he's a famous person, 2) the topic is in the public interest, and, 3) the article you wrote pretty much repeats what I've seen in the news the last few hours, I didn't make a request to have it deleted. However, if an administrator does delete it, I would take that as a sign that at least two other Wikipedia editors, including one administrator, feel strongly enough about this that the topic should not be written about, at least not in the "tabloid newspaper" tone which you used. If the article is deleted, please do not re-create it here or on WikiNews. If it is not deleted, please consider the request I made, and later struck, above.

Just to be clear: If this had NOT been about such a highly-visible public figure, OR if it had NOT been widely reported by presumably-reputable news sources (although I question why any reputable news source would report something like this before confirming it - many mainstream reports open with "this is not confirmed" or similar disclaimers), OR if it had NOT been in the public interest, I would have nominated this for speedy-deletion on sight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your thought process. You write: "Just to be clear: If this had NOT been about such a highly-visible public figure, OR if it had NOT been widely reported by presumably-reputable news sources (although I question why any reputable news source would report something like this before confirming it - many mainstream reports open with "this is not confirmed" or similar disclaimers), OR if it had NOT been in the public interest, I would have nominated this for speedy-deletion on sight."

Just to be clear, on my end: As for #1, if this story WAS not about the President of the United States, there would be no story to begin with, so your point is fair, but I wouldn't have written the article otherwise. As for #2, OF COURSE I would not have written the article if there weren't reliable sources to draw from. You'd be entirely within your rights to delete an article if it had not been reported in sources which I am glad you acknowledge are highly reputable (indeed, the sources, and the reporters here are as reputable a they come). But equally, if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. That's an entirely different scenario, and I don't see why you think I'd have added this article if it wasn't receiving such wall-to-wall coverage right now (and presumably for the foreseeable future. This could be Watergate II). As for #3, again this is an argument for keeping the article. I don't really see any argument for deleting it. We have far more dubious articles on here about say, Obama or Bill or Hillary Clinton (go check Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, or Barack the Magic Negro, or countless disproven canards that got their own articles for the democrats. Point is, when we are talking about a president, even disproven rumors are considered generally notable; as such, we can act quickly here, because even if the allegations turn out to be wholly false, they remain notable and there is strong precedent for keeping them, unless you'd like me to take an axe to dozens of articles about dispproven conspiracy theories about Obama or Clinton. Glad we had this chat. Human, All Too Human (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Flat Out (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is not an attack page. Have you read the references? Any of them? My article merely repeats almost verbatim what CNN, Ny Times, Vox, etc. are saying. Please get a grip and learn what "attack" means. It doesn't mean "stories I don't like or which challenge my beliefs".Human, All Too Human (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Pleas be careful with the reverts on the above article, see WP:3RR. Flat Out (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the speedy deletion tag nor unblank the article

Do not remove the speedy deletion tag and do not unblank the article. It will be up to an administrator to review the speedy deletion and to make the determination as to whether or not the content should be deleted or kept. That will happen very soon. Safiel (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I'm within my rights to unblank the article. I never once removed the speedy tag. Do not engage in plainly false accusations. I cannot continue to improve the page if you blank it, and the article is not an "attack page". Was the CNN article an "attack"? How about the intelligence briefing to Obama or Trump? Frankly, you do not know what you're talking about here. Unless there is gross partisanship on Wiki, this stays if Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and Pizzagate stay, which never had any basis in intelligence or similar claim to notability. Please think harder about your actions before taking them. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Safiel, you did change the deletion template from one form to another. While you may not have realized it, in doing so, you removed a tag that was placed by another editor and replaced it with a different speedy-deletion tag. I think we can all assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not intend to violate the spirit of the rule that says you shouldn't remove speedy-deletion tags on pages you create. Likewise, we can assume good faith on Safiel's part. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Donald Trump Russia tape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Mlpearc (open channel) 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Please stop vandalizng and blanking the page. It already has the speedy tag. Now let me continue to add refs. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Human,_All_Too_Human reported by User:Safiel (Result: ). Thank you. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"enough sources to establish that my page..."

It won't help anything if you keep calling it "My page". Please review WP:OWN. - Mlpearc (open channel) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Good catch.

Despite my poor phrasing in calling it "my article" (by which I meant the article I created, not meaning I had objection to others editing it, aside from the blanking while I was trying to add refs, which was severely annoying) , I would be very happy if others contributed to the writing or the sourcing. First of all, I don't have much more time to continue working on this, and secondly, there are obvious problems with the article, which needs work. I'm going to make a few more changes and then probably depart for awhile because writing articles takes a lot longer than I would have thought, considering the relatively small amount of text involved.Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting with reFill

reFill is a tool that automatically formats your "bare" references for you. See WP:REFILL for details. I've used it on the Trump tape page a few times - look for edits with Filled in n bare reference(s) with reFill () (where n is a number) in the edit summary to identify those edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That really makes the refs more manageable. I see that I've mangled a few of the details, which I think I finally have straight now, so I'm going to make one last round of quick revisions and then .leave this for others to work om (or delete, though I don't really see the argumemr for that, since it's a notable story even if unfounded.)Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Human, All Too Human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no reason given for my block givem by blocking administrator. Perhaps this administrator should be stripped of his post for this wanton abuse of power. I have committed no crime. The Gestapo conducts fairer trials than this. I was neither informed of the nature of the allegations against me nor given an opportunity to defend myself against them. What sort of kangaroo court is this? I have done naught but contribute positively since I arrived at your fine encyclopedia, as my record will clearly show, Further, I believe that this rogue tyrant who blocked me is one the most corrupt administrators to ever walk the earth, a man gone mad from an insatiable lust for power. Sadly, he appears to regard himself as "Emperor Favonian" and place himself above the law, and even beyond the good of the encyclopedia. Some brave warrior must put an end to his despotic reign of terror,which is blood-stained by gross abuses of power such as the present one, in which this ogre blocked a fine new editor, already deeply beloved by his peers, sans all accusation or evidence of wrongdoing, As punishment, I propose that he be stripped of his fancy administrator post and its associated finery, and forced to live out the rest of days as a common Wikipedia peon after this outrage. Who's with me? Kill the beast!. Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Those personal attacks just lost you your ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is an unblock reason given. It is 'abusing multiple accounts'. Peridon (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also advise reading WP:NPA. Peridon (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wasted people's time and energy yesterday, some parting advice

Barring some extremely unlikely event that made you indistinguishable from another editor who has abused Wikipedia for over a year now, it is safe to assume you are that editor.

I you are that editor, please know that you wasted several hours of your time and made the time and energy I chose to invest in the Trump article and in personally defending you - or rather the new editor that I beleived you to be - to be a waste. If your goal was to cause a minor disruption to Wikipedia, congratulations, you succeeded. If your goal was to get "your" Trump article in Wikipedia, you failed. Please stay away from Wikipedia until you have a change in attitude and you are able to "play well with others" in collaborations like Wikipedia, or at least a year, whichever is longer. Even then, please do yourself a big favor and not make any edits other than to communicate with andinistrators until you have told them what accounts you used to use (you can do this by email, privately) and ask them to consider lifting your de facto ban. Given your history, one year may not be long enough. Any lifting will probably be provisional and will like include a requirement that you use WP:AFC or a similar pre-publish peer review process to create new articles, at least at first. In the meantime, please find another hobby. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but my original block was unjust to begin with (and I'd never used more than account at a time, so the notion I've "abused multiple accounts" is something of a stretch. ) There are quite plainly certain administrators (like Emperor Favonian) who continually see fit to block me when I've done nothing but offer scads of fresh sources and writing to the project. By contrast, I don't think I have ever seen Favonian even once contribute any writing or sources to the encyclopedia. Apparently, he is here mainly to play sock puppet detective, rather than to play the encyclopedist.

I promise you that none of the administrator-vandals who treat me as an enemy despite my excellent contributions (as is well known, I always come armed to the teeth with sources, to say nothing of my impeccably crafted prose) will be able to make a single statement of anything I've actually done wrong to be deserving of this unlimited duration block (aside, of course, from violating the terms of the block itself, but if the imprisonment was unjust to begin with, than the attempt at escape must in the end be just.)

My conscience is clean:as per usual, I contributed valuable content to the encyclopedia as is my wont, and Favonian destroyed well-sourced, beautifully written, encyclopedic prose that will soon enough have to be added anyway, as is his custom. Tell us, Emperor Favonian, when was the last time you actually contributed anything to the encyclopedia, rather than merely destroyed references so you could pretend you are a policeman? Do your actions not ultimately fail to conform to the principle of "comment on content , not contributors"? My article was manifestly a positive, well-sourced notable contribution that will inevitably have to be written anyway given all the coverage this notable happening has received; you've merely created more work for everyone by destroying it, and you will merely end up with an inferior article that lacks the breadth of sourcing and graceful style that inevitably comes along with a Kingshowman creation. If the article was good it should stay no matter who wrote it, and if it was bad, it should be deleted no matter who its author was. Deleting articles because you have a grudge against their contributors shows that the deleting administrator is effectively corrupt and cares not for the good of the project, as the authorship of the article is wholly irrelevant to its merits, and provides no reason at all for its deletion. Please stop pretending you are on an episode of Law and Order, Favonian. Auf Wiedersehn, my old friends! Until we meet again! 2600:1017:B419:A570:C9C3:402D:4E8A:9554 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith, and token of my good will, here is the list of my unblocked or untagged accounts, as per David's request for such a list:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:All_Hail_the_Returning_King
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A_Tragic_Hero_For_Our_Times
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anti_Conflict_Of_Interest_Crusader
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A_Tragic_Hero
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Another_Political_Animal
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:All_Aboard_The_Trump_Train
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A_Deathknell_for_the_Human_Species
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adolf_Hittler%27s_School_For_Friendship_And_Tolerance
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brave_Edit_Warrior
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandNewUser
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Before_Lord_Trump_All_Must_Kneel
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bringer_of_Truth_and_Reliable_Sources
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brave_Warrior_of_Knowledge
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Concentrates_Warrior
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cheeto_Jesus
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cannabis_Warrior
17.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crack_Cocaine_Aficionado
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Content_is_King
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Debate_Scholar
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dare_to_Revert_My_Edits_and_I_Shall_Dismember_You_Limb_by_Limb
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donald_Trump_sexual_assault_victim
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dionysian_Editor
23. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Disruptive_Editor
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Devotee_of_Truth
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emperor_Caligula_of_Rome
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Exciting_News
27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eminent_Jurist
28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearless_Leader_of_the_Wikipedia_Insurgency
29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuhrer_Trump
30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearless_Whistleblower
31.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guardian_of_Democracy
32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemp_Warrior
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:His_Royal_Majesty_Donald_J._Trump,_Ruler_and_Leader_of_the_White_Race
34. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:In_the_land_of_the_blind,_the_one-eyed_man_is_King
35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:If_It_is_War_You_Want,_It_is_War_You_Shall_Have
36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_Shall_Crush_My_Enemies_See_them_driven_before_me_and_hear_the_laments_of_their
37. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:In_a_Land_of_Liars_the_Truthful_One_Will_Be_King
38. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus_Of_Nazareth
39. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Long_Live_Lord_Trump
40.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leader_Of_The_Wiki_Insurgency
41. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_of_Edit_War
42. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Of_The_Socks
43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nobleman_Attempting_To_Secure_A_Husband_For_His_Least-Marriageable_Daughter
44. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:National_Socialists_For_Trump
45. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Only_as_an_aesthetic_phenomenon_can_existence_and_the_world_be_eternally_justified
46. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Professor_Noam_Chomsky
47. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Political_Animal
48. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Professor_Chaos_The_Lord_of_Destruction
49. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prepare_to_Die_Ye_Speakers_of_Falsehood_For_I_Am_The_Truth
50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Return_of_the_King
51. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sockfarmer
52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sworn_Enemy_of_Trump%27s_Goose-stepping_neo-nazi_fawning_sycophants
53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sock_it_to_me
54. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Creator_of_the_Universe
55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheWallmaker
56. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Those_Who_Protect_Evil_Men_Are_Complicit_In_Their_Crimes
57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trumpkin_Destroyer
58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Bringer_Of_Knowledge
59. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Edit_King
60. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Nazi_Hunter
61. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Wikipedia_Messiah
62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trumpf%27s_Schutzstaffel
63. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_POV_Warrior
64. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Very_Dear_Friend_Of_The_Encylopedia
65. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Very_Helpful_Editor
66. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:We_are_unknown_to_ourselves,_we_seekers_of_knowledge
67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_to_Truth
68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:We_knowers_of_today,_we_godless_anti-metaphysicians
69.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:We_Truthful_Ones
70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Welcome_to_the_Battleground
71. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikipedia_Sovereign
72. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:You_Will_Know_The_Truth_And_The_Truth_Will_Set_You_Free

70.214.88.121 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're withholding many, many more sock accounts and you know it. Sro23 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand to God, I promise you I am not withholding any further accounts. You nearly always find my accounts immediately anyway, Sro23, you wily old sleuth. Why would I even bother posting this list if I was not intending to give up them all ? I've even included the few unblocked accounts which I found. I give you my word that this is all that I have, friend. Since you doubt this is everything, I will peruse my list of passwords once more just to double-check that I've not omitted any, but I am close to certain I've included everything here (except for the ones already listed on the category page, which I haven't listed here, since you already have these.) This list, in conjunction, with the ones already listed at the category page is everything I have used since starting to edit roughly a year ago. My editing record will also show I have never really lied about my socks once discovered. Nor have I used multiple accounts at a time in an abusive, vote-stacking fashion. I was only ever a serial socker, old friend. 2600:1017:B419:A570:287D:197B:E87F:B8A1 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I'm confused. If you noticed a few accounts were not yet blocked, why don't you use them again? I never understood the point of throwaway accounts that are abandoned after an hour of editing. Sro23 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

WP:BANBLOCKDIFF says In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned.
Given that this editor has been disruptive since at least September 2015 and indef-blocked since at least September 12, 2015 (see here) AND it's clear that at least for now, no administrator is willing to unblock, it is reasonable to consider this editor "de facto banned" and the consequences listed in Wikipedia:Banning policy arguably apply.

I am posting this here because I've seen edits (since reverted) by other socks of this person which imply he is not banned. While I haven't seen any evidence that he has been banned by the arbitration committee, Jimbo Wales, or a community discussion, I felt it was important to point out that, barring the very unlikely event that an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is "de facto banned." For what it's worth, if any admin was willing to unblock him without waiting a substantial period of time (a year, minimum) after his last known edit, I would expect a very good reason for the un-block and/or support from multiple administrators for an un-block. This reason would not have to be public, a statement by another admin saying "a reason was posted to admin-l [or arbcom-l, or whatever] and it was accepted by at least one administrator as being good enough to unblock" is good enough for me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protection

@Favonian: Editor is evading "cannot edit own talk page" block. Requesting semi page protection so non-(auto)confirmed accounts and non-logged in editors cannot edit this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this editor seems to be editing more now than before their block, changing IP's and editing willy-nilly. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 04:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]