User talk:Chaser

Leave a new message

---

• Keeping dialog readable: If you post here, I'll reply here. If I posted somewhere else, please reply there instead of on my talk page. Thank you.

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

TheManWhoLaughs

I was just following WP:SOCK procedures. Why is it unhelpful if it puts him in the sockpuppet category? Lord Sesshomaru

Because it was likely a one-time thing and the tag is more likely to cause trouble by setting him off than helping with identification.--Chaser - T 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, was at least this cat. ok? What I can do also is categorize him in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers without resorting to the "annoying" tag. Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

What's the purpose of placing the tag or putting the editor in the category?--Chaser - T 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was just a thought. Maybe it could help keep an extra eye out on the user by those whom casually browse sock-related categories. Ideas? Lord Sesshomaru

That's the thing. I think these tags are just so that editors can quickly assess if a blocked editor was using socks abusively and then block when new socks turn up (and a dozen more reasons). There just doesn't seem to be a good reason to place the tag on his userpage because the sock was so obvious the first time and he's blocked for two days rather than banned.--Chaser - T 06:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I meant just categorize without resorting to the tag. It's easy, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers; he might not even notice it and if he does, he wouldn't be inflamed by it. Its just a category. Lord Sesshomaru

Sorry. Sloppy wording. I understood. I feel the same way regarding the cat. I have his talk page watchlisted and should be able to handle problems in the near future.--Chaser - T 06:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Lord Sesshomaru

Willy Peter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I moved your notice on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter down after "conclusions", I hope that is proper, unless that is considered more evidence. I also linked in the diff to your message. Thanks again. - Crockspot 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I stuck it in evidence because I'm still suspicious about the account, but I don't have anything else to go on, so that report may as well be closed.--Chaser - T 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have the user name that I was told. We'll just have to see what kind of editing pattern develops. - Crockspot 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in the mean time, as you ponder Mr. Goethean's musingsthat every one from Illinois is a sock, how about you kindly remove, this slander and personal attack off Eleemosynary user's page. Thanks.Willie Peter 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to remove it. Please be patient.--Chaser - T 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I will Willie Peter 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting, [1] when will you enforce WP:HARASS , WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL ? I have been cleared, as well as others. Why don't you remove this personal attack, I want this to end too. [[2]]Willie Peter 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You dug your own hole [3]. Now you get to sit in it. I have no sympathy.--Chaser - T 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to remove the lie and personal attack [4]from Eleemosynary user's page, who is an experienced and contentious editor and put all the blame on me, NICE it is like Orwell saids...some are more equal then others.? Willie Peter 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Chaser. I've responded on my Talk page. I would appreciate your taking a look at. I'd also appreciate you watchlisting the Henry Hyde page. Eleemosynary 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you are still going to remove his personal attacks onEleemosynary talk pages?

This guy is harassing me. I will move on to another subject. IF he should follow me I WILL FILE a complaint. You appear to be empowering this editor. Please tell him be civil, and assume good faith or I will follow with procedures outlined in WP:HARASS . Also his refactoring on his talk pages, is a violation of policy. [5] [6]

Also, BTW calling my edits "Nonsense" is out of line. I am willing to say you did not even read the cite I use to justify my edits on Henry Hyde bio. Now I add about half a dozen more cits from Tibune, Suntimes and the like and see of that proves my point.Willie Peter 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I was referring to the situation, not your good-faith edit to the article.--Chaser - T 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, I did read the article. I read it carefully to see if the article said that his telling the crowd to shut up indicated seriousness. It didn't.--Chaser - T 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my misunderstanding of your intent. please forgive me. Also, not to belabor the point, but when are you going to remove personal attack of me, off of Eleemosynary talk page?Willie Peter

It's OK. My comment could be read two ways. I understand.--Chaser - T 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about removing this off of Eleemosynary talk page, [7]

Two hours. Give me two hours.--Chaser - T 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoughWillie Peter 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have wait for about 11 hours and if I still still find this still up [[8]] up on Eleemosynary Talk page. Now I will give you the opportunity to remove it first as well as the other "WILD Rants" and "personal attack", then in the next 6 to 12 hours I will. I have been cleared all of his charges and frankly, I have been trying to be patient, but it's wearing thin and I hope Eleemosynary can end his wind mill joust now and leave his obsession of me behind him. Willie Peter 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just ignore it and go do something else instead of making this any worse than it already is?--Chaser - T 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY don't you just remove it and we can be done. Is that so hard?

Also, BTW, I READ. In particular this.Wikpedia Help files to get my extraordinary knowledge.

Your statement imply that I have have come by my knowledge though other means.

"This suspicion had some evidence to support it, notably that all three editors were reverting in the same direction in a content dispute and Willie Peter was operating from a very green user account [49] with an extraordinary knowledge of policy for a new user, including plausible citations to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE [50] even though there was no indication anyone had told Willie Peter about these policies. "

Just because other can't read and think don't assume I can not read as well. Your comment smacks of implication of wrong doing. Please change it.

Also, I do thank you for spending the time and trying to be fair. I do give that credit considering the others that populate Wikipeida. I just ask this last thing. Since you cleared me, please remove the smear and personal attack off of Eleemosynary Talk page and I will move one. In fact I have things to do in the next few days and will not be on the computer for a little while. So. Please to this thing and it will be done.Willie Peter 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing my own statement. In context (However, the checkuser evidence exculpated all three accounts of charges of sockpuppetry abuse.) the statement is fair. You can stop with your petty criticisms of my handling of this situation. I'm quite tired of it after I've put an enormous amount of work into ending this stupid bickering between you two while you both have distracted all three of us from contributing to articles, which is the purpose of the encyclopedia to begin with.--Chaser - T 06:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was it "tiresome" considering, again, that it was at Eleemonsynary insistence and instigation for all of this and you then chastise me for the blame?. I will be well with this [9]but your crack, "we will continue to collect evidence...", really shine as a Wikipdia "Assume Good Faith Moment".

Now I did recognized your work in this [10]and your efforts to try, in your own "Wikiality" to be fair, but trying to be polite has it's rewards. Again all of this, was due to the absolute instigation of Eleemonsynary. Rather trying to further the project, Eleemonsynary rather be like the "Check Blocker, Enforcer" in a hockey game and push his "puppet filled obsession" against me. SO don't go putting guilt, for his actions or my efforts to clear my wikiname from the stigma of Eleemonsynary personal attacks, solely upon me.

I will consider this closed and I will go forth and edit on any subject as I see fit and try to make my small contribution to the greater Wikipedia good. Thanks.Willie Peter 13:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willie Peter section two

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please note that "Willie Peter" and "Bellowed" are carrying on a dispute, in almost identical language and tone, with the same editor, "Goethean." I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Please also note that "Willie Peter," in the above comment, claimed you "did not even read the cite," implying that you lied in your edit summary on the Hyde page. This would appear to violate WP:AGF. Please also note "Wille Peter" is now accusing me of being in collusion with "Goethean," an editor I have never corresponded with. This also violates WP:AGF. Please also note "Willie Peter" is employing the "I know you are but what am I" defense re: meatpuppetry, a violation of WP:GAME. Eleemosynary 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are no personal attacks against WP on my Talk Page, only evidence. Please note also that there are several attacks on you on WP's Talk page, specifically one that calls your comments "abuse" [11], and another that compares your comments to that of a Nazi character, as well as threatening you ("better tell me") in the edit summary, and claiming you "don't read." [12]. Please also note that any WP claims of not employing sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry have been destroyed by his IP sockpuppetry on my talk page.[13] Thus, my comments are not "personal attacks," but borne out by evidence. Also note that WP has now accused me of meatpuppetry on his Talk page, so his request to remove my comments from my own page in the nature of civility ring rather hollow. [14]

I don't want to continue this dialogue, but I can't let dishonesty, nor "working the ref" stand. I'm not asking him to remove his attacks from his talk page, as they will eventually be of use. I'll add a question mark to my Talk page in the nature of fairness. I do wish this would end. Eleemosynary 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me. I'm letting it all role off my back. I've already asked him to strike that.--Chaser - T 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note he has not struck the accusation at all, still claiming I'm in collusion with the other editor, while employing a dodge.[15] I don't care if it stays up or not, but it's interesting to note the figurative "thumb in the eye" he gave to your admonition. Eleemosynary 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you chill for a couple hours? If I can tolerate being called abusive, accused of not reading, and compared to a Nazi, you can tolerate being called someone's friend.--Chaser - T 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see what transpires over the next few hours. Eleemosynary 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about removing this off of Eleemosynary talk page, [16]

Also, stop Eleemosynary from removing my comments from this place [17]. It's rude and uncivil.Willie Peter 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, stop WP from vandalizing my comments. [18]. It's rude and uncivil. And this whole episode is tiresome. Eleemosynary 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TDC, parole status and 'good behavior'

Hi Chaser. We've not yet met, but I'd like to recommend that you take a look at this April 5, 2007 3RR report for consideration of TDC's compliance with the 'good behavior' terms of his parole status, should it be necessary. [19]. As I say on that report, TDC should not look at the lifting of parole (when and if that happens) as mere license to return to 3RR. In short, a user's behavior can't be described as 'good' if it's fundamentally unchanged from that which got him the 1RR ban in the first place. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end it was this that did it, but thanks for bring that to my attention, as well. Cheers.--Chaser - T 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser - thanks for the response. Jayjg's final comment on that thread is helpful, insofar as users who re-offend with the same behavior that earned a prior ArbCom ban can have their behavior addressed more readily by ArbCom directly, without necessitating a whole RfAr 're-do'. I'm hopeful I won't have to deal with it at all, with the user in question choosing constructive resolution over revert warring and tendentious editing. We'll see. Thanks again for your response and your involvement. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In fact my understanding is a community consensus can create and apply certain sanctions much like ArbCom does, though those sanctions are still appealable to arbcom. See Wikipedia:Banning policy for more information.--Chaser - T 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

88.112.222.56

Please note that the self-reverting edits are the way 88.112.222.56 vandlizes pages. If you look at his/her history of edits, this is all s/he does to hockey-related pages, constantly changing statistics anc changng them back. Please re-consider a block. Thanks Gmatsuda 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Hopefully this will prevent the problem for some time.--Chaser - T 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it'll probably just fix the problem for about a month...I doubt this person will ever learn or care much. :( Thanks for looking at this more closely. Gmatsuda 07:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:207.144.215.42

Unblock request at above page that you might want to handle? SGGH ^speak! 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Related IP block

You asked: "Yamla, can you clue me into the reasons for suspicion of 207.144.215.42. It would help me do a better review of the unblock request."

This IP address came up on one or more unblock-auto requests from known Wrestlinglover420 (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. As another sockpuppet of that account was blocked today shortly before this unblock request, it looks likely that this vandal is trying to create a new account. --Yamla 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Which sockpuppet(s)? I believe you, I just want diffs to stick in the unblock denial."

TheManWhoLaughs (talk · contribs) was on the same subnet (User talk:TheManWhoLaughs/archive01). I can search the archives if it would help, one of the sockpuppets in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wrestlinglover420 made an unblock-auto request with that address. --Yamla 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

He did it again. William deleted my reply to another user off of his user talk page. See here: [20] He chose to keep the unsolicited accusation against me by another user, and deleted my reply to that user leaving the impression that I made no reply and preventing the other user from seeing that reply. William is supposed to be an Admin. Do you think that William's deletion of my comment is appropriate? I don't think so, I think he is out of control. --Britcom 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't violate any policies. See WP:TALK#User_talk_pages.--Chaser - T 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is conduct unbecoming of an Admin, do you disagree? --Britcom 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved.--Chaser - T 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you would disagree. --Britcom 11:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't read into my comment things that aren't there.--Chaser - T 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Gr8India

Fair enough. He isn't a sock but his edits show that he is definitely an impersonator/meatpuppet. You can see from his contributions Special:Contributions/Gr8India, that this guys knows Wikipedia too well to be a new user. I don't recall anybody voting on an arbitration case for their second edit. Perhaps my reason for unblocking was wrong but I doubt the account will be used for anything but trolling. We can wait and see what Gr8India does now however and judge whether the account will create havoc or contirbute. I'll AGF for the time being. Thanks! Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the unblocking and for the welcome :-) Gr8India 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome Gr8India, [21] [22]. Please block him again. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef.--Chaser - T 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, since you blocked gr8india (the user was a troll) I would like to invite you to this discussion on impersonation at ANI.Bakaman 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows redux ad naseum

You posted on Sandpiper's talk page something regarding an old 3RR report, and then go on to ask him to contact you should the situation arise again. Well, it has, sort of: he has put back in speculation into the article. Now, I am no wiki-expert, but based on what I have read, this would be considered invalid. Is there a mediation or arbitration process? That is, can someone please interpret the rules regarding this? Thanks. Ccrashh 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want another opinion, I'm happy to do that. I don't see anything wrong with the edits in question. The two refs inserted in the second edit [23] probably aren't reliable sources, but they just serve to verify that the speculation exists, not to import the speculation as original research. Since the existence of the speculation was reported by the Washington Post, I don't including the other two refs is a problem as far as WP:NOR is concerned. I also don't see why the references are necessary, but it's my opinion that they aren't against policy. Please let me know if I didn't read your question correctly.--Chaser - T 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I meant the Horcrux page. There has been a whole section that is put in by Sandpiper, then subsequently removed by Folken de Fanel. It is in a current "removed" state. While I don't want to get into a constant revert war, I do believe that speculation about a fictional book to be ridiculous. Essentially, this is content which will be removed once the book comes out anyways. Ccrashh 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I left my thoughts on the talk page. Please don't edit-war over this. That would be a shame.--Chaser - T 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Chaser, please check this page as soon as possible [24]. What's abundantly clear is that WP is yet another sockpuppet of Joehazelton. Please read the identical language. The identical misspellings. The identical screaming caps. The identical tone. Please also check the 80+ sockpuppets this guy has used[25]. Please note that nearly every sock account uses the identical language/tone/screaming caps/misspellings.

This sock has been lying to you for days. I was confident he was a sock the entire time. I would like you to revise or delete your edits on my talk page exonerating him. Thank you. Eleemosynary 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is IP evidence.: The sockpuppet edit he did to my talk page is here [26]. Please note the IP address falls within the numerous sockpuppet anon ID addresses he has used in the past. [27] Eleemosynary 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that enough is enough. And, for the record, I find the rallying of Crockspot and Bellowed to his side almost immediately after account creation to be suspect.Eleemosynary 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I've already got Gamaliel and Luna Santin reviewing it. (They've blocked Joehazelton in the past.) And I've got a bunch more of admins to come. Eleemosynary 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, he's been permanently blocked as a sock. Luna Santin has issued it. When he returns under his next sock identity, I'd ask for your help in blocking him. This guy took advantage of your goodwill. And that's a shame.Eleemosynary 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willie Peter's new section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When I am cleared of this I would like you to ban Eleemosynary for his gross abuse of WP:NPA WP:HARASSWillie Peter 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BAN. Individually, I don't have that authority, but I'm going to get another admin to look at his claims and surrounding behavior.--Chaser - T 05:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I'd like you to remove any of your language exonerating the Joehazelton sock from my page as soon as possible. I understand your wanting to assume good faith, but this sock did nothing to warrant it. As a result, a lot of my time and yours was wasted by trollish behavior on the sock's part. If you don't wish to remove the language, that's fine. But if you choose not to, I'll be removing any language that is no longer valid.. WP was a sock from the start (thought not of Bellowed and Crockspot--I was incorrect on that), and though I do suspect collusion, but I'm not going pursue it at the moment. Eleemosynary 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note and a msg on your talk page indicating that you have the right to remove the comment entirely if that is your preference (archiving is generally preferred, but not mandated).--Chaser - T 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

17 life fables was deleted

17LF is the first interactive movie done, and would like it to be in Wikipedia.

I am wondering why the page I created about 17LF was deleted.

Cheers, Matías— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guisado (talk • contribs)

I actually deleted the redirect. The article was deleted by another sysop [28] as not meeting WP:CSD#A7, or not asserting notability or significance. Interactive cinema indicates the first such film was actually some 40 years ago. Looking at the deleted content, I don't disagree with the deletion.--Chaser - T 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, my delay in responding was because I was working on some other things and watching the film. I quite enjoyed it. Well done.--Chaser - T 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response and for pointing that out (and the right sysop).

Glad to know you enjoyed the film. In any case, I meant to say the first Web interactive movie, but I guess that still falls into the WP:CSD#A7. I´ll have to upload it to youtube then :) Cheers, --Guisado 12:20, 27 June 2007 (CEST)

Horcrux

I have (see horcrux chat). This whole business has been proceeding for months and has been debated to death with probably thousands of lines on several pages. The only conclusion I have reached is that Folken's strategy of persistently reverting as many times as is needed to maintain an article in the style he favours is highly effective. I am a little bored with patience in this matter. If you read further, I think the argued section in Horcrux was probably inserted originally by michaelsanders, but then disputed by Folken. I came on board later. Michael has jumped ship, I would guess because he does not want to argue HP until the final book is out. I quite understand. Whether you consider this material speculation or not, I and others consider it entirely different to spoiler material about the actual final book. Rowling thinks so too. Many people have taken great delight in analysing the books to work out what must be the 'real' situation not explicitly stated. This is an exercise in puzzle solving, and we shall see how it comes out. However, quite obviously, other elements of the final book will be entirely new and the final fates of just about everyone are up for grabs at the authors discretion. I am not interested in discovering wiki previews of that sort. Sandpiper 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that you are revert-warring, Sandpiper, in order to impose your views that are highly controversed. It's you who are "persistenly reverting as many times as is needed", and that's how you do all your edits on WP, because there are so many people thinking your edits are not encyclopedical. And you just don't want to discuss, you merely revert, again and again, and that's why "this whole business has been proceeding for months", you refuse to take opinions from others into account and you consider that only your opinion has value. You even call these other editors a "bunch of newbioes" ...You're always accusing me, but when we look at other articles in which you're revert warring, I'm far from being the only one opposed to your edits.Folken de Fanel 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can we aren't going to resolve this today.--Chaser - T 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It really sounds like you need some new voices in this. I'll do my best.--Chaser - T 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the tone of your reply was a bit odd, untill i noticed it was signed by my shadow. However, in 23 days the issue will hopefully largely resolve itself. Or not, we shall see? Sandpiper 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been talks and debates about it for months, various consensuses were reached against Sandpiper's revisions, other users asked him to "stop trying the patience of other editors", an admin asked him to stop revert warring, but he never listened and never bothered to provide convincing justifications in debates...What can we do about it ?Folken de Fanel 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New Account?

Hi Chaser, I have one final question. Basically the Wikipedia community has no faith in me left, (and rightly so). I have read over WP:SOCK, to see if it is allowed in policy that I could start a new account. I know "block evading" sock puppets as not allowed, but I was unsure if this applied to me since my block has ended. However, if I wanted to start a new account to be trusted by Wikipedia again. Also, if I were to do that, would people be able to tell I was using another account? If so, what powers would they need to have to see it, and how would they know? Thanks! --Bfissa 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for getting banned (which is different than a block) or having a current block, one can always create a new account. That said, I unblocked you with a lot of conditions. If you're contemplating a new account to avoid those conditions, then I think it is disallowed. If you are creating a new account to have a fresh start, I think that would be OK. If so, you should email me your new account name, and perhaps Yamla and John Reaves, as well. Of the community, only checkusers can determine whether two accounts are using the same IP (and therefore probably the same person). Through requests for checkuser, everyone can get checks done (just as everyone can get administrator attention for something that only sysops can technically do). See Wikipedia:Checkuser for more.--Chaser - T 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Chaser, I seek to be adopted by you.

--The source of the cosmos... 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC) --A legend