User talk:Aquafish

; Archives
	September 2006 – October 2006;

Indefinitely blocked

It's quite obvious that you're a sockpuppet of ForestH2 et al., and after continued disruption [1], similar edit patterns [2] [3] [4] [5], and general exhaustion of patience, I have indefinitely blocked you again. Ral315 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 2, and 5 are not against me. I am rather suprised you decided to block me. I am HIS brother. What don't you understand? I am allowed to comment on Kpjas' talkpage, allowed to vote delete in Little Einstiens, allowed to change grammer in the Arbitration report for David.Mestel, and I was doing the correct thing in #1. I will request unblock. Aquafish talk 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my above comment, a reply to Ral315. I am tired of being blocked. I am ForestH2's brother. I am editing politican articles. Please see the help desk for #1. I do not have the same interests. Nethier disruption. What happend to the promise I had with Mangojuice. No editing the Signpost? I've kept that, I've edited just politican articles. And your also saying I can't vote delete in a wikiproject. Totally absurd. Would someone report this to Mangojuice? And unblock me?

Decline reason:

The evidence is compelling. Guy 13:31, 9 October 2006 (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.

I have asked Mangojuice to review this one. Guy 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited just politican articles. - why do you lie? Is that all you've edited? No Spongebob articles in there? (Note to any admin looking at this unblock request): Forrest set up a bent Wikiproject with a number of his socks. --Charlesknight 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I edited some SpongeBob articles in there such as The Best Day Ever. I was random aritcling and found that article. Even if it was SpongeBob I decided that it should be deleted and I nominated it for deletion. I am not a member of the SBSP Wikiproject nethier am I editing SpongeBob SquarePants articles besides Best Day Ever and Bummer Vacation. For notice, more thanhalf of my edits are to politican articles and US Congress articles. Mangojuice can you look at my unblock request where I am in detail? Also, can I see a response to the earlier response I gave you? Aquafish talk 21:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the SBSP Wikiproject

So what's all this about? You are not a member but are just editing project pages?

neither am I editing SpongeBob SquarePants articles besides Best Day Ever and Bummer Vacation.

So what's this,and this, what about this? or this?

Why tell such obvious lies? --Charlesknight 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. I meant articles surrounding the subjects Bummer Vacation and Wigstruck. Aquafish talk 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about images associated with Spongebob articles? I make it about 30 you have edited - or does that fall under neither am I editing SpongeBob SquarePants articles besides Best Day Ever and Bummer Vacation. --Charlesknight 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not lie about that. That was because another admin told me to because he thought they were breaking policy but then he found out he made a mistake. Aquafish talk 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you edit the same images, and after just eight edits (five to your user page and three to the sandbox) find your way to WP:AIV and "report" multiple socks of (for the record, that one's on AN/I) ForestH2 minutes after the accounts are created. After people start questioning your edits, you claim that you edit different subject areas (how did you know what he edited?), and then only after more questioning did you claim that you're his brother. You also attempt to say that you're unaware of who ForestH2 is, even after you claim to be his brother and shown insight about which articles and pages he has edited. I will not be so bold as to deny the unblock, given that the (un)blocking admin has already been contacted, but strongly discourage this user from being unblocked. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest told me what subjects he edited here. SpongeBob, Drake & Josh, Little Einstiens....he said he was blocked by Ral315 and Makemi for using sockpuppets and lying. He's in Michigan. I can page him. Would you like that? Do you have something you want to say? I was advised that ForestH2 was Sugarpine; so I was confused for a momment who Forest was. I wasn't supposed to say that he was my brother on my userpage was I? That would have gotten me blocked in minutes...Aquafish talk 22:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's just an amazing occurance that you have recently head over to the same userpage (for someone connected to the signpost - a project that your brother has multiple Socks trying to get their teeth into) as at least four of your "brothers" accounts (Sugarpine, Treebark,Carmelapple and the ForrestH2 account itself) ? --Charlesknight 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to edit Kpjas's talk page. I had just learned POV and was ready to show off my skills of the rules there as that was obviously POV. Aquafish talk 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to note, to any admin looking to unblock, that his user account was created just 13 minutes after ForestH2 was blocked. (Other diffs were presented much more eloquently by Flcelloguy above.) Ral315 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Easy solution presents itself - let's just take the man at his word - If I contribute to the same articles Forest did, block me indef. - well there you go. --Charlesknight 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't one of his socks also edit Bummer Vacation? Besides, Merope asked me to remove the category so go talk it up with him. Aquafish talk 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am self admitting this: VanM is indeed a sockpuppet of ForestH2 according to a list Forest keeps; and Foxearth is one too. I suggest you block them. Any user who sees this should report it to WP:AIV saying "his brother said so" Aquafish talk 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first follows the pattern, the second seems to an attempt to get (what appears) to be - an editor in good standing banning (well what would you know - Forrest's socks fell out with the guy). Well I'm off to bed I think. --Charlesknight 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean well what would you know? If it is what I think it's your not AGF or it's not WP:CIVIL. Report both to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Aquafish talk 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify for any admin considering an unblock - VanM does fit the pattern of Forrest socks but it's a basically inactive one, so I guess that's offered up as a chip to say "what a good boy I am". The second one Foxearth has a pattern of interaction that is similar to many who have interacted with Forrest or his socks. That is to say Forrest makes first contact and then one of his socks turns up to support something that forresth2 has said or to commit vandalism. I see nothing here but an attempt by Forrest to settle a grudge because he thinks the game is up with this sock. It's just more cynical gameplaying from forresth2. --Charlesknight 09:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest -- I'm not going to unblock you. I did believe you were ForestH2's brother at first, but I really don't anymore: all the diffs above match things that are too specific about Forest's contribution pattern to be a coincidence, even for a brother. You were blocked indefinitely because of all this sockpuppetry, and in continuing to use sockpuppets to evade your block you are being abusive, and we are putting a stop to it. I think that all of your edits since my unblock of you have been in good faith, however, so I do see the possibility of you being unblocked someday, but that day has to be a long way off. I have blocked VanM, since that user's contribution pattern does fit Forest's; I haven't blocked Foxearth, but I have reblocked your IP, revoking the anon-only block status, for 1 year. If you want to come back, I suggest you (1) wait at least 4 months -- if after a long time, you still want to edit, we may be more willing to believe you. (2) When you request unblocking be up-front about things: admit that you are ForestH2 and admit to the sockpuppetry you did and, of course, promise not to continue. (3) In the meantime, really take a break from Wikipedia.. but if you can't, read up on our policies and guidelines. Mango juice^talk 12:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest/Aquafish/etc.

I can see that you've been editing in good faith, making mostly good edits. However, your behavior has been disruptive, and that's why I'll continue to block you.

If you're still interested in editing Wikipedia, please e-mail me (Wiki.Ral315@Gmail.com). I would be satisfied to let you continue editing in good faith with the assurance that you would use one account only, that you would give me the names of every account you've ever used, and that you'd be unable to seek adminship. If you're interested, please e-mail me, and we can work on it. Ral315 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me (Aquafish)?, I can e-mail you, and I would not seek adminship. After mangojuice unblocked me I didn't plan to ever seek adminship. I will e-mail you this week, but I can't do it today or tommorow because I'm very busy. Here are a list of accounts that ForestH2 keeps:

MatchPat
Alan25
Treebark
QuarterZ
ForestH2
GrasslandT
Larbsaw
VanM
RainbowSwirl
Carmelapple
RiverlarkZ
Streamwate
Sugarpine
Lakelawn
Fieldrack
Aquafish
DimeL
Apple9

this is only on en.wikipedia. He knows Foxearth's password also. As for simple he uses ForestH2, Treebark, Carmelapple and Jack01. It might be worth doing this: Tell User:Netoholic that simple:User:Lakelawn is NOT ForestH2. He is some different user, and I have no clue who he uses. I would use only one account because I thought the way that anon thingy worked when I was unblocked for a while...it worked well. I had one account (Aquafish) and I coun't edit through my IP or create accounts on my IP. That's how I would do it. Oh by the way, Forest's former IP's are 72.129.123.139, 72.134.40.171, 72.134.40.172, 72.134.40.169, and 72.146.46.91. Also why don't you rechange my IP block thingy so it's anon only, then I can use unblock-un to get only one account and we'd all be fine. One account for me, no socks, no creating more socks due to anon-only IP and stuff like that. I'll email you this week sometime with other info. Reply ASAP. Aquafish talk 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no one else checks, I checked all those accounts, and they are all blocked already, except "Streamwate" which is misspelled; "User:Streamwater" is blocked already. Mango juice^talk 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not acting in good faith - you are still playing the brother card - do you not understand what is required? You need to just come clean forrest. Hell even I'd welcome you back in the fold as you were a good editor leaving aside all this nonsense. Stop with this brother nonsense and let's move on --Charlesknight 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I said above that Aquafish was a sock of ForestH2? I didn't make that clear...I'll act in good faith again. Aquafish is a sock of Forest. Aquafish talk 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person "He", the explaination above reads like you are talking about someone else (because I sense wikilawyering in the future). Let's just clear this up once and for good - You are Forresth2 and you used aquafish as a sockpuppet account right? let's get this over and done with and get back to work. --Charlesknight 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He? Yes I did use Aquafish as a sock for Forest, and I'm sorry about my grammer. My first language is Swedish or Svenska. Now, you can full-protect all of my socks user talkpages so I am not tempted to use them again. Sorry about the grammer! Aquafish talk 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Charlesknight and Ral315. I never for a second believed that this was Forrest's brother's account, but as I said before, I'd be happy to have Forrest back if he agreed to stick to one account and own up to any other sockpuppets he's created. Mak (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to stick to one account and I just owed up to sockpuppets I created when I replied to Ral315. Could you tell him, I will e-mail him this week? Aquafish talk 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching this page, but please do e-mail me in the next few days and perhaps we can work this out. Ral315 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Aquafish talk 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty? Forrest, you've been found out. 'Fess up, man and move on! Guy 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I don t appreciate being called a 'sockpuppet' I find that insulting, and its also incredibly untrue. Forest and I have disagreed with many things in the past, and we have bickered but I am in no way connected to him I want to make that very clear. This is ridiculous Foxearth 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But your password is easibly known, for anyone looking to hijack an account. :) Aquafish talk 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean, what have you done to my account? You dare to touch it im taking this further anyway, you wont get away with this. Foxearth 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched your account. It's easy for someone else to hack your account. Take precautions and change your password. If someone comes on here and tries to hack an account your's is easiest to do because you have an easy password. Aquafish talk 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to still assume good faith here Forrest and that you are honest in wanting to get back to serious editing. So what's going on - here you say the Foxearth is one of your sockpuppets and then later than changes to you knowing the password of that user account and using it to make posts - there are a number of possibilities here and none of them are that pleasant or show you in a particularly good light.

1) Foxearth is a sockpuppet of your - I don't believe this is the case. However that means that here you tried to get another editor banned as one of your socks - that's pretty low behaviour.

2) That you hacked into Foxearth account to make posts - In some respects this is worse and if that's the case, I'd have to move from wanting you to rejoin us to saying that you should be banned indef. because that would be pretty fundemental breakdown of the 'social contract' that we editors have with each other.

3) That he is not your puppet and you have not hacked into his account - then that means while having those discussions you have tried to get another editor banned under a false premise.

It's difficult to assume goodfaith when your claims keep changing from day to day.

--Charlesknight 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K, now this. I know Foxearth's password. I am not going to hack is account. I first told you this here. I am not hacking Foxearth's account. If someone is to come on to Wikipedia hoping to hack an account, Foxearth's account is very easy to hack due to Foxearth's password which may need to change. Foxearth is not a sockpuppet of mine though his account his easy to hijack. He should change his password btw. I wouldn't want to hijack an account, I'm not dumb enough, and yes, I do want to get back to serious editing. Aquafish talk 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that then means that you tried to get another editor blockedwith a false accusation doesn't it? or am I misreading the bit when you tell people to report the accounts to AIV?

Can you explain the reasoning behind such an action? And how would you know his password was easy to hack WITHOUT trying to hack it and testing what the password was? --Charlesknight 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit with his account. I promise I didn't. I just saw that's it easy to find his password by trying to hack it. Ask Foxearth. He can look through his contributions and see if there's anything I edited. Aquafish talk 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the first part of my question? --Charlesknight 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it does. No your not misreading anything. Aquafish talk 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Could someone talk to Moe Eplison? He keeps deleting this discussion which I need even if the rest of us don't, so I know what to email to Ral315 later this week. Aquafish talk 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]