AN/I looks for boogeymen Options

[Tarc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Tue 22nd November 2011, 3:37am

[TungstenCarbide]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

Jayron32 and Georgewilliamherbert on the same thread at ANI? Read it and you'll lose ten IQ points.
One of my accounts was recently banned for being this guy, after a stunning display of idiocy at ani by those two.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Tue 22nd November 2011, 4:24am

[that one guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

There is a slight difference between a mention and a link from Wikipedia Review. That being said I think some people jumped to conclusions a little too fast.

[thekohser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

There is a slight difference between a mention and a link from Wikipedia Review. That being said I think some people jumped to conclusions a little too fast.

It's pretty comical that they think I wrote the Tito piece on Wikipedia Review, when the edit history is right there for the asking. Or, do they think I'm now sockpuppeting on my own wiki website?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 22nd November 2011, 8:47pm

[Abd]

Jayron32 and Georgewilliamherbert on the same thread at ANI? Read it and you'll lose ten IQ points.
One of my accounts was recently banned for being this guy, after a stunning display of idiocy at ani by those two.

I've come to the conclusion that ANI is the plural of ANUS.

This guy wrote:

They will say that those that they blocked didn’t play by the rules or were too contentious. Don’t believe a word of it. The editors were blocked because of their point of view.

Say it isn't so! Editors are blocked on Wikipedia because of their point of view? How could that be, when every edit can be seen, every action is logged, it's against policy, and surely the community would never put up with that?

He's probably been reading too much Abd or those like him. Rots the brain.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 22nd November 2011, 10:12pm

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

The problem is that some users like to blame blocked or banned editors for every disruption on wikipedia. It is so easy and so convenient because a blocked user cannot respond.

A few weeks ago tarc alleged I was using proxies to add some kind of racist images to malik's talk
Apparently the image added to Malik's talk was "a rope used to hang nineteenth-century Englishmen " as it is stated in the AN/I thread.
tarc stated that it was

Typical {{u|mbz1}} tactic.

I do not watch an/i , but somebody emailed me the link to this lie. It really made me sick to my stomach. How somebody could claim that it is "typical mbz1 tactic"? Have I ever done anything
even remotely close to this?
tarc, now between the two of us could you please tell me why did you do it?
If you believed I could have done something like this, it means you are an absolute idiot.
If you did not believe I could have done something like this, but claimed I did, this means you are an absolute scoundrel.
So the choice is yours: Are you an absolute idiot or an absolute scoundrel, user tarc?
Or maybe you want to tell me that you are sorry for your AN/I post?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 23rd November 2011, 2:32am

[RMHED]

Jayron32 and Georgewilliamherbert on the same thread at ANI? Read it and you'll lose ten IQ points.
One of my accounts was recently banned for being this guy, after a stunning display of idiocy at ani by those two.

I've come to the conclusion that ANI is the plural of ANUS.

Indeed. Scratch, scratch, scratch.

[radek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_stuff_ok.3F

Apparently just the mere mention of Wikipedia Review sets off the klaxons.

There is a slight difference between a mention and a link from Wikipedia Review. That being said I think some people jumped to conclusions a little too fast.

It's pretty comical that they think I wrote the Tito piece on Wikipedia Review, when the edit history is right there for the asking. Or, do they think I'm now sockpuppeting on my own wiki website?

The anon IP in that thread is hilarious. Now if *I* was to start suspecting sock puppetry...