Wikipedia Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively.
This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse.

In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.  -- fr33kman 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments: This is user Mythdon

You are a sockpuppet account of a banned user (Mythdon), you are banned on enwiki, you've been warned by multiple admins,and couple these with your attitude and trolling comments not to mention the fashion in which you use open proxies to access a project you've already been banned from, Mythdon. I've decided the project can do without you. fr33kman 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access restored - temporarilyEdit

I have restored your talk page access as a temporary measure so that you can discuss your block here. The reasons I have blocked you indefinately from the Simple English Wikipedia are; 1) your general attitude to the project, it's editors and administrators; 2) trolling behaviour; 3) being blocked on another WMF project; 4) violation of the one-strike-rule (which is a courtesy and not a right in the first place); 5) evidence showing you to be the community banned user User:Mythdon. This last point is, as I understand it from your seeking help from administrators/stewards on meta (who have no authority here on simple as far as local blocks go) your bone of contention with me and simple. So I'll address the issue. Firstly, your username is very similar (CodeDON/MythDON), secondly, your attitude is very similar, thirdly, there is CU evidence that leads me to further believe you are Mythdon. The first four reasons alone are far more than is required to indefinately block you from this site. Indeed just being a user blocked elsewhere is enough under our rules. Even if there was no CU evidence (three CUs have reviewed the evidence by-the-way), a determination of being a sockpuppet can be made upon suspicion alone. You continuing to pester people on other projects about your block here on simple, will only end up with you being blocked all over the place, possibly globally. fr33kman 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot to say here, so please take the time to respond and let me respond until all issues are resolved.

  1. What do you mean by "your general attitude to the project, it's editors and administrators"? What is my attitude to the project? I have never acted disrespectful to the project; I've never disparaged the Simple English Wikipedia project.
  2. Can you provide some diffs to show "trolling behaviour" from me? You claim that I was trolling in this diff. However, I have already explained how that was far from trolling.
  3. I understand that "the one-strike-rule" is a "courtesy", but the fact remains that you admins added it to the official policy, tailoring it to your needs at the moment so you can block me. (On a side note, #3 and 4 of your list are the same thing)
  4. Having "don" at the end of our usernames is no reason to believe we are the same person. That's very weak. If you are going on terms as such, I could accuse you of being a sock of The Rambling Man.
  5. Can you explain what you mean by saying that "your attitude is very similar"?
  6. My "continuing to pester people on other projects about your block here on simple" — I was pestering no one. I acted polite because I really feel I'm being victimized here.

I also have some questions regarding the block itself.

  1. Despite not being policy here, WP:INVOLVED applies here. It is a given rule. It's common sense that you shouldn't block someone with whom you are currently in a dispute. That's just trying to "win" the argument by silencing the individual. In this case, the admin that blocked the other user got blocked himself. It's that serious.
  2. If you already ran a CU on my account, why did you hesitate to reveal what the results were? I'm not inclined to trust you after that.
  3. "You've not brought any benefit to the project" — I suggest you rescind that comment. I've been a great benefit, as shown by these diffs: here and here.
  4. What happened in the period of time after you warned me the second time that made you block me?
  5. Why are there double standards on this wiki? Admins can say certain things that regular editors cannot. For example, Djsasso (who many people say is outright rude; I don't see him getting blocked) can say "I really have no respect at all for this call" and I cannot? You can act very rude to this guy and I will be blocked if I tell him that?
  6. Although you admins consider my case closed, it is extremely rude to not reply to tell me what the conclusion was.
  7. Please list the CUs who redid the CU. I want them to personally come here to confirm the results.
  8. As for the result itself, I still object. Since I have no access to the tools, I will assume nothing of it and write some ways that distinguish Mythdon and I:
    1. I write edit summaries of about one word; Mythdon writes a sentence.
    2. Mythdon still has talk page access on both Simple and En. I don't know why he isn't discussing the reason of his block on either project. When I got blocked on En, I persisted in my unblock requests until talk page access was revoked.
    3. Mythdon had a custom signature, while I never developed one.
    4. Mythdon has very few content contributions. I've listed diffs above where I made major changes.

Also, I believe you lie about the result because you contacted the admin that blocked me on En, saying that you has only "great suspicions that he may well be a banned user", insinuating that it was not confirmed. If the result really did confirm it, I'm sure you'd be excitedly tossing that around to soil my reputation.

Again, please do not remove access until I get a chance to reply and all issues are resolved. I welcome any non-admins to comment about this if they wish.

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Codedon (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Considering the above, I hereby request unblock. The following admins should recuse from handling this request due to a conflict of interest: Kansan, Clementina, Fr33kman, NonvocalScream, Eptalon, Barras, EhJJ, Gordonrox24, Juliancolton, Lauryn Ashby, Nifky?, Sonia, Either way, Chenzw, Djsasso, Griffinofwales, and Bsadowski1. As I said here, I think it's time to admit self-error. I am sorry for anything I've done that may have made you dislike me. I promise that when I am unblocked, I will cease my curt manner of speaking and discuss issues with utmost respect for those to whom I am speaking. I apologize if I have hurt Clementina's feelings, and I will no longer do that. Please let her know of my apology. Ultimately, I will try to cooperate with everyone in the community, straying from disputes if they arise. I hope that you can forgive me for everything I've done and reconsider your block. I never intended my stint on Simple to turn out this way. Codedon (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Simply, you are banned on English, that is enough for you to be banned here as well, period. Other checkusers have validated the checkuser block. You don't admit to anything, and thus, there is no way for us to know that you will make good edits. Also, read the reply below, there is important information there for regards to why you will remain blocked. Jon@talk:~$ 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


I am not going to get into a slinging match with you where I say "you did this" and you say "I did not" over and over again. Admins have very wide latitude to issue blocks to anyone they believe is disruptive to the project. You have been disruptive. I am not the only one that wanted to block you. Many others did also, I was just the first to act; and so I get to bear the brunt of your anger. That's okay, I've got a thick skin and it's not the first time, and it won't be the last time someone feels they have been blocked unfairly and has called me a bad admin and a liar.

As for my belief you are Mythdon, like I have said over and over, CU evidence supports you being him. What exactly that evidence is I don't think is a good idea to tell you because it would mean that you'd be able to alter it and you'd not look like him anymore. Two other CUs have reviewed the evidence and have come to the same conclusion about the likelihood of you being Mythdon. These CUs can identify themselves if they wish, but I don't see the need especially since I have no doubt you'll just turn your anger towards them also. They have identified themselves to other admins and told them what they think. That is all that matters here. You asked on meta for someone there to review the evidence and were told no. A steward was also privately asked by an admin here to review the CU evidence and was told no. This is not how things work within WMF sites. The reason I told the en admin who blocked you that I had "great suspicions" that you were a banned user (note I did not, and have not said which banned user) was because enwiki is a seperate project and I don't think it is right to condemn a user there based upon CU evidence that did not come from there. I was being fair towards you, but also fair towards them. They can make their own minds up what to do with the information, I'm not an admin there.

At the end of the day, it does not actually matter whether or not you are Mythdon. You were blocked for other reasons as well. Just being blocked on another WMF site is enough. We get a influx of users who have been banned on other sites (mostly enwiki) and come here. The situation got even worse when we actually had enwiki admins suggest to banned users on enwiki that they come here to show they can get along well and then use this as evidence to get unblocked on enwiki. This influx of banned users has harmed our reputation and we have decided to get tough about it. Most of the time these enwiki banned users end up getting blocked here as well, occasionally they actually do well here and some have gone on to become admins. The one-strike-rule was developed to give these banned users a single chance to show that they had changed. It is, however, only a courtesy and we don't have to use it at all. We can just block the banned user without discussion. In your case, you have exceeded the one-strike rule.

I, and other admins, received lots of complaints about you before I decided to block you. You could have been blocked long before you were, but sometimes we give more than one chance. I am actually considered by many to be too soft at times about blocking users. In fact, I had multiple complaints from the community when I decided to let you have talk page access back. The admins decided as a group to ignore your emails and complaints.

I am sure that you never meant your time on simple to end like this, but end it has. Wikipedia is just a website, it's not the end of the earth if you are not allowed to edit it. I have no doubt that you will try to continue the fight here and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that you'll end up getting blocked elsewhere as you did so. You almost got blocked on meta for "forum shopping". Like I said, local blocks are just that, local. Not even a steward will get involved, because they can't. I suggest you just move on and get on with your life. I am now going to remove talk page access again, because I said I would give you a chance to respond, and then I'd remove it. As for me not liking you, I have no such feelings towards you at all and I wish you all the best with your life.

fr33kman 02:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)