Monkeybreath

Strip club

I have reported the page to WP:RPP for Full Protection. An admin will decide whether to protect it or not shortly. Diez2 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the external link, as it is a violation of of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #2, 3, and 10. Please do not reinsert it. You might also want to read our policy on external links. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR vio at article Strip club

Unfortunately, your reverts on Strip club violated WP:3RR. I've reported you for so, and please do not take offense as such. You can comment under the appropriate section at the page. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 9 2007 to Strip club

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comment on my talk page

See WP:AN3#User:Monkeybreath_reported_by_User:Penwhale_.28Result:_24h.29. You were not the only person to violate 3RR on that incident. When it comes to 3RR, whether the intentions were good or bad, all cases are equal (exceptions are for self-reverts and simple vandalism reverts, which your case wasn't). Your comment left on my talk page is borderline violating WP:NPA. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: First and second comment

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinately as a troll sock of User:Trip_the_Light_Fantastic. From the contribs, it's obvious. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Royalguard is abusing his admin powers.

(Personal attack removed) Monkeybreath 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Royalguard11 Abusing His Admin Status

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Royalguard11 Accusing me of being someone I'm not

Decline reason:

Your personal attacks are reason enough for block.-- Metros232 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Royalguard11 is abusing his administrative powers! Royalguard blocked someone recently. The person who was blocked used a sockpuppet and posted on Royalguard11's talk page. I posted on Royalguard11's talk page as well and gave my support for the person Royalguard11 blocked because I felt that Royalguard was going way overboard. Now Royalguard11 has blocked me indefinitely because he thinks that I am another sockpuppet of the person he banned when I am not! Royalguard11 is abusing his admin powers by banning people with little or no reason and should be stripped of his Administrative powers. Monkeybreath 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, does it matter? Your personal attacks would be enough to warrant blocking. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is does matter for me? Trip 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)