<p>So, to start it off, I have nothing against MonkeyPolice188. I have come to realization that my actions against him were incivil, and I shouldn't have insulted him so aggresivaly to start our rivalship. But only today I have found out that MonkeyPolice188 should be blocked. I wanted to say this, so that nobody would accuse me of saying this solely for being MonkeyPolice188's "enemy"...
</p><p>MonkeyPolice188, a former Administrator here, and a Senior editor has been rigging votes, using his sockpuppet he claimed to be his brother, That Ferrari Guy (later renamed to That Lamborghini Guy). Now we know that it is his sockpuppet because, if you go to That Ferrari Guy's profile on the GTA Wikia, you will find this: http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/User:That_Lamborghini_Guy. "Account controlled, owned, and disabled by MonkeyPolice188.". This is MonkeyPolice188 confessing that he indeed controlled the account. Now what makes the situation even worse is the fact that he was rigging votes using this account. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/GTA_Myths_Wiki:Requests_for_Promotion/August_2016_Administrator_Election Here, in the 2016 Administrator Election, you can see the first rule states that the four editors who are participating cannot vote for other candidates, because that would not be fair. But if we take a look at the votes on the candidates, we see that That Ferrari Guy (a.k.a MonkeyPolice188s sockpuppet) has voted no on Gunshow20, yes on Manttix, and the worst one, yes on himself. It is bad enough the broke the first rule, which was that he is not allowed to vote on other editor's requests, but it is worse that he voted for himself. I just wanted to let you know, ya' know.
</p><p>
</p><p><span style="color:rgb(0,255,0);font-family:courier;font-weight:normal;white-space:pre-line;">Note from Administrators: MonkeyPolice188 will be blocked for 6 months. Please note, that he has the right to reply and tell his side of the story for 24 hours. If he does not reply in 24 hours, his block will initiate. - AwesomeBoy</span>
</p>
1,481
pages
ALL POSTS
<p>Yeah, also he was Globally blocked for sockpuppetry and at that time he was in Miami and his "brother" was in England... Or maybe not, but still, they lived in another homes. Is it possible to have one IP in a City? I think not.
</p>
(Edited by TheIndependent40)
<p>Yes, I admit it is technically a sockpuppet - users were always aware the accounts were indeed under the same IP, that doesn't mean that different people weren't using the accounts. I indeed created the account, but it was used by a different person for the majority of the time whilst active. When the other person decided not to use Wikia anymore, I disabled the account, and made it clear the account wasn't in use anymore. I understand and accept it is a former of sockpuppetry, but I did make it clear the IP addresses were the same and the accounts were created by the same person, just utilised by different people during the course of editing on the wiki.
</p><p>
</p><p>I'm surprised this has been brought up - I was under the understanding that you were all aware about this. I was blocked initially because Wikia weren't aware of this until I pointed out the message that 1) was established a long time ago, indeed confirming who created both accounts and that the majority of the time, edits were on the same IP. Two people using the same Internet router and household router is a reason for this and 2) that when the account was non longer in use, a messay on the userpage was retained tor avoid fuether confusion. Either way, I accept that the account is, in some way or another, a secondary account of mine, but I hold hand on heart that would not create an account just to rig votes or similar. </p>
</p><p>I'm surprised this has been brought up - I was under the understanding that you were all aware about this. I was blocked initially because Wikia weren't aware of this until I pointed out the message that 1) was established a long time ago, indeed confirming who created both accounts and that the majority of the time, edits were on the same IP. Two people using the same Internet router and household router is a reason for this and 2) that when the account was non longer in use, a messay on the userpage was retained tor avoid fuether confusion. Either way, I accept that the account is, in some way or another, a secondary account of mine, but I hold hand on heart that would not create an account just to rig votes or similar. </p>
(Edited by Monkeypolice188)
<p>Case solved; MonkeyPolice188 is innocent, appearantly.
</p>
(Edited by One True Slash)
<p>In a way, yes. OTS, I have nothing against you either, I hate the apparent 'tension' between us, so yeah. I hold my hand up and say yes, the accounts were under the same IP and were created by the same person, and I apologise if I didn't make this clear in the first place, although it didn't go unstated.
</p>
(Edited by Monkeypolice188)
<p>Oh. I see. That explains it. The line "Controlled by..." bumped me really much, and I thought it literally meant that you ran the account, which led to me believing you voted on your own request which was forbidden. My apologies.
</p>
(Edited by One True Slash)
<p>Ah right. Controlled by is referring to both the creation and the now-controlled condition. I.e, I now have access to it (although it's disabled since there's no need for me to use it). Don't apologise, I can understand your suspicion. Can't say I was ever happy with the idea of having two accounts under my address.
</p>
(Edited by Monkeypolice188)
0
Racism.
(Edited by Mantiix)
<p>Mant, can you please stop?
</p>
(Edited by One True Slash)