User talk:170.76.20.253

I am proposing a ban for this user for putting false information in the wiki. I usually don't like bans for this reason but he has done this on too many pages and occasion now.

On April 5th he put a note on the Strider that some aggressive Striders spawn if you attack and kill a Strider near the Beautifull Feather. After checking this I found the information to be untrue.

Today he put notes on several pages that FoW can be accessed from the statue at Majesty's Rest. I ran to the statue, but again the information was proved wrong. Even if a user thinks the information is correct, he should be sure before posting it to the wiki, or put it on a talk page first. Editing several pages to include false information is not a good thing to do. If no one notices the false edits, the wrong info might stay in the wiki for a long time. --Gem  00:26, 8 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I support this ban. I've extended the penalties for abuse article with a possible guideline for this kind of edits. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Blocked for two weeks. If after two weeks you continue the posting of stuff like this in articles the blocks will start getting longer and longer each time.  As was stated above, if you hear a rumor about something post it in the talk pages, not the actual article.  --Rainith 02:19, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

He returned...
Although this time he hasn't added wrong information. He comments on talk pages, but the comments don't make too much sense to me. One was a response to a small closed conversation of Pinesoul vs. Pinesol in August. The edits really don't seem to bring anything useful to the wiki. AND he doesn't sign the comments. I'll keep an eye on him. ;) --Gem 18:47, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
 * In all honesty, his current posts appear to made with good intentions. While some appear to be posts to older conversations, they are on-topic to the conversation that is posted.
 * Given that these posts don't seem to be anything like what caused you to put him on your watch list, I'm suspecting that it may not even be the same person; just someone who hit the IP address lottery on a dynamic IP assignment. --161.88.255.140 19:07, 1 May 2006 (CDT)