Jump to content

User talk:86.44.16.82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.44.16.82 (talk) at 18:46, 1 July 2008 (→Identity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Identity

From your contribs, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), it seems fairly obvious that you've got experience with Wikipedia. Care to identify your other account(s)? If nothing else, I would recommend creating a named account if you are going to get involved in disputes. --Elonka 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for trolling and WP:POINT violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

ROFL, um, because it's a bad block and I haven't done anything wrong? You know, the usual.

Decline reason:

You've been incivil, you're pretty clearly a sock of someone, and you have been disruptive. You know, the usual ;-) — Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Uncivil like a fox? Who might have opined re an abrasive and scathing whistleblower who at this point felt s/he had been made unwelcome enough to leave, "If Blechnic had been more reasonable, he would have volunteered to be a plagiarism reviewer on everything, not just the stuff he felt he had expertise in and could sufficiently lower himself to do." (the next reply after this is mine, btw, disclosure and all that, a highly disruptive reply no doubt, blowing the thread wide open.)[1] This same strident whistleblower would later state: "When I gave examples of articles I could work on I was insulted for not agreeing to drop everything and devote my life to DYK." (user talk:carcharoth) So how does my editing measure up to yours? Well, it's an open question, isn't it? It's all very not-taking-the-mote-from-the-eye-of-the-beholder kind of stuff. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block of this account. The anon 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs) has only been being used for a few days, has clear prior experience with wiki procedures, but has refused to identify previous accounts. It launched into AN/ANI threads with profanity,[2] and today, in a violation of WP:POINT, deleted several images from the FA-class article, Pauline Fowler, without any discussion.[3] Then when reverted, the anon made a null edit, just to place another argument in an edit summary.[4] Comments from the anon on my own talkpage have been steadily escalating in terms of incivility and personal attacks.[5] I support the WP:TROLL assessment. This account has clearly made a few constructive contributions, but the majority of its edits have dealt with disruption and accusations. There's a probable violation of WP:SOCK, specifically, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." --Elonka 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone kindly explain with my apologies to Nikki311 at Talk:New_school_hip_hop#GA_Review that I have been blocked for one week. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nish, you're my hero. Appears more like a non sequitur than an explanation, but I guess I can't fault you for that. Would it have killed you though to accede to my request to pass on my apologies for the waste of her work and time? Tough guys don't dance, izzit? Oh well. Thanks anyway. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a little tied up at the moment, would you like me to make the improvements? ~ Eóin (talk)
Urgh, I wouldn't wish the "date accessed" job on my worst enemy, it is pure and tedious drudgery. At the very least promise to leave that alone for quite a few days if not forever. I might get unblocked before the week is out, one never knows.
If you wanna do the other stuff that would be awesome! I have to say that i am kiiiind of wedded to the "perhaps her greatest record", it's supported by sources, breaks up and helps make flow a chronological list-sentence, and is good info. See if Nikki thinks there is any wiggle room before excising. :D See what you get for being cool? Exploited! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser?

Is it possible to run a checkuser on this user to find the puppetmaster account?--Finalnight (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might one inquire as to your basis for stating there is a puppetmaster account? According to your user page you yourself have a history of IP contributions of moderate worth, you oughta know better. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments made by the anon,[6] and the history at New school hip hop, there seem to be a variety of 86.44.xx.xx IDs:
There may be others that can be discovered by looking through the contribs for "overlapping" edits on the various articles. Just with those so far though, looking through the talkpages, it appears there was disruptive behavior on multiple accounts, so an SSP or CheckUser might be useful. However, there do appear to be a lot of good edits mixed in with the incivility, so if whoever is behind the accounts will simply agree to use one named account in the future, then I would recommend a second chance, with the hope that they'll be able to moderate their own behavior from now on. --Elonka 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I reject any notion that I am the one who needs to moderate his behaviour coming out of this encounter, so giving me a "second chance" would be from your POV a mistake and from mine a misnomer. What I simply agree to is continuing to edit as an IP and putting up with the unfounded paranoia that ensues. Stay tooned for my exciting rebuttal of your bizarro post under my unblock request, and my subsequent second unblock request, both coming later today (it is morning here). Two more edits dealing "with disruption and accusations" for your count, no doubt! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you need to click through on the Older 500 links on some of those for your dates to be correct, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=86.44.6.14&month=&year= 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you, I have made some corrections. However, wouldn't it be simpler if you just promised to edit as a single named account? --Elonka 07:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler for you to AGF perhaps, but with respect, i'm still failing to see why that's my problem. What's next, no long words? (A joke, pertaining only to the logic, not a personal slight.) See [7] C.f. the corresponding posts to my talk page for further what i believe the kids call "lulz". 86.44.16.82 (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as behavior is at a high standard, you are correct that a named account is not necessary. But as soon as behavior becomes disruptive, the rules change. Then the policy that applies, is WP:SOCK, where it is no longer acceptable to edit anonymously. This is because some people use the anons as a kind of shell game, to spread out a few disruptive edits on each account, and thereby avoid scrutiny on the entire pattern of behavior. It also makes conversations more difficult to follow. For example, I see now that you posted to my talkpage awhile back about User:Sarah777, and I see that you have also posted to the Abtract RfC. But when you posted to my talkpage recently about Pauline Fowler, you did not identify yourself as the same individual who had participated in those venues. And when I further challenged you to identify yourself and you refused, this caused more wasted time on my part. Not to mention that it was simply unacceptable for you to swoop into the Pauline Fowler article and delete several images, without any prior discussion from any of your accounts. That last, plus your incivility, would have been enough to earn the "disruptive" moniker, regardless of what you are doing with the IPs. So, to put it simply, the "hide and seek" method of editing is no longer acceptable for you. If you wish to resume editing, please register an account and edit from one name in the future. Thanks, --Elonka 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elonka, this would all be quite interesting if you had provided even a single diff to point out the disruptive or uncivil behavior. To date, you've not. Your behavior is way, way out of line. I strongly urge you to recuse yourself from further interactions with this user with you as some sort of authority figure. You're completely out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'checkuser' word brought me in here, and the comment on Sarah's talk page. Elonka, the block log shows "trolling, violation of WP:POINT" but 1) I'm not seeing any evidence of that, 2) they had not been warned in any meaningful way and 3) you originally seemed to be under the misconception that they should create an account which, as you know, is decidedly optional and our anon editors have the exact same standing as any other member of the community - Alison ❤ 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my explanation below the block notice. --Elonka 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Elonka's been asked several times now to provide evidence of the supposed poor behavior, and to date has provided nothing. I think this block should be overturned, barring any evidence being presented. We don't block people based on accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reign it in, Elonka. I am not responsible for your paranoia. You make so many dubious assertions that it is quite impossible to keep up, and the curse of TL;DR awaits me for trying. So far you have sought to suggest that I engage in sockpuppetry, that i was not only trolling but a troll, that i was edit warring, that i lie, that profanity on ANI is on its face bad and supportive of larger claims (despite the editor to whom i was speaking having no problem and the thread being no trainwreck; maybe we are pals? maybe we talk like this all the time? we're not and we don't, but yanno, you have no idea), that replying to an edit summary via edit summary is bad and supportive of larger claims (on the contrary, my experience is that it is positively fruitful, but i won't bore you with details), that WP:BRD is evil and supportive of larger claims, that i indulge in subterfuge, that not saying "Hi, you may know me from such edits as..." is subterfuge (as if i would even remember or know what edits needed to be disclosed to, for instance, your satisfaction. i have no clue for instance what relevance my stumbling on the Abtract RFC holds for you, and i fail to see a difficulty with your being unaware we had previously spoken, especially given the benign nature of that exchange, which had nothing to do with Sarah777 that i knew of, an exceedingly odd characterization of it that is, actually) And etc etc etc etc (meanwhile evidence of the transparent nature of my editing falls unceasingly from the sky). These have all been unfounded and untrue assertions. You have desired so far to correct none of them. The collision of your commentary with reality is a sound that makes mine ears ring with its sustained, clanging wrongness.
I, natch, assert that I am entirely a good faith editor with many many extremely decent contributions to my name, who is committed to WP:BRD, who has never abandoned an account nor edited using two, but rather simply gets on with editing under whatever IP is assigned to me. My IP changes when the wind blows SE and the moon is in Jupiter (or more likely, looking at the little gaps between your dates, when i go away for a week or a weekend to spend quality time with hookers and gin and return.) I have contributed heavily on the subject of hip hop, which can be a headache, and have prior to your outburts posted to Arbcom pages, RFCs, polls, ANI, contentious articles, all to my almost certain knowledge without once being warned by an editor, without being told i was disruptive, without being told my comments or even good faith presence was unhelpful, or anything of that nature. The only time I can recall being accused of personal attacks was when I told an editor that I found his sig annoying. Even this resulted in a discussion ending in jocularity. In fact so many of my, what you would doubt characterize as, "disputes" end in bonhomie that it positively sickens the cynic in me.
I never refused to identify prior accounts: in fact i explicitly stated that i had no problem doing so, to the best of my ability. I did say I expected to know why you wanted to know. You replied that you wished me to save you the work of SSP/CU, since you were of the belief that i was a sockpuppet. Since I had already stated many times that I was not, you were obviously of the opinion that i could be of no further help to you. It's very hard—i know people kneejerk react against statements like this, but it remains very hard—to see your repeated claims on this point as something other than lies.
Almost enough for now (surely! Culthu be praised!), except I must probably break down your "civility" diff. *sigh* What is in evidence on your talk page is my increasing incredulity at the nature of your responses. Civility diff:
For what reason? And you have already been told that I have not now nor have I ever had a named account. Continue on with your rude inquisitorial bluntness, false assertions, failures of good faith and implications that I am a liar regardless, though. After all, I made an edit to an article then enquired as to your opinion on the issue at hand! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rude inquisitorial bluntness: I politely respond to two posts, an Elonka reasonable question with an odd tone, and an odd Elonka reply to a reasonable question. I state that "I have never had an account, just a series of IPs." I am at this point "somewhat taken aback" [8] Elonka next post is in reply to a wiiiild attack on me by another user (since redacted, and i have no problem with it or him whatsoever). Elonka: "The anon's actions do appear to be in violation of WP:POINT."[9] I am now "completely taken aback".[10] I finally notice that i have been dragged into an ANI thread out of the blue (no notification) and am described there, wrongly, of edit-warring. I ask for an apology to be posted there (actually a correction would have sufficed, i regret this language). Me: "Your accusations of WP:POINT violation and threats are equally bogus failures of good faith, but unfortunately they are the kind of accusations one can not easily disprove." How true, how true. I say to an editor on Elonka's talk page that i prefer to be called "IP editor" than "Anon" (Elonka will later refer to me on my own talk page as "the anon". Pointedly? Uncivilly? Probably, not that i particularly care). E:"And which other IPs might those be?" Me [incredulous]: you're asking for a list of all the IPs I have edited under? E: "Yes, indeed I am. And/or named accounts."[11] Ta-da. Rude inquisitorial bluntness, check. False assertions, (POINT, edit warring, sock) check. Failures of good faith and implications that I am a liar, Ibid. This message was brought to you by the "civility diff".
Elonka, please look at things better before I make some crack about your glasses being a triumph of style over substance, you take it for a personal attack rather than the devilishly charming compliment it is, i receive further sanction and toddle off disgruntled to Wikipedia Review to bemoan for years the injustice of it all, and those here so inclined post, "See? Total fucking troll!"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.44.16.82&oldid=222914416"