| Revision as of 18:48, 24 December 2009 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Blocked: no relation← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:17, 24 December 2009 edit undo86.159.240.147 (talk) the behaviour I can see is strongly reminiscent of a sock-master with a really serious reputation for tenentious editingNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :::PR: Here's another series of blatant cheats, this time tag-teaming to very tendencious effect, {{vandal|Justin A Kuntz}}, {{vandal|Narson}} and {{vandal|Redcoat10}}. It wouldn't take long to recognise how much damage they're doing to articles such as ] and at ]. ] (]) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | :::PR: Here's another series of blatant cheats, this time tag-teaming to very tendencious effect, {{vandal|Justin A Kuntz}}, {{vandal|Narson}} and {{vandal|Redcoat10}}. It wouldn't take long to recognise how much damage they're doing to articles such as ] and at ]. ] (]) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Unfortunately, none of the editors you named has any connection with any other editors. ] 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | ::::Unfortunately, none of the editors you named has any connection with any other editors. ] 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::As a non-logged editor I don't have the clout to trigger an investigation. But the behaviour I can see is strongly reminiscent of a sock-master with a really serious reputation for tenentious editing before all the sock accounts tumbled out. The other three I've named are only trampling any vestige of policy-compliance. Don't ask me to register another SPA on the I/P topic when I'll be targetted with patently false accusations for clearly non-policy reasons. ] (]) 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:17, 24 December 2009
Organ controversy
In response to your question, please see that I left another explanation here. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Checkuser and behavioral evidence indicates a strong likelihood that the present user of this IP address is a registered user who has previously been sanctioned for inappropriate conduct, and is editing as a logged-out editor to avoid scrutiny and being connected with his past. Accordingly I have blocked anonymous editing from this IP. Please log into your account to edit, and be prepared to follow Misplaced Pages norms on edit warring and personal attacks. There are procedures to discuss disputed article content and baiting and insulting other editors is not one of them. Either moderate your behavior or log in. The next time you do this as an IP, I'll disclose the identity I suspect you of being so that other, uninvolved admins can review your behavior and determine whether stronger sanctions are appropriate. Thatcher 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason a previously logged in user shouldn't come back as an IP. I have used around 5 accounts, none of which have behaved in a sanctionable fashion, in fact, only one has ever been sanctioned. Needless to say, that was the one that concentrated on the I/P topic and was relentlessly mauled for trying to edit honestly.
- Meanwhile, a user who cheated on an epic scale (and took the "right to vanish" and promised never to come back) has been roaming unhindered and (I would think) is operating No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Accredited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Steve157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and maybe some others. Deal with the real criminals instead of bullying me who would, if I were allowed, do a lot more good work. My only un-professional behaviour is pointing out the cheats, other than that my conduct has been pretty nearly entirely proper. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the banned user you suspect of operating those accounts and what is your evidence? There certainly are reasons why a registered user may not be tolerated when they edit as an IP, particularly if the logged in user has a history of sanctions or poor behavior. By logging out you get a presumption of new editor status and good faith that you may not deserve. Another reason is that by shifting IPs you make it difficult to detect, evaluate and respond to long-term behavior probleems. Of course, the only way to independently evaluate this is to publish your account name, which would tie your name to an IP and an approximate geographic location. You can certainly volunteer to do this yourself; log in to an account and post to the admin noticeboard that you are being unfairly blocked and ask for independent endorsement of your right to edit anonymously (if you think you will get it). Or post the unblock template, at which point the admin who answers can email me and I will discuss privately who I think you are. Or I will go to the noticeboard if this happens with a third IP address. Alternatively, you could edit in a manner that does not lead to immediate and strong suspicions about your identity. There are thousands of editors on British Telecom IPs who manage to avoid being accused of being a troubled user who is logged out to avoid scrutiny. Thatcher 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mr. Hicks The III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lover Of The Russian Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Millmoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AbetterWay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fistook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Oh, Those Russians! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were all sockpuppets of a banned editor known to have caused a lot of real damage who promised not to come back.
- I'm the stellar opposite, I'm not running from any record of crime, I can simply do a lot of much better work as an IP because I don't get stalked. The only reason you've spotted me and are blocking my IP's is that I've taken to identifying the cheats it's your job to deal with and you're failing to do.
- PR: Here's another series of blatant cheats, this time tag-teaming to very tendencious effect, Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Narson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Redcoat10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It wouldn't take long to recognise how much damage they're doing to articles such as Gibraltar and at USS Liberty Incident. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, none of the editors you named has any connection with any other editors. Thatcher 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- As a non-logged editor I don't have the clout to trigger an investigation. But the behaviour I can see is strongly reminiscent of a sock-master with a really serious reputation for tenentious editing before all the sock accounts tumbled out. The other three I've named are only trampling any vestige of policy-compliance. Don't ask me to register another SPA on the I/P topic when I'll be targetted with patently false accusations for clearly non-policy reasons. 86.159.240.147 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, none of the editors you named has any connection with any other editors. Thatcher 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the banned user you suspect of operating those accounts and what is your evidence? There certainly are reasons why a registered user may not be tolerated when they edit as an IP, particularly if the logged in user has a history of sanctions or poor behavior. By logging out you get a presumption of new editor status and good faith that you may not deserve. Another reason is that by shifting IPs you make it difficult to detect, evaluate and respond to long-term behavior probleems. Of course, the only way to independently evaluate this is to publish your account name, which would tie your name to an IP and an approximate geographic location. You can certainly volunteer to do this yourself; log in to an account and post to the admin noticeboard that you are being unfairly blocked and ask for independent endorsement of your right to edit anonymously (if you think you will get it). Or post the unblock template, at which point the admin who answers can email me and I will discuss privately who I think you are. Or I will go to the noticeboard if this happens with a third IP address. Alternatively, you could edit in a manner that does not lead to immediate and strong suspicions about your identity. There are thousands of editors on British Telecom IPs who manage to avoid being accused of being a troubled user who is logged out to avoid scrutiny. Thatcher 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)