Misplaced Pages

User talk:86.44.16.82: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:43, 1 July 2008 edit86.44.16.82 (talk) →Checkuser?← Previous edit Revision as of 06:52, 1 July 2008 edit undo86.44.16.82 (talk) →IdentityNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:


Someone kindly explain with my apologies to Nikki311 at ] that I have been blocked for one week. ] (]) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Someone kindly explain with my apologies to Nikki311 at ] that I have been blocked for one week. ] (]) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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. ] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


==Checkuser?== ==Checkuser?==

Revision as of 06:52, 1 July 2008

Identity

From your contribs, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), it seems fairly obvious that you've got experience with Misplaced Pages. 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)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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.

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, and today, in a violation of WP:POINT, deleted several images from the FA-class article, Pauline Fowler, without any discussion. Then when reverted, the anon made a null edit, just to place another argument in an edit summary. Comments from the anon on my own talkpage have been steadily escalating in terms of incivility and personal attacks. 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)

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)

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)

Checkuser?

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

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)
Based on comments made by the anon, 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)
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)