User talk:65.246.126.130 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 28 April 2009 (→April 2009: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:59, 28 April 2009 by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) (→April 2009: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!Last edited:
Last edited by:23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Luna Santin (talk · contribs)

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account!

Your IP address, 65.246.126.130, is registered to Applied Research Associates and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

April 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for for sockpuppetry - see User:65.246.126.130. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

Request reason:

My edits are substantive and not to avoid any policy.

Decline reason:

Same response as to other IP addresses used today. Log in to your main account and request unblock there. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 25 April 2009 (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.

User:Mbhiii, is there a reason that you can't just log in before editing? That would solve the problem very simply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I grab edits, on different PCs, between jobs I'm running. Others here, I believe, do similar. The main issue for Admins should be whether this behavior is to avoid policy (which it is not, or, if occasionally occurring, is inadvertent.) Please note, too, that editing from multiple IPs reduces protection from 3RR, since no stable ID goes with the edits, so with convenience comes a price. Ultimately, the substance of the arguments should (and generally does) prevail. Until WP changes its policies on anonymous edits, the reasons for allowing them should still count. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been extremely evasive about your multiple identities, using them to support each, pretending to be different editors, etc., while repeatedly adding unsourced interpretive material that others object to, as detailed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbhiii; to clear this up, you need to edit under one identity for a while, and stop the edit warring against policy. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of pretense is untrue. It's simply that with anonymity comes no need to identify oneself; that is, after all, what anonymous means. You should respect that, without assuming any pretense, either cloaking yourself or projected onto others. Realize that pretense is much more often inferred than intended. You should admit and withdraw the messes you've made and stop burdening others with them. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When you log out and edit, especially when you encourage others to think that you're not one person but several, you will find that other users consider you dishonest. It's hard to work together with people who consider you dishonest. When you know that anonymous editing makes other people distrust you, if you want to work together with others, you adjust your editing so as to get along well with others. When you don't, you present the impression of a person who doesn't want to work cooperatively. Which is a problem, because cooperation is at the very heart of the way Misplaced Pages functions. There's no actual law against my walking around with dead fish tied around my neck. I don't do it, not because it's illegal, but because I want to get along with the people I meet in my journey through life. If I loudly insisted on my legal right to wear dead fish around my neck, I'd be able to do that- but I wouldn't have a job or any friends, and I wouldn't be able to accomplish anything useful that requires the help of others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, problem is he doesn't like my dead fish, and I don't like his. What Dick thinks is sensible is some model other than the one sourced (as he details here). Any notes to make the current one more useful by avoiding a common error is something he opposes (ibid). Could you review the following and render an opinion or find someone who will? Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Reciprocity (photography)#Third opinion, second request (This is not affected by the 3O given earlier by User:AlekseyFy. That model has since been sourced to a book, ending that controversy, as discussed at Talk:Reciprocity_(photography)#Solved). Rather, it has to do with a common misuse of that type of model, for which the only source, so far, is an error on a forum, and its simple algebraic correction. See also the history. 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to help with your dispute. You see, I think that it's dishonest of you to edit anonymously instead of logging in, and so I'm not willing to help you with your problems. Do you see what I mean, about how editing anonymously makes it hard for you to edit as successfully as possible? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Working backwards, yes of course, esp. w/ certain personalities, but it shouldn't be so, and it shouldn't be considered dishonest to edit anonymously instead of logging in. Setting up an account shouldn't trap you into having to edit from it. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

... as per Jayron32, above. -MBHiii (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your main account is clearly unblocked, so that's not an issue, and I see nothing in the above discussion that would make me sleep well after granting this. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

This shared IP has more than one editor and is not used to circumvent policy. That issue appears to have been raised as a diversion during an edit war, as has happened previously.

Decline reason:

Actually, policy has indeed been circumvented; User:Rotwechsel's contributions as a so-called "third opinion" at Talk:Reciprocity (photography) are either not "third opinions" (as they are the same person), or they are collusion by colleagues or friends; this is not acceptable. --jpgordon 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

What is the difference between collusion and agreement? If you can't say clearly (and I doubt you can) you should unblock this. Do inclusionists or deletionists collude? It is not collusion to agree.

Decline reason:

This isn't a semantics class. Use your main account, as you've been advised above. Black Kite 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Making this request after logging in, as advised, had no effect. There is no policy defining collusion that is itself verifiable and unambiguous, and lack of one causes problems. Also, activities of a new editor should not close down an established one, even if it's a shared IP.

Decline reason:

Wikilawyering is not a valid reason for unblock. Continued use of unblock template will result in block of other accounts. OhNoitsJamie 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am gravely concerned by the edits from Rotwechsel (talk · contribs). The entire purpose of the "third opinion" construct is to get an independent, neutral party to offer an opinion other parties can generally depend upon to be, again, independent and neutral. You've asked above out the difference between agreement and collusion; only one of those is made from an arm's length. When you're using multiple identities, it's hard for for people to trust you; when you're doing that and pulling in friends from off-site, it gets even harder; when those friends use the same IP as you on multiple occasions, it starts to look pretty bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know of anyone giving a 3rd Op or doing an end run on the 3RR in support of me from this IP (if from other IPs I can only guess), and I recall edits from this IP that weren't mine. Violations must be from an unshared IP or an ID, o/w they're iffy. All such accusations during an edit war, are equally likely to be self-serving, overblown bunk and, therefore, require solid evidence from an ID or an IP that is unshared, which can never be assumed. No violations came from here, even though shared. They are assumed from Rot, though I don't see it. So, this gets blocked? -MBHiii (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify, then: I am gravely concerned as a checkuser. If an IP is shared between only two editors, what would you have me assume? If multiple, dynamic IPs are shared by those same two editors, exclusively, what would you have me assume? Using multiple identities is itself gray territory; bringing in a "friend" who does the same to participate in disputes you're in is, again, starting to look pretty bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.