User talk:216.165.158.7

FYI, a new ANI thread about this matter, can be found here. --Elonka 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I unblocked you per the AN/I discussion I have unprotected this talk page. Do not use it to make personal attacks. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, judging from previous "warnings," some people here have a rather unusual view of what personal attacks are. Pointing out that the individuals accusing me of using sockpuppets were incorrect -- and in fact the two main people making the accusations have been harassing me for months and had used sockpuppets and meat puppets themselves for getting around edit conflicts and to stack votes on a Request for Admin proceding, as pointed out by several editors at the time -- certainly cannot be considered a personal attack. Pointing out that admins did not have any actual policy basis to make the blocks is not a personal attack (and it has, in fact, been confirmed by the overruling of the blocks more than once).

Frankly, if you are looking for personal attacks, try yourself for your AGF-violating attacks on my actions based upon limited information and actually misleading information given to you by other individuals, or David Gerard for claiming that I am "trolling" when all i am doing is defending myself from false accusations of others. It's very clear that a number of people here need to realize that the very things they are accusing me of and trying to justify for a block are exactly what they themselves are doing from behind the pretense of trying to solve things.

If you want to start blocking for incivility, I might suggest removing David Gerard for a while for his actions, or Elonka for falsely claiming that I was using sockpuppets or that I was harassing her, or the sysop whose very talk page says he's going to go around blocking people no questions asked and in fact did so after I caught him restoring placing illegal information on how to pirate software an article talk page. Rules should apply to everyone, and a number of people have been getting away with pretty flagrant violations and trying to rationalize them away by just labeling me as an alleged problem editor and not taking any sort of responsibility for their own actions. 216.165.158.7 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

try yourself for your AGF-violating attacks on my actions based upon limited information and actually misleading information given to you by other individuals, I never block based on the say so of others. I looked through your entire contribution history and blocked on the basis of that. And I certainly will block again if I see more of the same. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't being honest with yourself. If you had looked through the history (assuming good faith on your part here) you would have blocked Sn0wflake (see just a few examples here and here) and a number of other editors for harassment and clear violations of Wikipedia policies. The fact that your block was overruled and then overruled again per the comments of multiple admins on ANI shows your block was out of process. Leave your threats to people who are actually causing problems, or block me again and get overruled again. You have no credibility here. 216.165.158.7 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is like some farce or something -- need an unblock again

Another block with no message on my talk page about it. All the block says is:

This account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Re-blocking. He's using his IP to go wild, and to avoid scrutiny"

THIS IS NONSENSE. What reason is there for a block? None is even given here. I am not in ANY way "going wild" and I am certainly NOT trying to avoid scrutiny with all the admins already knowing about my IP. WHAT BEHAVIOR THAT WOULD JUSTIFY A BLOCK IS BEING ALLEGED HERE? *NOTHING*!

On top of that, blocking the IP claiming that I am using it to avoid scrutiny blocks me from signing in and editing as well, so that I can't even edit "with scrutiny".

This block makes no sense. At this point its clear that, with no justification given for blocks at all, that it's just being done out of hysteria, revenge or sme other mental state that [[Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith] is supposed to take care of. 216.165.158.7 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the email I sent the admin who blocked this IP permanently and without any explanation:

You claimed on my IP that I was "going wild" and "trying to avoid scrutiny"... this is nonsense.

First up, I have not done anything at all that could remotely be considered "going wild" -- I am just edint articles, making badly needed edits. You have not even tried to identify any edits you considered objectionable, you just made an attacking statement and expect others to believe it.

Second up, I certainly am not "trying to aovid scrutiny" by not signing is, as everyone certainly knows that IP is me, so using means lots of people are watching it.

Third, you claim on ANI I was being uncivil -- WHERE?

Fourth, you claim I was edit warring... no such edit warring took place. I made new edits here and there, and I only revert one or two blind reverts of my changes made by people who were clearly ignoring talk page discussion and just putting back what they wanted, with edit comments explaining why I disagreed with their reverts. If they went and reverted again then *they* would be the ones edit warring, and if they did I did not revert them again. Certainly I can use one revert without it being "abusive" or "edit warring".

Fifth, you claim on my ANI page that I should just log in to make edits... Well, OK, but there is no rules saying anyone has to sign in, but I *can't* sign in and edit because you *blocked the IP address* I use. If I edit under that IP it just blocks that account as well.

You have given no justification at all for a block here, and therefore I expect you to take the block off and, it would be nice, apologize for this flagrant violation of several Wikipedia policies.

216.165.158.7 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You were making uncivil comments again, and edit-warring over identification of your IPs. [1] [2] [3] [4] One of the reasons for not allowing sockpuppet edits is because they are used to avoid scrutiny from other editors; using all these IPs has the same effect - the block log and uncivil comments accrue to the IP, not the userid. As you point out, in a few weeks you'll have a different IP, and the record of this one will disappear. You should have no difficulty using your userid to do edit, so please do so. I'll be sprotecting this page soon, so make any comments you want to make as DreamGuy. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with an admin who falsely blocked me is certainly NOT being uncivil. Surely you can't just block someone because he doesn't just roll over and agree that a block was fine and dandy, especially when a number of admins on ANI clearly said it was not. If that was your justification for a block then you clearly are doing so out of revenge or spite and not at all what policies here are supposed to be about.

Furthermore, those different IPs going back several months most certainly were not sockpuppets. Most of those were AOL account IPs, and, as any admin trying to work with IPs here should already know, AOL changes those around on a whim. Lately I've been on DSL, where the IPs do not change as often, but they DO change.

There is no policy whatsoever demanding people sign in. In fact I distinctly remember Theresa Knott a while back making edits not signed in and then complaining that people were reverting her edits blindly just because she was on an IP. Sockpuppet claims are only to be used for those people trying to be deceptive, to get around blocks or to 3RR or present a false sense of consensus or to vote extra. You simply cannot just willy nilly lock an IP address because you want me to be signed in.

I see now that it appears either that the lock did not effect me signed in or that someone updated it so it wouldn't. That's fine... but then why was Tony Sidaway on someone else's talk page bragging that I was blocked "indefinitely" for "edit warring" and "civility" when in theory my main account ISN'T blocked. This whole affair looks like a little cadre of admins just making up whatever nonsense they want to strike back an editor who is not afraid to point out their errors when they make them.

I still would hope you unblock this IP on policy concerns, but if not for that for the sake thatt you have permanently banned an IP that could be assigned to some other DSL user in my city at any given moment.DreamGuy 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that something is wrong with this situation. I do not understand why the page has been protected, presumably against unblock abuse, given that the IP's unblock request has never been reviewed by an independent administrator (while I respect Tony Sidaway's right to comment on the block, he is not presently an administrator). The comment that the IP's block is appropriate because the user can comment logged-in as DreamGuy appears incorrect because autoblock was not disabled and so the user cannot log in. I would either unblock or at least unprotect the page to permit a proper block review by an independent administrator.

All that being said, I do not approve of the practice of a registered user editing anonymously from an IP account unless there is a specific reason making this appropriate. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a sysop bit to review a block. Anyone reasonably acquainted with Wikipedia policy can do it. If the block has technical problems please fix them. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any user can comment on a block, or contribute to an ANI discussion of one, but I think it is best if only administrators formally decline a templated unblock, based if nothing else on the language in the template. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The template very clearly says only an admin can respond, and certainly Tony has not demonstrated any reasonable acquaintance with Wikipedia policy, as there is no policy whatsoever that says someone has to be signed in. DreamGuy 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Tony was an admin. In any event, the block was done for IP editing only, so it should not have affected his main account. See [5]. Why do you think he is autoblocked? I don't see that in any log. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that autoblock is presumptively engaged unless it says "no autoblock." Newyorkbrad 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case, since DreamGuy is editing this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And Tony Sidaway, not being an admin, has absolutely no right to decline the unblock request, and especially since he is not by any means a third party to this conflict. I am removing redoing the unblock request because it was canceled by someone who had no right to do so and has a clear personal agenda. DreamGuy 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That I'm not an admin is just wikilawyering, really. I'm perfectly competent to decide whether to unblock you and able to have you unblocked if this is necessary. But there's no harm in letting another uninvolved person perform the review if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikilawyering, it's a fact... You have no power here to be acting like an admin. And David Gerard's opinion on the matter is certainly not an "uninvolved person" either, considering his draconian out of process blocks that were overruled by a variety of admins. DreamGuy 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what's going on here, DreamGuy is not blocked, just very upset that he can't edit without logging in. Seems to me like a reasonable way to leave it, since a lot of his trouble is caused from his several IP addresses; and if they change frequently as he says, it shouldn't bother him a bit. Dicklyon 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Musical Linguist has concurred in the original thread on WP:ANI - David Gerard 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur as well. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I originally did believe that I couldn't log on to my account, especially after comments made by Tony and others on varioous talk pages. I am still uncertain as to whether the block did in fact originally prevent me from logging in and was fixed after I raised the problem here or if I was mistaken about the block. But then with the history here of people making up excuses to justify blocking me I also wasn't going to even try to sign on after the block without someone clearly telling me I should because certain people would of course have tried to use that as evidence that I was trying to evade a block. As Jayig left no comment here telling me I could sign in, and the comments left on the justification for the block were both vague and inaccurate, the confusion on this issue is certainly because of his poor handling of the process.

Furthermore there is no policy that can justify blocking the IP, and I would still expect that it be unblocked, both as a matter of doing the right thing and also because permanently blocking an IP that changes periodically is just not a bright idea in general.DreamGuy 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. Your IP has been blocked because your use of it seems to be contrary to the spirit of our Sock puppetry policy, specifically "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". I'm glad the confusion over whether you could log in was cleared up. Happy editing. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)