Jump to content

User talk:75.49.223.52

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.49.223.52 (talk) at 23:57, 18 November 2008 (→‎Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Using false credentials to drive, enter and retain content edits while belittling ones fellow editors who are trying to point out the error is the height of lacking good faith. This is a clear and especially egregious example, Arcayne should be held accountable, no man is bigger than the Encyclopedia. To ignore such flagrant violations of everything that Wikipedia is built upon would be the ultimate triumph of social networking over content.75.49.223.52 (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne introduced himself into the discussion and then introduced the topic of his credentials. I was responding to a direct request from another editor.

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).

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

Request reason:

Arcayne introduced himself into the discussion and then introduced the topic of his credentials. "the anon user's outright libel about my educational background. - Arcayne" It was Arcayne that made it a topic, until then the thread had nothing to do with him, it was about another action and an utterly neutral question. I was responding to a direct request from another editor for diffs on Arcaynes charge. As further background, the underlying article was one that I have been a longstanding editor in, Arcayne followed me there after he objected to my adding a link to an article he is highly protective of. To label my defense as harassment is to put the cart before the horse. That I've made a serious and unimpeachably well supported defense may be cause for discomfort, but it should never be cause for retaliation and silencing. To underline: It was Arcayne that introduced his name and the topic into the discussion, he made a baseless charge in order to color the judgment of those hearing the AN/I - and those editors requested diffs. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This long request for unblock does not address the actual reason this IP address is blocked. You as a person have been banned under another account, and you have avoided that ban by editing under a different IP address. If you would like to edit again, contact the arbitration committee and ask for a review of your case. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 15 November 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.

The statement above, from Jayron32 is not true - I have never been banned. Could he please cite the diff that this decision is based upon?

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).

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

Request reason:

The statement above, from Jayron32 is not true - I have never been banned. Could he please cite the diff that this decision is based upon? This is a new allegation, and an unfounded basis for denial.75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Consensus seems to be that Wikipedia won't be better for the participating of someone whose main motivation is harassing User:Arcayne. However, if a time ever comes when the encyclopedia does need for Arcayne to be harassed in order to be a complete, accurate, neutral encyclopedia, we will certainly leave a note for you on this talk page. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:20, 16 November 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.

I have contacted the admin that blocked you for further information. Please be patient while we await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Also in fairness, would you be so kind as to request that Arcayne either withdraw or support his contention at the fifth RfCU[1] he's brought against me, He states: "...and is currently claiming that none of the blocks belong to him/her." I have never made such a claim. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will let another admin respond to the unblock request above, but after additional investigation and input from the admin that blocked this IP, I will stand by my initial unblock denial. It is clear that the person behind this IP address, while they have never apparently created an account with which to apply a "ban" to (nice bit of gaming the system there!) has clearly worn our the patience of the community. Per several ANI threads, most recently this one: [2] and a long RFCU thread, this one, it is clear that his singleminded harrassment of Arcayne has worn out the community patience. I fully support this block. I reinstate my initial comment; if you wish to be unblocked, please contact the ArbCom... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there was no basis for your denial? I was never banned, but it does not matter, any reason will do? If your reason for denial is not true, wouldn't it be best to withdraw your comment or grant the overturn? How does an incorrect denial of appeal become a viable choice and why are you accusing me of harassing Arcayne? That was the whole basis for the request you seem to not be seeing. Please reread my initial request for unblock that you denied - Arcayne has followed me, it is he that reintroduces the subject in an effort to have me blocked - I am purely defending myself against his waves of accusations. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for my denial is that it is clear, by reading several discussions of your behavior at Wikipedia, is that there is widespread community distaste at your behavior. You have worn out the patience of the Wikipedia community, and as such I see no reason to unblock you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your current reasoning differs significantly from the official reason given in your denial of my request, "You as a person have been banned under another account, and you have avoided that ban by editing under a different IP address." Are you seriously not troubled by fitting your reasoning to your previously held conclusion? I have merely defended myself, and no one seems able or willing to cite what I've done wrong. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you want to make it official?

Hello, 75.49.223.52. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be permitted to participate?75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any comments to make, please feel free to make them here. I will see that they are linked to the discussion as appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask a couple of guideline questions:

  • 1: When is it permissible to question the Reliable Source status of credentials used in support of a content edit?
  • 2: Would the fact that Arcayne was the one to introduce himself, and his credentials, into the discussion for which the ban is based[3] upon have any bearing?
  • 3: Is it a legitimate defense to show that I was in the underlying article first, and that Arcayne followed me there after he strenuously objected to my adding a link to a pet article of his?

The content of my civil and polite posts has been pure, unimpeachable, and well supported defensive rebuttals of Arcaynes unsupported misrepresentations and false allegations. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a link in the discussion to these questions. My own personal opinion is that these questions aren't really germaine to the discussion. From my point of view, merely because Arcayne did something does not justify the long-term repeated harassment of him. Also, its entirely possible to hound, stalk, and harass another user while being polite about it. The issue for me is not the basic premise of your initial comments, or any one comment taken in isolation, it is the apparent long-term, repeated attempt to bring this matter up over and over and over again... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's never mentioned until Arcayne brings it up. You won't find me initiating it. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no? Because I can find no less than 3 different ANI threads dating back to June, 2008 started by you about this exact topic. I could likely find more if I dug deeper... There are also numerous edit summary comments, and totally non-sequitur comments by you on this topic over and over. If you have diffs to show what Arcayne did in each case specifically to elicit each response you had, that may be useful. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those that you've already posted is not relevant[4], the basis for the previous requests for administrator comment is contained within the diffs. If you are looking for the half-dozen or so AN/I's Arcayne claims I've initiated against him, don't bother - it's another fabrication. He's a regular at AN/I, I believe you will find a nearly always active thread directed against him by one editor or another, and I'd bet real money that not a day has passed since he was here that his conduct hasn't been discussed negatively in on forum or another. One could fill a book with the daily complaints[5] about his incivility.75.49.223.52 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Arcayne's comments to users entirely unrelated to you are not up for discussion in this matter. Again, if you can show you are being actively provoked by Arcayne, then please provide diffs that show that. So far, I can't find any evidence to support your claims that you are. If you have those diffs, I will be glad to make such notes to the ANI discussion at hand, but if all you are going to do is to bring up random unrelated comments by Arcayne, then there's not much related to this issue there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, you've had the chance to register on several occasions yet refuse to and just edit, frequently, as an anon IP. if you were an innocent editor you would have registered to be clear of wrongdoing. it just looks like you have a vendetta against Arcayne and a ban is therefore correct. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do edit from an IP, actually have since 2001.75.49.223.52 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so 7 years and you haven't registered... why not?no wonder you court controversy. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what's going on here (just started reading) but it should be absolutely clear that editing anonymously is a Foundation-level right given to everyone. No one should be badgered or looked down upon for not registering an account. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems that if this was a user name other than an anon, they would no be treating this anon like this.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With deepest repect, may I suggest that if you are not sure what is going on here it might be as well to ascertain what the problem is? Granted and beyond argument no-one has to create an account: the allegation, about which I make no comment, is that this IP user has harrassed Arcayne for a prolonged period using a number of different IP addresses. Hence the relevance to account creation. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming too much. You assume that I do not know what the problem is. I have been reading posts by these two editors for a while now. I have also been following the notice/incident discussion board. This is not the first time that Arcayne has been the subject of a dispute on the notice board. Arcayne seems to clash with many editors, or so his edit history shows. Perhaps we need to look at both editors equally, and not just the Anon, because he is an anon.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find evidence of recent problematic behavoiur by A, you should certainly bring it up. Can you? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thats what i mean though, he denies wrongdoing, but the IP logs prove differently. if he had an account he'd be able to argue if he was innocent, but the evidence is clear, and the lack of registration in light of long-term problems doesnt help his case. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone could comment on my questions then:
  • 1: When is it permissible to question the Reliable Source status of credentials used in support of a content edit?
  • 2: Would the fact that Arcayne was the one to introduce himself, and his credentials, into the discussion for which the proposed ban is based[6] upon have any bearing?
  • 3: Is it a legitimate defense to show that I was in the underlying article first, and that Arcayne followed me there after he strenuously objected to my adding a link to a pet article of his?
I was also curious why this particular diff[[7]] was entered as evidence against me. I really am a bit surprised to see the instinctive reaction to me editing from the public. No matter the decision I will, as I always have, fully abide by it. If it's decided that "my kind", however expressed or decided, are not welcome - I will not participate. I have no intention of skirting the project in any way. I 75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to underline my position, I have not wikistalked - my presence in the article predates Arcaynes. He followed me in there after he vehemently objected to my adding an internal wikilink to a pet article of his. This is what I believe Wikistalking actually looks like:[[8][9][10]] To my eyes, it looks like an example prepared for a text book .75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so once, in April 2008, he did something rude to you, and so you have done uncountable different rude things back to him for months since then? That is a terrible defense of your actions, and I fail to see where the rude edit summaries and frivolous ANI discussions, and the rude talk page comments done in May, June, July, August, September, October, and November have been justified based SOLELY on that one exchange with him... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this latest incident also began in the Fitna article - an article I had been editing before Arcayne followed me to for reasons I explained above. This current incident occurred after I indirectly supported and offered a foundation for the same edit as him.[11] He then reversed his position and began an edit war. His original position, the one I have consistently supported, is still the consensus edit. It was he that engaged in an edit war, spread it to multiple forums, and re-introduced discussion of past topics. As I said earlier my support was for the community consensus edit that still stands. This all began on the 7th of November with the edit I linked to in this paragraph. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people have labeled you a troll and written you off, but I do see more than one questionable edit on the part of Arcayne, so if you'd like to prove your case, step back and compile some diffs. From the beginning of when you first edited an article with him and around the various disputes you had. Who edit what and in what order (if you want to show one person following another to an article, etc). Provide neutral and short descriptions of what happened. Things like "I made edit X and arcayne responded with edit summary Y" Trying to get full diffs of what has happened here in a nice readable manner is like pulling teeth.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to compile a succinct timeline, It will be about 14 or so hours before I can address this and post it. Thank you all for the consideration.75.49.223.52 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The first article I edited with him can be found with this most uncontroversial edit here:[12], another editor improved the wikilink[13] I polished it and then Arcayne excised it.[14] I replaced the edit and added additional support in talk. It was removed again. [15] At this time, having been reverted twice (and only twice - I was not engaged in edit warring) on a simple wikilink - I stopped attempting to add it directly, mostly because I did not feel like it was worth the effort to engage the gatekeeper. That was it for me on the mainpage, neither that wikilink or any mention of the verified, sourced and cited reference exist there.

Arcayne however took it upon himself to follow me back to Fitna and remove all trace of the mention from the Encyclopedia.[16] and then immediately in an excellent example of psuedo-sockpuppetry used his own edit without mentioning his actions as the basis for this comment in the other article:[17]. That is correct - Arcayne denies the wikilink because the name is not mentioned in the other article, immediately after reverting the name out of it. All while writing a comment that suggests that he is merely a neutral observer making an observation, quite manipulative and hardly good faith actions in discussion.

He starts a RfCU[18], then goes to AN/I to lock the article:[19], followed by his seventh of many reverts of the edit:[20]. At that point it had been, and as noted also on the talk page[21], 7 reverts of 4 separate editors - dismissed on the talk page and on the mainpage with Arcayne's edit summary, "Still wrong".

Arcayne was still not done. He next takes it to the Notice board for "No Original Research"[22], accuses multiple editors that oppose him of being "socks"[23], I defend myself and he deletes my comments again.[24] He then initiates an AN/I against me[25] again full of blatant falsehoods and third person references to his own actions used as support for his misrepresentations. Then a stop at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[26] Followed by still another stop at AN/I[27]. And yet another separate AN/I action against me[28]. Then one of the several visits (I doubt you need the 6 so links to separate admins...) he makes to administrators talk pages in still another effort to mention his own actions in the third person, as if he were just a neutral observer:[29]. (Just a note, the factual reference that Arcayne fought tooth and nail against still stands in the article and continues to enjoy support through community consensus)

Sorry I couldn't source more tonight as this is just a sample, I'm running a little late on a few things this week. I do think this is blatant. There is really no civil excuse for the relentless bullying, intimidation, forum shopping and false accusations that was brought to bear for having added a wikilink to someones pet article.75.49.223.52 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also could someone please point out to Arcayne, as has been stated officially many times, that no attempt to "sock", has been made. In the Fitna article, and due to the fact that I have a Dynamic IP that resets at will, and at the end of a session when I shut down, or during updates and during power outages and whenever my wife sees electricity being wasted - I made specific clear attempts to identify my edits and copied part of another editors signature using a symbol ♠ , this is from the very first of the many, RfCU's Arcayne has brought against me[30]:
♠ I am the single anonymous user. My posts all begin with ♠. Arcayne is Forum Shopping due to an action being taken against him by another member on Wikiquette. I'll suggest that due to my CLAIMING these posts AND the fact that NO OTHER editor believes me to be more than a SINGLE editor that this is merely vindictive.75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides a number of posts in which he mocks my attempt to add continuity to the discussion and tie my posts together he even acknowledged it while still managing to call me a sock:
"Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. - Arcayne"

That just takes the cake for illogical reasoning. Arcayne connects the posts as the product of a sock because they all use the identifier '♠'. Pure genius - the guy accuses me of being the same editor pretending to be differant people and then "proves it" by pointing out the use of a special symbol '♠' to sign all the posts. I really am amazed.75.49.223.52 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is going to take some time to digest and look through, but its an excellent start on getting a handle on this situation. In the meantime, I want you to stay to miles away from Arcayne. I'm not going to invest this kind of time figuring out what is going on here if you're going to poke him okay? I don't want you to even read an article he's worked on for the time being. If you edit something and he edits it, move on to another article and post a diff here on the talk page, with no more commentary than: I edited article X with this diff, and arcayne never having edited the article before followed up with diff Y. These are the conditions of the good faith I'm extending you at this point. I'm sure arcayne is reading this, so I would politely request arcayne that you as well stay miles away from the IP. I've asked him to stay miles away from you and not edit any articles you're currently interested in. If he does something genuinely wrong in another article there are plenty of other editors that can catch it and take care of it. Anon if your IP changes at any time please link the two discussions pages from here to the new one okay?--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To try to clarify: you are the same anon as 75.58.34.144 etc from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.58.34.144. So we can no longer identify you by your little symbol, because you don't use it any more? When did you stop using it? You see the obvious problem: rather than forcing everyone to learn your self-adopted id system (which appears to no longer work) you could use the wiki-std one called a user account William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thankyou. I've been criticised like crazy by one particular user for suggesting that theres something suspicious bout him not making an account.. He likes to ID himself but not create an account.. i think its a case of just wanting to id himself when its convenient (ie when he's not, according to everyone, creating problems) chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I applied the symbol here for the sole purpose of NOT being mistaken for more than one editor, I have never been involved in such a lengthy discussion before. I was criticized harshly and often by Arcayne for doing so. My normal style of editing can be found here, I believe it to be a positive contribution: [31] [32]&[33] [34] [35] [36]

My edits are not controversial, and I can honestly say that I never imagined a wikilink over the Directors credit in a short film to have created this.

As to the very selective criticism - this particular incident began exactly here:[37] or you can date the very start of the relationship here:[38] it did not start at some random time in the middle.75.49.223.52 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Arcayne's response in his "subpage", I'm struck by his utter lack of diffs. In his first section he states he was justified because there was no citation. Here is a diff to impeach:[39] Arcayne deleted the citation without cause for the internationally recognized newspaper NRC Handlesblad and Der Spiegel. The fact was recorded and entered into discussion with him. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a suggestion

Dear user, although I have received endless criticism regarding the subject of this suggestion I am going to anyway. you claim to have no vendetta against said user, and that its the other way around, and you don't mind being identified. So how about this..

  • 1) You create an account, notifying on this page your username so we all know where you have gone. Remember you do not need an email address to register, so there are no "social networking" aspects any different to an IP page.
  • 2) You and Arcayne agree to draw a line under all previous problems between you guys.
  • 3) You and Arcayne agree that if there is a difference of opinion on an edit, that the original edit is the one that stays, until concensus (or however you spell it) is reached via the talk page, as to not cause problems
  • 4) Any problems after that be resolved maturely and publicly

Anybody else reckon that this is an OK resolution? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, this guy is banned now and will remain so. I've had enough of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have a particularly overwhelming consensus for that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see it's a solid consensus minus one: you. And Jojhutton, who is not neutral but the anon's ally in one of the content spats with Arcayne, so he hardly counts. Nobody else raised any substantial objections, except for technical concerns about modalities of blocking, collateral damage and so forth. If you want to prevent me from handling this as a valid community ban, you'll have to take me to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you're not going there alone... William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be pretty much consensus, Crossmr, but I am of the opinion he deserves a chance to be an editor if he can handle the above 'restrictions' (which to be honest are pretty much the standard rules, just maybe a little more simplified). If you have another suggestion please add it. TBH I'm not one for banning people, as Wiki says ANYONE can edit. What do you mean, William? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I agree with FPaS. About this, not about Giano, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.49.223.52&oldid=252676255"