User talk:76.95.66.209

Well Start Talking!

Warning

You are pursuing a vendetta. You are attempting to continue an edit war by other means. Your comments concerning sockpuppetry are absurd, and you have ignored warnings that you are discrediting your own cause by your belligerence in the face of polite explanation by a large number of editors. I suggest for your own sake that you stop and consider how you might contribute constructively to the encyclopedia instead of trying to argue with everyone who comes into contact with you. Acroterion _(talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were warned; your continuing assumption of bad faith and formulation of conspiracies against you are unacceptable. It is also clear that you are evading the block on your named account. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

1: I am not MataNui44. You are disgracing wikipedia by assigning a random block. I was never warned. You will not get any personal information from me to disprove that I'm MataNui. I will contact wikipedia and alert them of the random, unfair, punishing blocks that have been assigned wrongly. I will include your username, and I will include TRP's for the high admin's review, which I do believe should shed some light on this corrupted block.--76.95.66.209 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No valid unblock reason, just a lot of finger pointing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 13 July 2009 (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 happen to know that 76.95.66.209--who hasn't a discete screen ID at this moment--is not this 'MataNui44'. So how do you like them apples ?

I also can point out that I have been blocked, or banned or whatever from editing Wikipedia even though I've never attempted to do so, despite it often being obviously and seriously warranted...because I don't care. It so happens that I handle my own research and if Wikipedia says this or that, I confirm it in some legitimate source because it has been my experience that there are usually some fence sitters who climb up and occupy a position they feel is important and swat down any newcomers, however talented or correct they may be. This happens all too often on various sites and is quite common. Wikipedia is no different and should you care to show me how it has effective controls to prevent some know-it-all or other from controlling 'the board' as it were, I'd be happy to listen.

Otherwise, the exercise I am reading here only confirms that I am money ahead by not bothering myself with what Wikipedia is or does, particularly that part where you are painting user (76...) as 'MataNui44.' My true name and the one I always use as I stand behind my statements (including those here) is Randy Stone and you may find me at various sites such as 'All the World's Battlecruisers,' 'The Unofficial Krugman Page' and 'Nihon Kaigun.'

Once again, you are blocking one user while assuming somehow--it appears--that he is another user.

Good Day, gentlemen.

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).

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

Request reason:

You admins are the ones whom have called me "MataNui44". And for you there's no reason to unblock because it isn't in your interest to do so, because you are playing favorites.

Decline reason:

Well, no reason to unblock means you will stay blocked. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:18, 14 July 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I'm not the person whom I was accused of being. But that is the twist and cover story for blocking me for standing up to them. I deserve the unblocking because it's what is right.--76.95.66.209 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're not MataNui44, please provide some evidence to that effect, and explain the reasons for the editing behaviors Acroterion notes below (use of "I", etc.). Additionally, the other disruptive editing is concerning, and your requests above don't convince me you're here to usefully contribute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (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.

Blocking administrator's note: This editor was not blocked solely for block evasion. While that has been apparent to me from the beginning, based on timing, tone, editing focus, expressed grievance and the use of "I" when speaking of MataNui44, I (and FisherQueen) attempted to address the editor's grievance and did not block the IP. The response to discussion was an egregious assumption of bad faith: an increasingly strange series of accusations [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The editor has interacted negatively with every editor he has come into contact with. I am open to discussion and reconsideration, but I don't see grounds for optimism. Acroterion _(talk) 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there can be any argument about my edits as I had my sources" [5] is the "I" referenced. It's somewhat ambiguous, as 76.95.66.209 edited the article after MataNui's block (and was reverted), but in the context of everything else it's odd. As I said, I have more significant concerns about attitude toward other editors than about editing as an IP while blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenses": A Response to the above 3 comments

I am not MataNui44. You people speak english, I know that, but you have to read the context before you accuse and block. (To Hersford) I will not disclose personal info on the open internet. How can I contribute usefully when I have been dogged and put down by so many? I'd like to know, did that happen to you before you were an admin? (To Acroterion) This block evasion stuff is getting old. You have no evidence to even prove that MataNui44 and I are in the same hemisphere, so until you do please silence that argument, as it has gotten annoying. This talk of MataNui44 being me because of the time and langauge I started editing with has no evidence to support your claims of me being MataNui, and running a conspiracy to evade the block to which is on his account. An internal source is in my opinion reliable, and if that wasn't enough it had links at that page itself. The ambiguity you claim of is not existant, and my editting times are simply coincidental. Seriously though, I would like to see some proof that he and I are the same person, as the way you've talked about me with pronouns I'm having an identity crisis. My negative reaction to the editors followed their sarcastic remarks to me, including yours. I've tried above to discuss this, but your buddies at admin here misunderstood and wouldn't listen. I am open to disscussion about a lift on the ban, anytime. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said several times now, whether you are or aren't evading a block is a secondary issue, and only influenced the length of the block, which was prompted by your behavior; the block summary reflects this. The issue is your willingness and ability to work with other editors in a collaborative editing environment such as Wikipedia. Some people are not able to work within those confines; that doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means that this isn't the best fit for them. You have responded to patient explanation with escalating rhetoric comparing editors to Nazis, invoking analogies to murder in editing disputes, assuming that everybody's out to get you, and seeing conspiracies around every corner. Those are the issues I'm concerned with, because they're characteristic of editors who are not able to cordially collaborate to write an encyclopedia in this environment. My remarks to FisherQueen reflected my frustration at your over-the-top assumptions of bad faith; for that I apologize. Please constructively address your behavior prior to the block if you wish to be unblocked. Attacking other editors will not get you unblocked; it is the principal reason for your present inability to edit the wiki. Acroterion _(talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to call attention to fact that I was the one who recieved a negative comment first from every editor I talked to. I have the will and ability to work in a Wikipedia-like enviorment, but that's only if they don't revert everything I write. Please notice, I never called editors "Nazis", what I said was, "...you've left me unconvinced that wikipedia is run by responsible, caring, fair people; instead I'm starting to get the feeling that wikipedia is run like Nazi Germany...". Also, "...so a murderer who escapes police for a day is no longer a law breaker and charges should not be filed because it was in the past. Is that what you're suggesting is the moral of this story?...", as an alternate version of , "...so a vandal who escapes admin for a day is no longer a vandal and disipline should not be given because he did it in the past...?". You've talked about your accusations that I've gone over the top yet I've gotten negative reaction from every person I've spoken here to, except MataNui44. What's more, they always gave me sarcastic comments before I did anything to them. I have constructively, and objectively tried to discuss it with your buddies up here but since they didn't have the facts, they didn't help or do anything positive. You may unblock me, anytime. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at WP:AN/I. Acroterion _(talk) 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's great, but I can't talk on those pages, which is unfair. Please tell those who read it to come to this talk page for the post which will follow to be fair. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.