User talk:190.163.4.132

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yngvadottir (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 3 November 2014 (→‎Unstoppable trolling: Yay!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.163.4.132) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I can't let you insult other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I only wish people would be equally willing to block the editors who have spent so long attacking me and destroying my work for no good reason. I think reverting for no good reason with false accusations is far, far more damaging to the encyclopaedia that calling someone an "idiot" ever could be, but perhaps we disagree on that. Good night. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are editing in violation of a block (actually several). You are making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC) (a.k.a. the "fucking retarded little cunt")[reply]
And so you turn up to taunt me. You disruptively reverted masses of my edits, restoring false information to prominent articles, while making dishonest accusations at the same time. And apparently you feel proud enough of that to turn up here and taunt me. You are a true asset to Wikipedia. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you are working tirelessly to restore copyright violations, factual errors and basic mistakes to articles. Well done, you. Well done. *claps wildly*. The reputation Wikipedia has for reliability and integrity is thanks to people like you.
By the way, falsely accusing someone of being banned, just so that you can thrill yourself by undoing their edits, is a grievous personal attack. I wait expectantly for someone to tell you that you shouldn't have done that, and for an apology from you. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So go on, why not restore the incorrect use of first names to those tennis articles? Your mission is to provoke me as much as possible, right? Without regard to the quality of the encyclopaedia? So why are you holding back? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archives

I saw this edit and wondered if you really meant to edit archives which is a waste of time and whether you meant to say "I have used more than one account, never used even one account" because, just to me, this appears a little self-contradictory given your recent rampage through Wikipedia under the current IP correcting "obvious" errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I was editing an archive in the edit summary. Did you read that? I did unfortunately miss out a "never", however. I am not sure how not using an account would be contradictory with the statement that I have never used an account, and I am not sure why you would use the pejorative term "rampage" and put the word obvious in scare quotes to describe my edits. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carry on! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European Research Council may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The European Research Council] (ERC) is a pan-European research funding organisation. It was created by the EU in 2007.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
The article in question, BBC Canada, was previously edit protected due to edits made in defiance of a block by this IP user, the "Best known for IP". I would strongly suggest that the user discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion WP:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for [[WP::Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP repeated block evaison]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:05, 26 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The usual claim of disruptive editing - not true, never has been. As usual, false accusations are not just tolerated but encouraged.190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:19, 26 October 2014 (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.

As has been made clear before in previous blocks, you are blocked for block evasion. I've customized the standard block notification template to be more specific to your case. I hope that is satisfactory. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:17, 26 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Indeed, the least one could hope for is basic honesty in the message to people you're going to block. As for this block: "you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". They could just have a look at my edits and see that none of them damaged or disrupted Wikipedia. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 6:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 27 October 2014 (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.

Perhaps in the meantime, someone would like to convey to this user that I accept their apology, and instruct them in the basic practice of not reverting for no reason. 190.163.4.132 (talk) Perhaps someone would like to tell that user that posting some kind of "apology" on their talk page in which they dishonestly made it look as if I had signed their comment, and then immediately afterwards reverting two more edits for no reason is extremely offensive and damaging. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable trolling

And so the trolling continues, as always. The repetitive refusals to unblock which expect me to prove a negative must be jolly good fun for the admins concerned. An admin protecting the noticeboard page and applying a range block specifically to prevent me from continuing the discussion, just as it was beginning to appear productive - that was very good work. The continuing effort of User:SummerPhD to restore nonsense to the encyclopaedia is amusing to watch, as is their descent into ever more infantile language to try to justify what they are doing. And their continuing lies about vandalism, showing that they don't understand what it is, or that they are simply trying to provoke me even more, or most likely both. And their behaviour encourages more trolls to join in the hilarity, of course. Now we have a brand new editor moronically reverting my work, and altering their talk page to falsely imply that I said something. And we have User:Epicgenius who must have enjoyed restoring a copyright violation very much. And not just any copyright violation but a spectacularly badly written and unencyclopaedic one as well. Plainly, his intention is not to improve the encyclopaedia. Leaving this truly bizarre and confused edit summary surely tickled him greatly as well. And his belief that the MOS can be ignored under the brave assumption that English speakers will find Dutch, French and Spanish articles useful... what can one say. If someone created the articles for which a Spanish one exists, I'd translate them, but obviously people with particular mentalities would then undo that work repeatedly over many months.

And then there's Wee Curry Monster, ranting about persecution complexes. A persecution complex is a belief in persecution where none exists. Wee Curry Monster did not understand the grammar of a sentence, so rather than ask about it or try to improve it, he simply reverted it, and then stalked my edits to all the unrelated articles I'd been working on and reverted them all, with no explanation other than edit summaries like "rv IP edits". And then he has the cheek to dishonestly claim to "have gone to extra lengths to explain myself to him", while denigrating my contributions, and claiming that I have a persecution complex. Is he deliberately trolling or is it just that he's so inept he doesn't even realise what he's doing?

So, well, there we were, trying to resolve things fairly, and someone decided they knew better than everyone else what was required in the situation, and blocked me and protected the page. No-one questioned them about that so I take it that people prefer to carry on as before. If people really want to spend nearly four months fighting to support the destructive trolling of User:AlanS and his ilk, then so be it, let's carry on doing things like that. If it gives you so much satisfaction to waste your time undoing my work in a deliberate effort to harm the encyclopaedia, then you'd better just carry on, hadn't you.

Thanks to the two administrators who seemed to understand that years of constant baiting and attacks don't bring out the best in people. Sorry that you were outnumbered by the people who enjoy the baiting. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four months of destructive trolling? Any halfwit with half a brain who bothered to look at my edit history for the last three months would quickly summarise that I would have to of had been on here a lot more to do done any sort of trolling at all. AlanStalk 11:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanS: Just ignore the user. They will keep lying, making personal attacks, trolling, and edit warring, and any attempt to remove their comments will not be fruitful. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. I apologise - I had no idea AN/I had been protected. I knew a number of the IPs you'd been using had been blocked, because I checked their contribs to try to find out why you had stopped responding there; but I reckoned you'd use a different one when you were ready to respond (you're a volunteer like the rest of us, and you'd mentioned you were called away and missed the archiving of the earlier AN thread). But why in all the worlds didn't you ping me - or Drmies - or whoever protected it? Don't you know about pinging? We can't ping you (one of the disadvantages of your not having registered a username) but so far as I know you can ping any registered editor: if you type either Yngvadottir or User:Yngvadottir within a new signed comment, I get an annoying red number at the top of my screen linked to one of those vertiginous scrolls that all the kewl kid programmers lurve, and from it I can see who invoked my nick where. I feel a bit stupid typing this here since your talk page access has been revoked, so I'm going to be bold and re-enable it. I hope you'll see this. Please, if you do, don't respond with more personal attacks, or Ymblanter may demand I be desysopped. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, and nothing at all to apologise for of course. I knew about pinging but just assumed it only worked for registered users actually. You'll have seen that my post was removed from my own talk page no less than 31 times over the course of a little over an hour by User:Epicgenius, who accompanied this harassment with yet more false accusations of vandalism. They've put in their own stint of pointlessly reverting my work, as have so many others now, no doubt encouraged by the indifference of the community to false claims of vandalism, and the existence of the attack page about me. Now I see that User:SummerPhD is at it yet again, digging up edits I made in some cases several months ago and reverting them for spurious reasons. As an example, see Lava lake, where they have restored, yet again, false information, with an edit summary that doesn't make sense and is presumably not intended to, but was left simply for the sake of appearances. See also John Challis (laughable claim of "unambiguous" for this subjective statement); restoration of spectacularly poor writing to article: "Idi Amin came into power and said, “anyone with a British Passport can get out of my country or I'm going to kill you”! A very evil man with bad intentions."; [1], this reversion which does not seek to "attribute a point of view" but rather represents that point of view in the voice of the encyclopaedia; this pointlessly verbose contravention of the MOS; this pointless obscuration of the meaning of a term; this misuse of "as of"; these subjective claims, this promotion of an external website. You may also have seen this user's sneering and immature tone when stating clearly that they intend to continue attacking my work. Their interest is obviously not in the improvement of the encyclopaedia; provoking me is obviously the priority for them.
And now User:Ohnoitsjamie, who led the effort to keep Wind wave in a deficient state, reverting and protecting it to keep false statements in it, has given me no less than a six month ban, ultimately for being pissed off that people destroy my work needlessly. This then means that the likes of User:SummerPhD will feel justified in gleefully continuing to destroy my work. And their ridiculous suggestion that I should start sockpuppeting in response to their ban can only be yet more trolling, and I do hope it makes him/her very happy. Perhaps they were seriously anticipating that I'd take them seriously and were looking forward to banning me if I did.
Like I've said all along, we would never have had any problems at all if people didn't revert for no reason, didn't lie about me, and didn't ever make false accusations of vandalism. But every time I say it, someone new pops out of the woodwork to do all three, User:Epicgenius just being the latest in a long, long line. Until the community decides that such behaviour cannot be tolerated, then you'll be driving away legions of productive editors and you'll find that the only ones who want to stick around for any length of time are the most abrasive and pugnacious. Let me assure you I have no intention of leaving basic errors uncorrected when I find them, and if User:SummerPhD and their ilk are going to spend their time undoing all my work, they had better be prepared to be wasting their time on that for years to come yet. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I am about to be late for work so this is in haste. You pinged everybody except me! I will check the edits as soon as I have a chance; no promises on whether I am competent to judge the merits of all; you edit a wide range of topics. I am going to reiterate, whatever you may think of editors' motivations in reverting you, stop insulting them. It is not helping your situation and they are proceeding from a false assumption that you are banned. As I say, in haste, will return to the diffs. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Template:@Yngvadottir, I am not basing anything on a belief that he is banned, only that he is editing in defiance of several active blocks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your zeal is appreciated. Your pinging everyone but me, Yngvadottir, or DGG is not helpful. "Legions" may be an exaggeration.

Epicgenius, when I left you a message yesterday I thought you had reverted three times: I didn't note until yesterday that is was thirty or so times. Nothing can be gained from that. Summer, I understand, and according to the letter of the law you are correct. I do hope that you are not mass rollbacking. I ran into a bock-evading IP again yesterday who makes crap edits, total crap, but found one or two good ones in there: it's worth the time to look at individual edits, but in this case, aren't we all better off if you look at other editors' edits?

And now I'm going to try and learn something about wind waves. I hear they're a riot. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the letter of the law, this twerp has been blocked over 50 times for a total time of several years. Here in the real world, he's never been blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Drmies, if there's one thing I learned, it's that I should have assumed better faith. Not only did I revert out of turn, the only basis for my edits was his perceived personal attacks, and the IP also seemed to have enjoyed reverting me. Whatever the case, I'm not going to risk that again, so now I'll have to deal with the IP as little as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: the wind waves have died down. IP, that protection was last summer; quite a while ago. Jamie is not an unreasonable person, though I do think that they should have looked at that edit war differently. I believe that AlanS's first revert there was foolish even if possibly technically warranted, if you were blocked at that time under some other IP, but your continuation of the edit war (edit warring is edit warring even if you're right) with five reverts (if I count correctly) has the predictable result of blocks and protection. You could have pinged me. Avoiding dramah is also a way of improving the encyclopedia. Also, I'll take any suggestion for improving the caption for the first image, where the grammar is unattractive. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking -- actually blocking -- disruptive editors is a consensus-approved way to improve the project. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the only way we'd be out of editors real soon. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not pinging the right people. Not benefiting from the feature myself, it's easy not to appreciate the best way to use it. Please let me assure both User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir that nothing of what I've posted here is intended to be an insult to anyone and nor do I honestly think it can be construed as such. I'm trying to explain the immense frustration that I, and surely many others, feel when my work is undone for no good reason at all, and pointing out many recent examples of just that is not intended to be an insult to anyone.

People have been pointlessly undoing my work for years. It was always an occasional problem, but over the years it's got worse and worse. A very large number of people now just seem to like doing that to anonymous edits, and the problem is that there is no effective recourse whatsoever when it happens. If I did nothing but correct spelling mistakes, within a few days at best someone would revert one with no explanation, or with a false accusation of vandalism in the edit summary and most likely in a snotty template on my talk page as well. Then someone else would re-revert, a third person would join in the fun and tell me to "get consensus" before making the change, someone else would chime in with a link to WP:BRD and before you know it, you've got a crowd of bullies deliberately provoking someone, a duly enraged editor, and an article which still has a spelling mistake in it. Such has been my experience on, I would guess, at least 100 occasions.

So people want me to not insult people, and I want people not to revert without good reason, not to lie about me and not to ever make false accusations of vandalism. I can easily give you a promise that I won't call anyone even so much as a twerp no matter how much they try to provoke me and am certainly happy to do so. But what is the recourse for being falsely accused of vandalism? Sure, I can contact the two editors who have proven to be thoughtful enough not to regard IP edits as automatically inferior, and I don't doubt they will be very helpful. But it's not just me that it happens to. In the absence of actual admonishment of those who do it, nothing will change. The times I've complained have only ever ended in more lies and more false accusations. So what do you suggest for actually dealing with the problem of false accusations?

PS User:SummerPhD, as well as making mild but rather unmistakeable personal attacks, claims that I am not basing anything on a belief that he is banned. Just three weeks ago, they undid some 44 of my edits with the edit summary "Revert edits by banned editor". Why did they do that then?

PS2 I'm really not sure if "legions" is an exaggeration. Experience shows that typically within a day of starting to edit anonymously, you'll be accused of vandalism. How many people carry on contributing after that happens to them? I certainly don't think it makes anyone more likely to edit. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem of false accusations, there is no easy answer for that. Reporting to ANI is the usual recourse, but in your case that typically backfires: you carry your reputation with you, and most editors consider it a bad reputation. BOOMERANG is typically next; so it goes. As long as you go accountless there isn't much I can do beyond the little I've done. I can't easily go around scolding those editors any more if you call them bad names, and what you said to Summer (granted, it was a while ago) probably still hurts. You can apologize for that even if you agree with everything else Summer holds against you. Yes, I agree that "rv banned editor" was incorrect, technically and otherwise. I also think that "rv good faith edits by block evader" is contradictory, but hey, it's better.

    In the meantime, if you refrain from, say, crossing 3RR and you don't call anyone a twerp or worse, then I think a lot of things will be a lot easier. I doubt that you'll be surrounded by friends, all of a sudden--well, so it goes, but they won't be able to hold that against you. BTW, I don't think that pinging works in an edit summary (Writ Keeper knows these things), but it works pretty much everywhere else--even in templates such as AfD discussions. As I said before I appreciate the good that you're doing; if your opponents are wrong you won't convince them by calling/cussing them out, but Yngvadottir and I can help in mediation, maybe. Again, the general distrust of IP editors (there's even userboxes for it) will remain, and I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about that. I wish. But I also wish that people would stop thinking of guns as cool or necessary, or of flags as things to rally behind. And lots of other things. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of when I have complained, including times when I certainly had no "reputation", reporting false claims of vandalism never did any good. I never saw any positive result any time I tried, and I never noticed any positive result for anyone else. On a handful of occasions I've seen people politely requested not to make false claims, and I believe that every time I've seen that it's been you doing the requesting, which of course I appreciate very much. My recollection could be mistaken but I do not recall seeing anyone admit to any kind of mistake in response. I recall instead that if anyone has actually responded, they've tended to respond by restating the false claim. Past experience leads me to believe that nothing will be better regardless of how little or how much I re-revert or swear at people. But I'd be very glad to be proven wrong. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sad truth is that an open wiki is a rough environment. Do we still have that warning above the "save" button about edits being subject to remorseless editing? You give the example of a spelling correction; you must know how many people are unaware of the national variations in English aspelling, or are simply convinced it's spelt "nucular" or that apostrophes are dispensible. (Or is that dispensable ... :-) ) One reason you're getting reverted is simply that you're making a large number of copyediting changes. This in itself raises the chance of a revert. However, yes, there is an anti-IP bias.
I can't fix the world. But I would like two things. One is to have the encyclopaedia continue to benefit from a diligent and good copyeditor who obviously has an old-fashioned good education. We need more of those. And the other is to reduce the amount of invective flying around. Despite the massive cross-cultural and procedural problems it entails, I agree we need the civility pillar; in fact it's vital to enable people from so many different backgrounds to work together. And not unconnected, I'd like everyone involved to be able to spend more time building and maintaining the encyclopaedia.
So, if you are willing to promise to do your utmost to be civil - including not calling people juvenile - I suggest someone like Drmies can transclude your statement to AN/I (we may have to unarchive the section but that's not hard), and in return I offer myself as a sounding board/defender against accusations of vandalism; you can ping me or post to my talk page. Which is not to say I am available 24/7 - I work full-time on a peculiar schedule - or that I have found all your edits to be unalloyed perfection (heck, I get reverted and yelled at sometimes myself, and I also make a lot of errors myself). I envisage your having a team of comrades who will investigate and if necessary help out if you get accused of vandalism; that's also characteristic of the editing experience here. I'm prepared to stick my neck out and unblock a slew of your IPs for the purpose of seeing if this works, assuming I don't get immediately taken to Arbcom - but especially since we have had a recent AN and an AN/I, even though you started the latter, there will have to be some notification of blocking admins. I'm just hoping there will be a willingness to try, and that you won't let me down. (Note that I don't expect you to apologise, though I hope you'll eventually get to know some of these people under better circumstances - Summer, in particular, has worked with Drmies on some nice stuff.)
I hope all that makes sense. The quack has me on a prescription that makes me woollier than usual. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your input. I am entirely prepared to be absolutely civil. I just need the relentless attacks on me to stop. The attack page has encouraged it to ramp up to ever more unpleasant levels. It is contrary to policy, the LTA page itself saying "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out". So that's where objecting strongly to false accusations of vandalism ended up - an entire page to falsely accuse me. I need there to be an effective recourse if I'm falsely accused of vandalism, and it's not just me that needs that because I am obviously not the only person to have been attacked in this way. I have never claimed my edits to be unalloyed perfection and I am obviously fully aware that they can and should be improved upon. But no edit I have ever made could be reasonably described as vandalism. The only way someone could believe that they were is if they hadn't even read them and that's even been explicitly admitted on quite a few occasions - only after I've been blocked of course. Many, many times, edits that when I made them led to a false accusation of vandalism were later redone by other editors with no complaint from anyone.
Incidentally it's hardly surprising to me that no-one blocked Epicgenius for his scarcely believable 31 reverts to my talk page in just over an hour. This appeared to me to be another example of the general extreme deference shown to named accounts, who can basically troll an IP as much as they like with no consequence. In the face abuse like this, over many years, I've become rather abusive in return, as you know.
But in summary, I would be delighted to be entirely civil and not to edit war with anyone ever again. For this to happen I just need some actual viable defence against being attacked with the false accusations that I've endured over many years. If you think that your offer to be available as a potential defender against such attacks can really work then I'm 100% in favour of following your suggestion. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(At work, out of reach of e-mail and liable to interruptions) We're definitely getting close. FWIW, that epic revert war here (and thank you very much for the edit summaries) apparently went unnoticed at the time, so a block would no longer have been preventive, and Drmies has since chastised Epicgenius, who has decided to honour your wish and stay away. Yes, we have a really difficult problem. I do want to reiterate that having a bunch of acquaintances who keep an eye on one or whom one can call on is also a feature of the collaborative editing environment here. But it doesn't rise to the level of a posse or cabal. You may have noticed that both I and Drmies have reinstated some of your edits, changed others, and left others unreverted. And nobody can guarantee ironclad protection against people who misread edits, misunderstand topics, are in a foul mood ... nobody can even guarantee to wipe out anti-IP prejudice here, any more than we can wipe out deletionism. But what I can do, I will do. I'm partly waiting for Drmies' advice on whether to unarchive that AN/I section, start another at AN, or advise you to post an unblock request to draw an uninvolved admin's attention. But I'd obviously be happier if you undertook to ping me and others and/or come to my/Drmies' talk page before using a nasty edit summary in situ. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Yngvadottir, I feel so owdinawy with my unpeculiar work schedule, sitting outside in my jammies while the kinds are making magic potions out of stuff in the yard--while you're probably slaving away in a library or an NSA cubicle. Anyway, I don't know what paperwork we need to file here, whether you need to unarchive and make notes and whatnot. Perhaps that's not a bad thing: the ANI archives are easier to search than some IP talk page.

As for the block and all that: let's ping Ohnoitsjamie and see if they're willing to unblock. If they are willing, with these conditions (do we need to spell them out more?) of civility and no edit warring, then I think we have made progress. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above, I've lifted the 6 month block from this IP. Let's all move forward and get back to building an encylopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you! Now let me find that list. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript

My rule of wikipedia is that complaining about false accusations of vandalism will generate at least three further false accusations. And now it appears that a complaint about trolling will result in yet more trolling. Fun for everyone, I guess. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.163.4.132&oldid=632297681"