User talk:200.83.101.225

Welcome back

Hi, I'm glad you came back. And I'll ping Drmies again. Once more, I'm sorry for using the word "vandal". However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for apologies from others if I were you, and please keep it dialled all the way down in the aspersions casting - and if possible ping me or Drmies when the reverting starts rather than carrying it so far. Or come to my talk page and kick me there. (For one thing one of us may be able to think of a different wording to fix the article.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be in touch if I run into problems and will endeavour to drop you a line before they really become problems. No worries about the v-word. I was upset that you described me as having been known by it, because it a) wasn't true, and b) could very easily encourage those who believe I was, or am, any such thing.

Wasn't holding my breath but I was very pleased to see one apology actually given. It's perpetually disappointing that people are free to slander me in as base a way as they please, and there is barely an iota of community pressure for them to ever admit that they were wrong. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems...

User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, if you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on my recent edits to Motifs in the James Bond film series. My carefully explained edits are being undone with unhelpful claims like "not an improvement", with no attempt being made by the reverters to justify their actions. Also, there is an absurd situation at Paul Keating in which people wish to mention a speech without explaining what it contained or why it might be important. Thank you very much. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As you see, I have waded in, and now edited, at Paul Keating. On the James Bond article, there are several different parts to your edit(s) and I'm having difficulty getting it all straight, so I haven't yet waded in there. I think it's going to have to be broken down into elements to be usefully discussed and worked on. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also did some further editing following your work at Paul Keating, hope you don't mind. Thanks. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:200.83.101.225 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: ). Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Attacks

User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, I would appreciate it if you could give your opinion on User:SchroCat. They are posting absurdly contradictory arguments on several talk page discussions, seemingly with the intention of fatally disrupting any discussion, and now they are stalking my edits and acting disruptively, removing a prod tag on an article that they certainly have no interest in. They removed a post of mine on their talk page, only to immediately post a provocative message here. I regard their behaviour as problematic and disruptive. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• SchroCat is a bona fide editor whose fuse isn't much shorter than yours. :) Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• OK, SchroCat--I agree that it appears as if your PROD removal on Occurrences of numerals was done out of spite/frustration/anger/whatever. Technically you are correct, in that a PROD template, once removed, should not be replaced--but it seems to me that this applies only in good-faith removals and, sorry, I doubt that this was. I'm not going to edit war with you over it: I'm putting it up at AfD. Now, please, let's bring the temperature down. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting an AFD. If I was able to create pages I'd have considered doing so myself - I thought it was borderline AFD/PROD territory. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I hope you don't mind my vindictive closing of your ANEW report; you are free to question my judgment/abuse of authoritay in the appropriate forum. BTW, I think a PROD was justified; it's not a form I frequently use myself, preferring the cut and thrust of debate at AfD. Sayonara, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mind at all, though I'm troubled by SchroCat's continuing stalking of my edits and opposing me purely for the sake of it on that AfD which is far, far outside his normal area of interest. Wonder if you might like to comment on I know it when I see it, where I've run into some people who want to insist on including the word "famously". Happy new year! 200.83.101.225 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @Yngvadottir: Heya, just thought you might be interested in this script - over 250,000 articles with the phrase "best known for" in them. I've made a start for you [1][2][3] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That is truly astonishing. Back in the day I hardly ever recall seeing this phrase. My impression is that it began to spread like the plague within the last 5 years. It's certainly become far, far more widespread recently. The core policies of the encyclopaedia make it perfectly clear that the phrase is (in every case that I can think of) inappropriate, but so many people are unaware of that or unwilling to accept it that there is a need for it to be specifically stated somewhere that this wording should not be used. Assuming that you agree with that, would you have a suggestion as to where this should be raised? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL thanks Ritchie333 - a bit technical for me I'm afraid. But it seems clear that one reason the phrase is being used is that people see it being used elsewhere, so starting to remove it has got to help. IP, as I've said before, I believe there may be instances where it's justified - where someone genuinely was a one-hit wonder, and sources say that (and are cited in the article). Also, for what little it's worth, I suspect people are inclined to use it because of the requirement that an article establish notability right from the start. (Not doing so is after all a speedy deletion criterion, brutal though it seems to me.) It can be challenging - if the topic is not a head of state, a Nobel Prize winner, an Olympic medallist, or a US high school - to make an intro that is a good lead-in to a neutrally written article and contains a blatant claim of notability. This is a turn of phrase that may strike people as useful for that purpose. However I think I must shortly walk a dog, so enough wiki-philosophising :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Famous"

Hello there, nameless user. I have explored your editing history under various IP addresses. I agree that phrasing such as "best known as" and "famously" are often best left out of articles, especially in the lead. But not always. I think "famously" is quite appropriate in I know it when I see it, especially with citations such as those I provided. In your last reversion summary, you wrote, "it will never be acceptable to reproduce that opinion as if it is a fact." It is a fact, not an opinion, that Justice Potter Stewart's use of "I know it when I see it" is famous; moreover, Stewart's use is its most famous use. This fame can be measured by its widespread mention in books, magazines, and other print and electronic media. It can also be established by reliable sources saying so. Please cite a Wikipedia source supporting your claim that it will never be acceptable to reproduce that "opinion". I would also be interested in the thoughts of Scalhotrod and Canyouhearmenow on this topic. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion. We do not describe Shakespeare as a famous playwright; we do not describe London as a famous city; we do not describe Fidel Castro as a famous Cuban. These three things are far, far more obviously true to most people than the supposed fame of a judge using a phrase in the 1960, and yet we don't use the word. That's because its use contravenes the guidelines and policies of the encyclopaedia. It would be absurd to allow you to describe your favourite things as "famous" in this way when we would never use the word in the three cases I mentioned. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that Chillum has begun a discussion at Talk:I know it when I see it#famously, I believe we should continue this discussion there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me to chime in. I will now go to the appropriate talk forum to give my opinion on this matter.--Canyouhearmenow 14:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

User:Yngvadottir, User:Drmies - if you have time, I'd really appreciate your thoughts at Talk:I know it when I see it. Firstly on the argument itself, where more input from sensible editors would be great. And secondly on the actions of someone who removed a huge swathe of my comments and bizarrely said that he did so because of the rule not to edit other people's comments. Thanks. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect nobody at all is going to like what I just wrote. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

I am giving you a warning that changing another users comments can and will result in a block. You can respond below but you cannot edit another persons comment. Please act more reasonably, it seems you are intentionally trying to piss people off. Chillum 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not changing anyone's comments. You are deleting mine. It's clear who's intentionally trying to piss people off. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You are putting your comments inside of his comments, making it look like he wrote them. 3RR applies to talk pages too. You are completely out of line here and you are only hurting yourself. If you get blocked you won't be able to give your opinions, is that what you want? Just put your response below his comment so it does not look like he wrote them, it is that simple. Chillum 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not look like he wrote them. Accusing me of changing his comments while you are deleting mine is idiotic. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is just no talking to you. Okay, ignore my advice. Do what you want to do and end up blocked and have no voice in the discussion. I would prefer it if we could have a debate without you being shown the door. Chillum 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IP, it could easily be read that way, since his sig is still underneath it. Your point by point responses are indeed clearer between his points, though. So I suggest you repost a copy of the section, with an intro saying that these are your responses to his points. You could use italics for what you're quoting from him. But what seems to be increasingly common is to make the quoted material green, using {{green| at the start of each quote and }} at the end of it. (I suppose you could use another colour but most of the pretty ones are either unclear or already used.) Try that. I hope this suggestion is in time. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

200.83.101.225, in response to your comments of 19:07, 2 January 2015 and 19:13, 2 January 2015: I assume good faith. I assume that you believed it is acceptable to intersperse nested bullet points into my bullet points because it is somehow obvious that your nested bullet points are your thoughts and not my thoughts. There are at least three things wrong with that theory.

1. It is not immediately obvious that the nested bullet points are your thoughts and not my thoughts.
2. Even if it were immediately obvious that the nested bullet points are your thoughts and not my thoughts, it changes my message to have it interrupted like that. My message is a unified whole and it means something different when it is interrupted.
3. Permission is required to edit the comments of others. You didn't ask permission, let alone receive it.

You are not the first person to edit another's talk page comments in this manner. When other editors are informed that this type of editing is prohibited by WP:TPO they usually stop doing it. If they don't, they receive warnings and further action is taken against them. We have already been extremely charitable in the number of warnings we have given you here and in the edit summaries at Talk:I know it when I see it. You have been advised of alternative ways of posting your thoughts. You can rescue your thoughts via past versions and post something below my comment, quoting my comment as you wish. You may not intersperse your thoughts with a comment that ends with my signature. This is my last warning. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had asked me to change the way I presented my comments, I probably would have done so. You deleted them in their entirety. That was rude, provocative, and in violation of policy. And don't leave me idiotic messages suggesting that I do something when I already did it some time ago. You are behaving in a thoroughly infantile and unhelpful manner. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You edited my comments interspersing your own. That was rude, provocative, and in violation of policy, specifically, WP:TPO. In response, I did not delete your comments in their entirety. I deleted only the part that appeared above my signature. After I properly removed your improper intrusion into my comments, you reverted three times in 10 minutes, despite my discussion of WP:TPO on Talk:I know it when I see it, three edit summaries on that page with clear rules and advice, and a warning on this User talk page. That was five plain instructions to you not to do what you were doing, and you did it anyway, three times. I won't characterize this as idiotic, thoroughly infantile, or unhelpful, but the shoe fits and you are wearing it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing proper about you deleting my comments, and you know it. Also I see you've started stalking my edits and opposing my view in arguments that you plainly have no interest in. Grow up, and don't post here again. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Broadway theatre Comment

Im fast assuming your edits to be not good faith, edging towards vandalism of a long standing article. You clearly know your way around, so you clearly know that you should be using the talk page. The fact u are point blank refusing to without any consensus proven means you are wrong. Ive started a talk page discussion which you should of done and i fully expect you to participate rather than acting up as you are doing. Just because your editing as an IP doesn't mean you don't abide by the rules, which you clearly know.Blethering Scot 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, you are aware that SummerPhD has been harassing me for some time. I've made it clear that any interaction from them with me is not welcome, and I've told them repeatedly to stop harassing me, stop stalking me, and stop trolling. I believe you have both asked them to stop this behaviour as well. And yet they continue. This has to stop and I seek your help in putting an end to their persistent destructive behaviour. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also troubled by Scalhotrod, who proclaimed that they had banned me from their talk page but persists in posting immature messages to mine. There seems to be some collusion between these two editors. If SummerPhD is now encouraging other users to troll and harass me then serious action has to be taken. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Potter Stewart

I would have clicked the "thank" link in the history of Potter Stewart to acknowledge your two fine edits to that article. Unfortunately, I guess because you are an IP user, there is no "thank" link. In fact, as an IP user, you don't see the "thank" links in the history page, but they are there for those of us who are logged in. Anyway, thank you for your contributions to Potter Stewart. You have contributed a lot to Wikipedia, and I hope you will continue to do so. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Those edits were made on exactly the same basis as the one I made to I know it when I see it. As you insisted on including peacock words in that article, I am confused as to why you would be happy with their removal from this one. I honestly don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not. If what you say here is in earnest then I appreciate it, but you should really very strongly reconsider your position on peacock words at I know it when I see it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked for "block evasion". I was not, in fact, subject to any block that I could have been evading. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were editing disruptively, which is blockable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (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.

The blocking admin also took it upon themselves to undo some 61 of my edits, deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. They did all of this with no explanation. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: Can you please give more details here? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: I thought at least one edit the IP made improved the article in question, and reverted [4]. I suspect that's not the only one. And since Yngvadottir unblocked them just after Christmas, I don't believe there's actually a block he's evading. There might be reasons to reblock (eg:this), but if you have to block someone it must be within policy, and a mass-revert of all edits is not necessarily helpful to the encyclopedia as I believe every non-revert article edit this IP has made has been in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your suspicion is correct. More than one of those 61 edits was an improvement. In fact, 61 of those 61 edits were an improvement. I hope that the dishonest and destructive admin is going to undo his revert rampage. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not at all "dishonest and destructive". You have evaded multiple blocks, and been reblocked multiple times. Unless and until you address each and every block that you have evaded, you are a block-on-sight editor.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that a couple of administrators made the mistake of negotiating with you, something I had been unaware of. However, after this discussion, it is clear that you broke the terms of any unblock agreement that anyone may have tried to apply, and, given your subsequent behaviour, I see no reason to believe that you made any such negotiations in good faith.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell, which block was I evading? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You were unblocked based on your promise not to edit war[5], you then changed IPs and edit warred. Making a false promise to get unblocked and then changing IPs and breaking that promise is how you are evading your block. Chillum 17:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As a result of edit-warring over the above edit, the IP's ability to edit it's own talk page has been removed.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note by PhilKnight

This IP is the user described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Confusingly, this user is not banned, so in my understanding, they aren't a shoot on sight user. That said, I'm disinclined to unblock as I honestly believe the user is a detriment to the project. PhilKnight (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And under which part of the blocking policy do you consider this block valid? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not required by policy to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll unblock if you can stick to 0R. No reverts. Pardon my French: Jesus Christ I'm so fucking tired of this shit, from all sides. Ritchie333, thank you for acting like a decent, collegial Wikipedia editor. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, talkpage access has been revoked. The editor cannot respond to your offer. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Undone. IP, please don't make the admins angry. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this compromise? The IP creates an account and edits only from there. We can see where he is, no slipping under the radar by switching IPs. Any IP editing is socking. Any new accounts are socking. Clean start, no other restrictions. Any more edit warring or telling editors to fuck off, we'll take it from there. In return, don't revert his edits for no reason. We want the article edits, not the dramah. This whole thing is Eric Corbett squared. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, they don't wish to create an account. That simple solution is unacceptable to them, and it is of course their right to edit as an IP. But I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Understand that, but I feel we have to give something the other admins will accept. Otherwise we'll just go round in circles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies this user has already made a promise not to edit war to get unblocked under a prior IP. This promise was broken as soon as he got a new IP. I don't think you should be extending this level of credibility to a user who has shown they will say whatever it takes to get unblocked but will forget that promise as soon as they have a new identity.

I think given this users history of using changing IPs to hide the fact that they have a history of edit warring and have been unblocked based on a promise of not edit warring that if they want to continue editing here they should create an account. The right to edit as an IP does not extend to edit warring and evasion of scrutiny. Chillum 22:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, I think that's overstated with respect to the edit warring. Moreover, they have a dynamic IP - and plus they went somewhere over the holidays, like many people. The changes of IP have not been evasion of scrutiny and there has been no attempt to hide that they are the same person. If Wikipedia allows unregistered editing, that has to include dynamic IPs and people who move about. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What Yngvadottir says. Besides, if IP hopping was so easy for them, and if they cared so little about promises made and all that, why are we still duking it out on this talk page? Why haven't they simply moved on? Chillum, as long as even Kww agrees that at least some of their edits are made in good faith we're simply going to have to accept that a couple of players on "our" side are not helping, so to speak. We still have some editors here who may not be chasing this IP down but who are more than happy, I think, to hit rollback when they run into them, and have done so frequently, to the point of edit warring. None of them have ever been blocked, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said above if it is intentional or just a naturally changing IP this users behavior combined with the refusal to make and account make the net result evasion of scrutiny. I have tracked down a few of this users prior IPs and they each show multiple instances of edit warring.

I am wondering how closely you have looked at this IP alone. This user has been removing anything critical of him from his talk page including several warnings for edit warring. The removal of the warnings, the rotating IPs, making promises to get unblocked and then breaking them when changing IPs, edit warring several times in a few days all works out to evasion of scrutiny. Look through their contributions and see the edit warring. It is not overstated.

I see that this IP made a deal in the past, but that deal has been violated. This is not about unregistered editing. Frankly I am not too worried about this IP registering an account because they are easy to recognize. What I am more concerned about is the special treatment I am seeing over the last few IPs, we would not put up with this stuff from a registered user. This special treatment seems to be a combination of most people not recognizing the editor and a few who do. Chillum 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chillum, there is no valid reason for the unexplained reverts this user has been dealing with all those years. False warnings ought to be removed. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are too easily made. If someone edits without an account from all over the place, of course they're going to have different IPs. You're taking all that and you're marking that "it all works out to evasion of scrutiny". As I said before, "a registered user" would never have been given this much shit. Never. But I'm just going around in circles, saying the same thing over and over again, and no one listens. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for looking into this situation User:Drmies. OK, 0R. I'll gladly go for that. But how about with the exception of unexplained reverts, a la Denisarona and Kww? As you know, people frequently revert IP edits without explaining why - a source of immense frustration to me and no doubt many others.

I would like to say that I have serious problems with the conduct of several administrators here - in particular, Kww and his block which was made for a spurious reason, and his mass revert of 61 edits which had absolutely no basis in policy, and PhilKnight and his repeated false claims that I have been banned - even editing the attack page with the flagrantly false claim that there was "no consensus" about whether I was banned, when he obviously was fully aware that his own attempt to get me banned failed. I also continue to be disappointed that SummerPhD is allowed to continue their long term harassment, together with actively encouraging others to attack me. If anyone thinks that being constantly attacked and harassed is likely to bring out the best in people, I encourage them to think again. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• You are not banned; I have edited that phony LTA page to reflect that. I may put it up at MfD one of these days. PhilKnight wasn't fully aware, I'm sure, of the situation; if you don't know by now that I see all those glasses as half-full you don't know me at all. I can't really do anything about Summer: I think she is wrong and possibly blockable, but I'll have hell to pay for if I draw what I think is the appropriate conclusion. I'll have a look at Kww's reverts; it won't be the first time.

  Now, I won't comment on the Dennisarona report, but if someone reverts without explanation they are typically wrong, and I (or Yngvadottir, or any other editor of good faith) will call them on it--yes, Chillum, that includes you, for instance. In other words, I will be glad to revert unexplained reverts. The moment you do it you'll get called out for edit warring again, rightly or wrongly, and then all this starts all over again. Now, above I'm being accused of giving you special treatment, which I think is the opposite of being attacked and harassed--I hope that makes you feel a bit warm and cozy. Then again, isn't it summer where you are? Drmies (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies not only have I not reverted anything without explanation, I in fact restored some of Mr. 225's edits when they were reverted by someone else. I am wondering if you are fully aware of the situation. I am looking through that LTA page you want to delete and I am seeing this user has been blocked dozens of times by numerous admins for edit warring and person attacks, are they all wrong about this?

The problem isn't the edits, its the edit warring. Please check yourself. Chillum 23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, I didn't say you were the one reverting them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That isn't the point at all, Drmies: you have unblocked an abusive edit-warrior without any possible reason to believe that the editor will behave himself in the future, and done so despite the knowledge that the blocking admin objected and the block survived a subsequent review. There's no justification for your actions.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the block for "block evasion", right? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one. The one where an editor that has evaded numerous blocks lied to admins and promised not to edit war in the future in order to get one of his IPs unblocked. The one where the IP told you basically the same lie he told you this time. The block that was instilled for precisely the same style and kind of edits that he performed in this incarnation. The block you didn't reinstate when you were informed that the IP had resumed edit-warring. Yeah, that one. The notice that you put on the talk page of one of a series of abused IPs doesn't mean a lot in the great scheme of things when he's been blocked so many times by so many different admins.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To be evading a block, one has to be blocked. Which block was I evading? I asked you before and it's really not a hard question. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This one: [6]. The one where you promised never to edit war again in order to get unblocked and then continued to edit war after you changed IPs. Frankly I am surprised you were unblocked based on another such promise. Your 0RR restriction has been noted in your long term abuse case, as long as you abide by it then you should be fine. Break your promise again and your unblock will again become void. Chillum 17:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The question was not addressed to you, and your attempt to answer on behalf of the blocking admin is misguided. You failed to identify a block that I was evading. An actual block is required, not one you think I should have been subject to. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Drmies you said "yes, Chillum, that includes you, for instance". You could see perhaps how I might interpret that as such. Chillum 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, old friend, "I (or Yngvadottir, or any other editor of good faith) will call them on it--yes, Chillum, that includes you". You will call out any editors who revert a good, good-faith edit without explanation. I know you will. :) Drmies (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding. It appears you know me better than I thought. Chillum 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, no need to apologize. I'm sorry: I'm in a really cranky mood and drinking a Delirium Tremens is only doing half the job it should. I appreciate your willingness to stick your neck in this matter, and I know you're one of the good guys. One of these days we'll get together and smoke a peace pipe. Dig. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• IP, you are now unblocked. If all this ends up costing me my bit, you'll have to ping Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I do believe that PhilKnight was fully aware of the situation, as he instigated the failed attempt to get me banned [7]. But I appreciate your persistent reluctance to consider the half of the vessel that contains no liquid. I find the accusations of special treatment laughable, and I point out for the benefit of those making them that you've blocked me in the past, and in the last week or so declined to block two users whose unambiguous 3RR violations I reported. But I appreciate the level-headedness that led people to accuse you of favouritism and I have great respect for your administrative actions.

So OK, 0R and I hope that good faith editors such as yourself, Yngvadottir and even Chillum who misunderstood what you said will counteract this destructive behaviour, as you've done in the past. Let's see if it will be more than a few hours before someone reverts me for no reason and/or falsely accuses me of vandalism.

Indeed, summer here. Warm air, clear blue skies, a setting sun. Can't complain. Not about that, anyway. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's nice to hear. Wish you hadn't filed that complaint on AN, of course. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought the block and the mass revert were obvious abuses of administrator tools. It's the mass revert that really gets me. Probably took them a few thoughtless minutes to destroy several hours of my work, and of course they are much too arrogant to reinstate them, so it will be days before they are all done. That kind of wanton destruction and attack on me, I could not simply ignore I'm afraid. I was very tempted to document PhilKnight's behaviour as well, with his persistent false claims that I've been banned or that people think I've been banned, especially when I noticed that he inserted a link to block me on the attack page, but I'll leave that for another time. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was clearing the decks to contribute at AN (I am busy Monday nights) but I see the section has now been closed. By the way, IP, I reinstated some of your edits that Kww had rolled back, and modified others, but I'm afraid I'm slow. I'm happy to see other editors in addition to DrMies and Richie333 have also now been reinstating some. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I'm happy to see people restoring my utterly uncontroversial changes which were destroyed for no reason at all, though of course very unhappy at the destruction and the impunity with which it was carried out. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's my advice. You've got the link of the 1/4 million articles with "best known for" in them, so work through those. For each one, go to "history" and "revision history statistics". If there's no obvious main contributor, and the article's status is C-class or below, I would say that's a good heuristic that you can take out statements you think are POV (assuming they are POV) without being challenged by anyone. That will get what we want out of you (better article quality) while not going anywhere near 0RR. As it is, I think it's reasonably clear that a number of admins are handing you WP:ROPE with a strict "last chance" attached to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, sure, I'll do that for a quarter of a million articles. Seems that you are mocking me, but if I misinterpret you, then I'll restate what I said above: the core policies of the encyclopaedia make it perfectly clear that the phrase is (in every case that I can think of) inappropriate, but so many people are unaware of that or unwilling to accept it that there is a need for it to be specifically stated somewhere that this wording should not be used. Assuming that you agree with that, would you have a suggestion as to where this should be raised? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, no mockery intended at all, possibly just some confusion. I'm not expecting you to improve all those articles any more than I'd expect the 3,000 submission backlog in Articles for creation to be tackled by one person, but even fixing one in the right direction is helpful. As for where to raise it, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch sounds like a good place, particularly as the project page includes WP:OPED which discourages "notably, interestingly, it should be noted, essentially, actually, clearly, without a doubt, of course, fortunately, happily, unfortunately, tragically, untimely" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the "work through those" and "for each one" that confused me. Also the fact that I've already fixed probably thousands in the right direction. And that far from considering it helpful, you've done your bit to force bias back into articles [8] and argued that its removal was a waste of time [9]. I hope you can see why I might not immediately assume that you were being sincere. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In the last two years I've become a lot better at writing articles, and discovered that when two people argue about a specific phrase, there is frequently a much better a way of writing it which everyone's happy with, as seen here. I'm sure I banged heads with Drmies once before we worked on an article together and discovered we were actually working with the same principles. Also, I've realised most of your "rm pov" edits are on start-class articles that have been tagged for years with poor writing - I don't recall a single edit on anything on my watchlist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Restriction to one account

Hello 200, I have reviewed your editing since you were unblocked and determined that it is essential for you stick with a single identity, or else administrators are just going to block you again and again. While I opposed the unblock, what's done is done, and my goal at this point is to help you succeed. I agree with most of your content edits, but good content is not necessarily enough. Here are my suggestions:

1. Register an account and use it consistently. This will show good faith and help other editors keep track of your activities. It will also help admins see that you are unblocked. If you keep hopping to new IPs, you aren't going to get much benefit of the doubt.
2. Do not revert other editors, except for clear vandalism, such as somebody adding obscenities to an article. Don't revert for mere disagreements, even if the other editor is completely wrong.
3. Do not say anything negative about any other editor. If somebody is a major idiot, there is no point in talking to them. Just ignore them and go do something else.
4. If a major idiot starts following you around, don't go to WP:AN/I. Come to me or one of your favorite admins and ask for advice or help.

If you agree to the above. I will clean up the long term abuse report, to make sure that you are not re-blocked too quickly or improperly. What do you say? Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1. No. People who want to keep track of my activities seem to have no problems doing so.
2. Already said I'd do that.
3. Some people consider pointing out abuse of administrative tools to be an attack so that really depends on your definition of negative.
4. To the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with you on any article. The first I heard of you was when you said I should be "blocked whenever I turn up" and then saying that I "should be banned" for "launching an attack" on Kww. So no, it's not likely that I'll ever be coming to you for help or advice. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You've been blocked over 50 times on this project and there's a long term abuse report about you, so please understand my conclusion that you needed to be blocked or banned. Because a couple other admins don't agree, I'm willing to give them a chance, and I'm even willing to help you succeed, but you need to show a little flexibility. Why won't you use a single account instead of hopping around? In my view this is the crux of the matter. As a registered user you will be accountable for your edits and I think you'll figure out how to avoid being blocked, instead of simply hopping to a new IP each time you get blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that you started out by attacking me, and that you have deleted a page where I was documenting harassment with a spurious reason, and that of course you didn't mention that while pretending to be acting in good faith, you'll understand my conclusion that your appearance here is not intended to be helpful. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not allowed to warehouse grievances on a page like that. It's called an attack page. If you want to submit material for dispute resolution you can do so promptly. That page was sitting around for 60 days or so. Moreover, this IP address does not belong to you. Another user might find themselves on it, and that page shouldn't be there, because it's not connected to them. I'm going to leave you be, but please consider what I've said. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You should have asked me before deleting it, or if you couldn't be bothered with that level of politeness, you should have told me you'd deleted it. But you couldn't even be bothered with that. Instead you came here with your "I want to help" nonsense which was plainly not meant sincerely. You started by attacking me, you continued by provoking me, and now you say you're going to leave me be. I'll believe it when I see it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise that you decided not to leave me be but instead reverted an edit I made without bothering to give an explanation [10]. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit archives. It says so right on the pages. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well a) I don't see where it says that on the page concerned, and b) you should have said that in your edit summary. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and false accusations

I haven't even edited an article yet since the spurious block by Kww, but the harassment and provocation has already restarted. User:Drmies, User:Yngvadottir, if you have the time and the energy, would you mind telling User:Jehochman not to make false accusations of vandalism while removing my post purely to provoke me [11], and not to revert for no reason [12]? And would you please tell User:Scalhotrod that if they don't want any interaction with me, they should not be repeatedly posting unwanted messages to my talk page [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]? Thank you very much in advance if you're able to take a look. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Who said anything about "don't want any interaction with [you]", wasn't me. I simply banned you from my Talk page because after asking you to register an account for consistent communication you refused and said that you would use my Talk page when it suits you. You still have not explained why you altered an ANI archive [20]. But yet, you remove the question when asked [21]. You still owe SummerPhD an apology for the accusation you made on my Talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose someone other than you is using your account, then, to post things to your talk page saying that you "choose not to deal with this particular IP user". WP:BRO perhaps? Now stop harassing me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I had noticed you had edited the archive and hoped you would self-revert. I'm not sure reinstating the thread is tactically advisable at this time but I agree, reverting it under WP:DENY was unwarranted, so I have reverted that edit saying so in my edit summary. (I'm working through your edits that were reverted. It takes me a while.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but this person who was unknown to me until a couple of days ago but has gone out of his way to harass and provoke me since then has taken it upon himself to close the thread with the silly claim that it is "bogus harassment". I hope you agree that complaining about people who revert for no reason is a legitimate grievance. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, re: this edit, I removed "and/or" because it's specifically proscribed by the style guide. Not going to revert you, obviously, but think it should be removed from the article. Thanks for taking the time to restore my edits and to further improve the articles. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)