User talk:The Last Angry Man

Welcome!

Hello, The Last Angry Man, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I've self reverted, and hope that you will as well, in good faith, as you claim. I'm pretty sure I had three, and only three reverts in the last 24 hours:

I would argue that this change was not a revert so much as a modification of the point, but I'm willing to be flexible and consider that a revert if it helps.

The question is what we do from here. If you continue to disruptively edit, as outlined on the talk page, without seeking consensus or providing reliable sources, I'm afraid you leave little choice but to report you to WP:ANI. I suggest you see WP:GEVAL to sharpen your understanding about what constitutes neutrality, and WP:RS on reliable sources. Please respond to the detailed objections to the POV tag on the discussion board before waiting 24 hours and adding it again. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self-reverting, just saw that. Sindinero (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a discussion

You attempt to close this discussion is not acceptable, because the discussion is supposed to be closed by an uninvolved user. Since you cannot be considered as uninvolved, you can not close it. Please, do not do this mistake in future.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules regarding it, it says anyone can close them. It is hardly controversial is it, there is obviously no consensus for a merge. The Last Angry Man (talk)

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).

The Last Angry Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is obscene, I am blocked for using the same browser as mark nutley? That is not evidence, it is a joke. Please unblock me I am not a sockpuppet of anyone The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not persuade me to overturn a checkuser's "likely" assessment. And at any rate we do not need more editors who edit-war on contentious topics. Sandstein 11:10, 17 June 2011 (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.

Unblock II

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).

The Last Angry Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last suspected sock on nutley was [1] this IP address. It is dated four days after I began to edit. Please explain how a sockpuppet using nutleys computer was being blocked four days after I began editing? The only likely from the investigation was that I use the same browser as nutley or ten ton tunic, millions of people use the same browser and to have me banned on this flimsy "evidence" is hardly right. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no reason to overturn the result of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley, which looks to be well-reasoned and includes commentary by User:Hersfold, a checkuser. Hersfold has given additional detail below, which includes a 'Likely' assessment. Nutley has created a steady flow of new socks to push his distinctive POV. You show up, you have exactly the same interests as Nutley, your POV appears to be the same and we get a 'Likely' from a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The evidence presented by User:The Four Deuces is hardly convincing either.

Ten ton tunic removed a pov tag from Mass killings under Communist regimes [2] and I removed one from a different article, how is this proof of my being nutley?
Similarity of writing style, sorry but being english I would think my writing would be much the same as any other englishman. Again hardly convincing evidence.
Creation of stub articles on controversial topics, well this is hardly evidence, TTT created an article on a poem, how exactly is that controversial? And yes I created Communist crimes against humanity [3] after it was suggested on a talk page[4] that it would be a good article to create, my agreeing with another editor on this is proof that I am nutley?
Apparently I used twinkle, it was the first tool for adding templates I saw in user options, again hardly proof now is it?
I reverted IGNY on Occupation of the Baltic states, yes I did and yes it was a petty act of spite after he had reverted one of my edits with no edit summary and for no reason which I found rude. Again this is hardly proof of my being nutley.
TFD is of the opinion that I favor the British far right, I beg to differ. [5]
I edited the Malayan Emergency, yes I did, after being told to by Paul Siebert [6] Again as I was working on two articles which are linked then my having edited both is again not conclusive proof.
I did not delete the terror article, I redirected in like the notice on the article says, I found this article whilst looking for sources on a google search. Again this is hardly the proof people seem to want it to be.
Now according to the investigator I use the same browser as TLAM, so what, millions do. We apparently live in the same area? Well how close? Wiltshire is a big place. Were exactly does nutley live? The investigator says nutley may have bought a new computer, yet an IP was blocked four days after I began to edit as nutley, so if this is the case how can I be him? If nutley had bought a new computer then would he not have used it straight away? And why is his IP different to mine? The evidence against me is flimsy at best, and I request I be unblocked. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify some things. When checkuser is involved, we look at information that identifies the browser, operating system, and some other information regarding the computer the user is using. When a "Likely" result is given, that means the checkuser has found a number of strong technical relations that, while they do not make an exact match, show that it is not implausible for the two to be the same user. Generally this requires a similar geographic location and other commonalities, as was your case. When this happens, a block is issued by reviewing behavioral evidence - if there are marked similarities between the accused accounts behaviorally as well, then a block is issued. We go on the assumption that a few coincidences may happen, but a large number is extremely unlikely and suspicious.

I've just run a check on the IP address you mentioned, which I wasn't aware of at the time of your investigation, and while this does muddy the waters somewhat, I do not believe it changes the overall result. The IP address is also in the same area as you and Marknutley, and uses the same browser, but has a third operating system. This does rather debunk my assumption of a new computer, but does not change my

Likely conclusion. Given the number of similarities, it is still not implausible that you could be the same people, or two different people working in tandem (meatpuppets). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting beyond the joke really

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).

The Last Angry Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

88.108.230.14 this IP address which was mark nutleys last known edit geolocates to here.

Hostname: 88-108-230-14.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ISP: Tiscali UK Limited Organization: Tiscali UK Limited Proxy: None detected Type: Broadband Assignment: Dynamic IP Blacklist: Geolocation Information

Country: United Kingdom State/Region: Redbridge City: Ilford Latitude: 51.55 Longitude: 0.05

My IP being different does of course geolocate to here.

Hostname: 5e051cca.bb.sky.com ISP: Sky Broadband Organization: Sky Broadband Proxy: None detected Type: Broadband Assignment: Dynamic IP Blacklist: Geolocation Information

Country: United Kingdom State/Region: Reading City: Reading Latitude: 51.4333 Longitude: -1

So we have, different IP`s, different service providers, and are obviously miles apart, how anyone here can think I am nutley is a stretch of the imagination. Combined with the fact that nutley was blocked four days after I began to edit must surely show we are not the same person?

The checkuser says the evidence is "not implausible" based solely on the fact that I, along with 25% [11] of other internet users use the same browser. And of course unless nutley is a complete idiot then he would have changed browser usage based on his last sock [12] having discussed his usage of chrome. The checkuser made a great many assumptions and did not seem to have looked at nutleys previous history at all, not much of an investigation really.

People point out that I have edited articles which nutley has edited, what of those which I have edited and he has not? Would he not continue to edit the same articles all the time? I am not nutley, nor am I a meatpuppet for him. I request I be unblocked based on the evidence I have presented here and in the previous section. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are now resorting to the same "weaseling" as with the previous sock puppets, and, frankly, we have heard enough. Talk page editing privileges revoked. You know better, Nutley. –MuZemike 07:06, 20 June 2011 (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.

Regardless of where your locator traces this last IP traces to, mark nutley claimed to be from Wiltshire, [7] which is where you claim to be from,[8] not the location that your locator is showing. The likely explanation is that the checkuser's locator is more accurate than yours. TFD (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you do know that Wilts is around 1400 square miles in size right? With hundreds of towns and villages? The different IP`s and service providers prove I am not nutley. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it proves nothing - you could be editing at a friend's house miles away from where you live. I see nothing in your arguments that would persuade me that the CU was incorrect in the assessment. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way for you to prove you're not MN. Although the blocking admin says it's possible for an innocent user to prove it, he refuses to divulge how -- citing WP security issues and a determination not to give MN a "get out of gaol free card." I'm told you could prove it by giving your name, address and phone # to the blocking admin. I guess that might work (if you're not ex-directory) but I'm not sure how -- unless the admin already has MN's details for comparison. Personally I'd be deeply reluctant to hand over personal details to any complete stranger on WP (who, also, could be someone other than who they say they are, or a wacko, for all I know). Obviously I have no opinion on the tech info that the admin says he has to withhold (1) for security reasons and (2) because its release is outside his remit. So the tech evidence he has released is all we non-admins have to go on and it looks, as you have said, flimsy at best. So it really comes down to a gut feeling based on similarities of interest and style. I don't see quite how you can overcome that instinctual response. I mean, a gut feeling is just a belief, the evidence here is circumstantial and not conclusive, and without concrete evidence of some kind to offer in rebuttal I don't see how the belief can be shaken. To me as a non-admin, the scales of justice appear weighted against you. Regardless of who you really are, that apparent built-in imbalance sticks in my craw. Oh well. If you're really not MN and you run this by Arbcom, good luck. And if you really are MN, good riddance :~) Writegeist (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any sincere user on wikipedia should be able to find one or more trusted admins, to whom one can give his real identity, precisely to cover situations like this. I have a very short list of such. And if you don't trust any admins, that's not a good sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligent distrust" (David Richo) is, well, intelligent. Particularly when dealing with strangers on WP. I note that your list of "trusted admins" is "very short" Writegeist (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they're folks I've worked with for years here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

The Last Angry Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been logging in periodically to see if any response was forthcoming regarding this case and see that that yet another person has been blocked as mark nutley [9] with yet another different IP and service provider is it now possible for myself to be unblocked? Or are people still of the opinion that mark nutley has three different IP`s, three different service providers and three different computers? Do people not think it a stretch of the imagination that I am he? If this request is refused would the commenting admin let me know how long it talks the arbitration group to look into a case such as this. 94.12.97.116 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block evasion will not help your case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:59, 24 June 2011 (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.

Unblocked

After lengthy discussions on the arbcom-l email list, the Arbitration Committee have agreed to your unconditional unblock. We do not feel that the evidence against you is is strong enough to justify an indefinite block as a sockpuppet, and we are willing to assume good faith on your part. However, some members of the committee have expressed concerned over your editing history, and I (as an individual) feel it only right to warn you that continued edits such as this one, this one or personal attacks such as this may lead to your account being blocked for disruption. I strongly suggest that you avoid editing those topics where you have strong feelings, such as communism, politics, or political history. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]