User talk:76.89.129.139

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for for displaying a battleground mentality at Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen and elsewhere. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

76.89.129.139 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Battleground mentality, eh? How ironic, considering I've tried to promote a compromise mentality. If you are blocking me, you should be blocking a half-dozen other editors on that page. Have you? 76.89.129.139 (talk) 3:18 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

'Battleground mentality' and suspected sockpuppetry as per discussion below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

That kind of attitude is exactly why you're blocked. On the basis of your contributions, and responses to other editors comments, it is obvious that you are Icsunonove (talk · contribs) continuing the same behaviour for which you have previously been blocked repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you blocked others? I do remember you blocking me once in the past, while letting the same behavior of another editor slide. And what "kind of attitude"; that I dare question you? If you want something to look into, why don't you look into how Gryffindor INITIATED a battleground and looks to have contacted people offline to come in and stuff a ballot box. Or is that too heavy and issue for you to look into? Oh wait, I remember now that you were a friend of noclador. LOL A little bias on your part shouldn't be questioned as well, right? And you make a six-month ban because I dare question your 24h ban? Utter abuse of power. But if noclador asks you, I'm sure you jump, as you have before. I also never denied being the same user, I disabled that account and have rarely edited for two years. Exactly because of folks like noclador that make this a battleground environment, and someone like you that backs up their behavior in a one-sided manner -- without shame.

I was surprised by the block of 76.89.129.139. The IP user often used colorful words, but there is no single reason to block him/her (and to block Icsunonove too: the account was not active, so no sockpuppetry!). I have good relations with all the cited users (including noclador, who even awarded me with a barnstar) and I am a peaceful editor, but I can't be indifferent to such an injustice, although I don't question Nick-D's good faith my any mean. The IP, for his/her part, should be more careful with what he says and it would be better if he will register with an account or log in trough his/her previous and no longer active account. --Checco (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Checco, did you see noclador even goes and says that Supparluca is my sockpuppet? It is truly out of control. I know he accused Ian as well. Watch out, or you may be my sockpuppet too. Then he falsely reports me for sockpuppetry for simply not logging into an account, and the administrators go along with that? Injustice, indeed. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=The IP user should definitely be more careful with his words, but there was no reason to block him/her: he/she was giving a good contribution to the debate at [[Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen]] and he/she was in fact promoting compromise rather than battleground mentality. Moreover the IP didn't make use of sockpuppetry and, in fact, there is no evidence of that. I thus ask that the IP user be unblocked (the [[User:Icsunonove|Icsunonove]] account has been inactive for more than two years). I understand that this is not the correct template to be used, but I don't know what to do. I apologize for that. --[[User:Checco|Checco]] ([[User talk:Checco|talk]]) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)}}

  • I've turned off this request. You may make any comment you wish but the unblock request needs to come from the blocked user themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
colorful words??? After 5 years of insulting editors (fresh examples [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) it is almost comical how you deem he is just using "colorful words". Maybe you mean his low-level insults like: Maybe one day you can ask yourself what goals you really have in life to push for nationalistic things like this? If you are someone that can even muster it, you really owe me an apology. You need to do a bit of soul searching and it is really sad how you have to make all these personal attacks. And his unsubstantiated claims of vote rigging and claims it is “embarrassing” you are committing slander Mai-Sachme, and also making personal attacks. It is ironic you then accuse others. It is a few German speaking editors that have chased away almost everyone from this page. If you do feel a need to respond: can you try and just be civil., because it is easy to be cold and harsh over a keyboard/monitor. Ics is a bad-faith uncivil editor, who has brought massive disruption to wikipedia with his lies, factual inaccuracies, sock use, insults, incivility, personal attacks, ecc. if you want I can throw in here 300 diffs of insults he made over the years and calling people repeatedly "little Eichmann" is not colorful words. I'm sorry if that is being blunt, but he got what he deserved and the Icsunonove account was blocked so he can not use it to evade his block by logging in as Icsunonove. noclador (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And there he is again. Your Wikipedia stalking is really impressive noclador, pretty creepy, but impressive. I'm absolutely sure you can throw in 300 diffs, and it is laughable the amount of time you have on your hands. I feel you have some sort of obsession with me. Who else have you tried to do this to? Do you keep databases on editors on your computer? LOL By the way, I was just reading a very good quote on the top of Beeblebrox's page. You'd really be better off reading that paragraph about ten times (no, I mean it), as your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. At least I've been man enough to both apologize to and forgive other editors. You say I lie, but ironically your last sentence is a lie. I killed that account two years ago myself; your comment that the account was blocked so that I can not use it is a bold-faced lie. I also saw you accuse both Ian Spackman and Supparluca of being my sockpuppets. More "lies, incivility, and personal attacks" -- by you. Will you apologize for these lies? No, of course you won't, that would be the action of someone strong. You have, without doubt, turned this into a battlefield. It is just that others don't have the massive time on their hands to catalogue your actions. You are really an angry and spiteful person noclador, but I'll try to forgive you for that. Anyway, thanks a lot Checco for the words, I agree with everything you say (the positive and the negative). You are one of the truly good folks on here. I've finally come to the conclusion though that some people are simply unable to compromise, and have to treat things like a war or competition. Makes you really wonder about their real lives. And about vote rigging noclador? Anyone familiar with this debate knows there is vote rigging going on. It would have been more intelligent, me thinks, to space out the votes a little bit more than over a single day as to not make it so obvious. I felt the same bad feelings as Checco upon seeing what was being done, but as he pointed out, it is in the end these folks karma. If you consider that a "low-level insult", you are welcome to that opinion. The thing is, actions count more than words. One only has to see how people like Gryffindor once again removes the boldfaced Alto Adige, to understand who truly creates a battlefield environment. It is pathetic behavior.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

76.89.129.139 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Get this straight, the battleground mentality was instigated by users such as Gryffindor, Mai-Sachme, and noclador. Simply look at the move request on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I came upon that move request by chance, and found there was slander against me within the discussion! Is that civil? These folks are nothing less than hypocrites. And sockpuppetry? I killed my account two years ago, having had enough of the battleground mentality of these people. If I choose not to use an account, how is that sockpuppetry? Then you have this one user, noclador, who literally stalks me. If I make any comment, he spews out 100 diffs. I and others don't have the time nor inclination to catalogue his (et al.) behavior, but many folks as Checco know exactly what really goes on here. If you want to reward the game that noclador plays, this is the way to do it.. to give into the war-like atmosphere he pushes -- that goes as far as trying to have differing opinions banned. Why wasn't he banned when he slanders editors? Why wasn't he banned when he went and accused other editors of being sockpuppets? Why isn't Gryffindor investigated for an obvious vote rigging on that page? This is what truly damages the credibility of Wikipedia. He is an administrator, and he abuses his authority over and over and over. Finally, there was no sockpuppetry. The battleground mentality, isolating me is complete nonsense given what those folks instigated and continue to push. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

76.89.129.139 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Fine. I'll speak to my actions. I apologize for making colorful comments, and will keep them from happening. I reiterate that my purpose has always been to promote a compromise solution and this is the opposite of a battlefield mentality. I believe this accusation of me promoting a battlefield is incorrect. With regard to sockpuppetry, it simply is not the case, and this is a false accusation. Checco pointed this out, and I have as well. I killed my old account two years ago, have rarely edited after that, and have simply chosen thus far not to create a new account. I mean, what am I sockpuppeting?? I would appreciate it if these sockpuppetry tags are removed. In fact, noclador has recently gone about marking any IP address I've ever used as "suspicion of sockpuppetry". Come on now, this is abuse. Accounts that I was using where I didn't log in, 2-3 years ago? Really?? He is once again even accusing Supparluca [10] of being my sock puppet. I know I'm supposed to only defend my actions on this, but someone please finally control this guy. He is showing signs of obsession, and this is degenerating into basic harassment. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am completely ignoring all comments about sockpuppetry, because that is not what the block was given for. I could easily have declined this unblock request on the basis of what I see here on this page, which exhibits clear signs of a battleground mentality. However, to make sure, I looked at a few dozen of your edits, and the extent of the battleground mentality was overwhelming. If you really honestly can't see that then you have an astonishing lack of self awareness. JamesBWatson (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

to Dohn joe[edit]

Dohn joe, I hope you finally see with the voting on the Trentino-Alto Adige page the nonsense and hypocricy that is in play. I was literally laughing at their counter arguments -- straight up in reverse of the provincial page -- and I see you noticed that. It isn't about using common English, these editors bend the policies to get what they want (a German POV). They've done this time and time again. Of course they don't want Trentino-Alto Adige, and in this case they are ok to keep Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. Folks like Checco (and many other Italian speakers) and I wanted this bilingual name for compromise; a mistake with people such as these I now realize. Folks like Gryffindor, et al. see this as the only possibility of maintaining German in the title, because they know full well Trentino-South Tyrol doesn't have a foot to stand on. Go look at how Gryffindor moved the page many years ago to Trentino-South Tyrol unilaterally (same as how noclador moved Ortisei, after a verification of its use in English!). They attack people for standing up to them, but the proof is in the pudding. In many ways it is entertaining to not only be proved right with Gryffindor's actions (again and again), but also see the amazing waste of time (databases of diffs! LOL) that noclador/Mai-Sachme will use to try and drown out the valid criticisms. Again, don't be surprised at why there are no longer any Italian editors involved. Even Checco, you can see, wants little more to do with this. And I get harassed by them and slandered/smeared, because I point it out. They hate it. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access turned off[edit]

As this editor has now had two unblock requests rejected and was continuing to use this page as a forum to attack other editors as part of these requests and separately (for instance, these comments, amongst others), I have extended the block by removing their ability to edit this page. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - I was about to do the same. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an extremely dubious block[edit]

I am not a fan of this editor: for a demonstration of that see this edit which I imposed – improperly – on Checco’s talk page. But to block somebody on the basis that s/he has exhibited a battleground mentality without at the same time blocking practically everyone else who has ever contributed to that battlefield of a discussion takes me to the point where I cannot AGF. I can only imagine that the blocking admin, and those who have supported the block, have never thought about what Voltaire famously had to say on the matter. [Admins in that position should obviously resign without hesitation, and be applauded for admitting their inadequacies and doing so.] Ian Spackman (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)