User talk:Cracker92

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cracker92, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help

Where to ask a question
Help pages
New contributors' help page
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Great Britain Olympic football team[edit]

Cheers for your edits to this article - I've been crying out for someone else to come in and cast an eye over it for ages. These things often need other editors and I know I find it hard to see the flaws in my writing style.

Are you really new to Wikpedia? Your immediate fluency with it suggests an experienced editor! Anyway no matter if you are returning after a gap or have just picked it up quickly, many thanks for your improvements and hope you stick around. Pretty Green (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not I'm not new, I just edit in burts. I try to avoid using the same account inbetween as it's the only way to avoid wiki-addiction in my experience. Cracker92 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously a sock, so I've reported you at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What are the other accounts you've used? See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments redacted[edit]

I have summarily redacted your comments in my capacity as an arbitration committee clerk. I thought I made it clear that the issue at AN/I concerning you should not spill over onto the Clarification. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not make that clear. My treatment in that ANI thread backs up what I said in my statement, so that post was in essence, an eddendum to my original statement. You're entitled to prevent threaded discussion, but you're out of line trying to control what does and does not go into my statement, which is after all based on my own experiences with civility enforcement. You're a clerk, not a censor. Cracker92 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR HEROICS[edit]

You're a true hero friend. Keep up the good fight and keep standing up to wiki thugs like that rabbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.231.129.76 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Will do Mr IP. Cracker92 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's been shut down in my favour. To put it in Nobody Ent's terms, I make that Heroes 1-0 Wabbits. Cracker92 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily you seem to understand the methods these people use to desperately cling to their wiki influence. One cannot reason with them and can only really laugh at them. Still, you're a hero for standing up to them. This project is reall screwed as long as people like our furry friend are around. We need a wiki Myxoma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.231.129.76 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Times they are a-changing my friend. Rabbit stew for everyone! Cracker92 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not touch any page in my userspace again[edit]

Title is, or should be, self-explanatory. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title may be self-explanatory, but the edit summary of "Get the hell of my user page NOW" was needlessly hostile. Time to test your civility free zone theory, I'm raising this at ANI. Cracker92 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edit was needlessly provocative, and you were put in your place accordingly. Be grateful I did a show preview before saving and decided to sub "hell" for the original "fuck". That's my kinder, gentler side showing. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative? I beg to differ. You invited me to your talk page, I noticed it's horrid content when clicking edit, and I attempted to improve it to bring it in line with WP:CIV and WP:TALK, and make Wikipedia suck less for everybody. Cracker92 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notification[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cracker92. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Sock puppetry[edit]

Hi, you have no reason to believe me, but I'm actually a very honest fellow. So, if you stop editing at the Talk page, I promise to notify you if something happens that directly concerns you. A couple of caveats. If it involves someone else's post, I won't notice it if I'm not logged in. Also, I'll do my best to make a reasonable interpretation, but I can't promise that you would agree with it. Finally, and not a caveat, the discussion may just die. That happens a lot on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I read that last part as 'I may just die' ! No problem, I trust you. Looks like someone's filed that SPI anyway.... 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has died for the moment, but regardless, I withdraw my promise, partly based on the "Hey brother" section below, which I find profoundly disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you per WP:BATTLE and WP:DISRUPT. Regardless of who you /used/ to be, the behavior you've exhibited today has been nothing but disruption. Since you are aware of policy and procedure, I assume you are familiar with WP:UNBLOCK as well, but I'll leave the link anyway.

Note to passing admins. As my time on WP may be spotty over the next few days, I will say that I have no objections to setting a time limit to the block, or making any adjustments that either you (or a community consensus) deem proper. I also have no objections to an unblock should they request it with the proper understanding that the disruption must stop. My only request is that you look at the edit history for this user for July 6, 2012. — Ched : ? 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, can we as a community in good faith block this user for BATTLE and DISRUPT when we've essentially pointed laser pistols at this user with nothing better than "we've seen socks a hundred times"? Do you have a specific diff to validate this block where the user has not be accused unfairly and is defending themselves?--v/r - T P 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, pretty much everyone who has stepped into Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Tarc/Editnotice has noted that the report was filed in bad-faith to get back (not defend himself, but seek revenge) on User:Tarc. Then there's Cracker92's trolling (not defending himself, but going after another user to troll them) at User talk:Baseball Bugs before that. The entire reason we noticed he was a sock was because he quite plainly dropped the "clean" part of WP:Clean start by going onto an Arbitration board to criticize a user this account never crossed paths with before. Since it's not a clean start, the rest of the community agreed that he was a sockpuppet (rather than a new account), and so should have notified us of previous accounts, per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. It wasn't simply that he was a sock. WP:Clean start was acknowledged, but he chose to not be clean with this start and bring in old problems from previous accounts. That's hiding from accountability, which this site tries to hold its users to. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has proven he's a sock. He's already admitted to old accounts, but have those old accounts been blocked, under a cloud, or a former Malleus hater? That you can't prove. Hell it could be me (it's not) and it would be perfectly legitimate (except for me sitting here somewhat arguing against the block). The MfD was reasonable, I dislike Tarc's bird too. The one incident of trolling is about all you've got and I'm going to write that off as provocation and venting. You can't throw civility at that in the middle of another civility case. I'm not defending this guy, I'm just looking out for our credibility here.--v/r - T P 02:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I'll no longer abide Ian posting his theories on this page. 5 venues is more than enough for him to be trying to make these claims, to be doing it here too while I'm under this block for supposedly having been disruptive and battling, is just taking the piss. Check the history for his last post, if you must. Cracker92 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I should check back before I headed to bed; now...

@TParis: I honestly don't care about "other accounts"; call them past accounts, alt accounts, socks.. whatever - "sock hunting" simply isn't something I've ever considered to be what I want to spend my time doing. As far as specific diffs, meh - I'm not that determined one way or the other to bother diff diving; if you feel that Cracker should be unblocked - I won't second-guess you on it, or make a fuss. I was just saying in my block notice that if you look at the edits from July 6, you'll see a pattern that's been disruptive, and attempts to engage in battles here. Also read through the "YOUR HEROICS" section above on this page. Nobody pointed any pistols until he jumped into a few target ranges, waving his hands and screaming "look at me", and call /other people/ trolls. (which I found a touch ironic considering the circumstances). First with Malleus, then with Baseball Bugs, and then with Tarc. Granted, all 3 of those users have been around years long enough to have gathered their own share of detractors - but the view from my seat was an agenda centered on disrupting the project.

@Cracker92: The passive-aggressive comments below aside - I honestly have nothing against you. I deal with folks "per account", and honestly don't care who you are or were. As for your unblock request - they aren't "MY" conditions - I don't dictate anything here. It's the guideline to collaborative editing and common sense. If TP unblocks (which I've said a couple times now that I'm fine with), then I'd simply offer a bit of advice: (and I'm not trying to be condescending), email the arb-list or an individual arb. if you want to get the "sock" claims to stop - or even an admin. you trust. Second - respond to the things you have to at the venues required - but then state your view and leave the rest of the discussion to others. Don't go taunt folks you knew and perhaps didn't agree with in the past. Stick to the content you want to work on. — Ched : ? 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)re[reply]

Wow. That explanation is beyond sub-standard, into the territory that Malleus would call, well, you know. Cracker92 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cracker92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to abide by any specific unblock conditions that Ched dictates, or if he is unavailable, then any conditions any other admin lays down. Cracker92 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Accepting per agreement below to refrain from commenting on other editors. 28bytes (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to stick to article work and refrain from further commenting on other editors, I'll unblock you right now. Fair enough? 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from commenting on other editors. Cracker92 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will unblock. FYI I have asked Baseball Bugs to return the favor and he has agreed. 28bytes (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really "refraining from commenting on other editors"? Referring to other editors as atempting "character assassination"? Really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey brother[edit]

Sorry that these idiots are blaming you for my edits and filing SPIs against you. Even though a checkuser will vindicate you, it's still annoying that these wikipedos are trying to get yOu banned by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.232.65.8 (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry, although as we both know, if the SPI is accepted and run, when it clears us, we'll still not be seeing an apology any time soon. No, we're all in it together, it's the only explanation. Bwah ha ha ha haaaa!. Meanwhile I'm blocked anyway already funnily enough, in a manner that nobody could possibly complain about surely. I'm sure there's hundreds of admins reviewing my entire edit history for today as we speak, cross checking it with the entire contents of WP:BATTLE and WP:DISRUPT, diligently examing the conduct of everyone else I interacted with today, to forensically piece together what Ched thought was so urgent about my behaviour that it necessitated a first time no warning indef right before he went on holiday (stopping only to help Tarc with more efficent ways of blowing off IPs), so they as a fair and impartial reviewer, one that's never interacted with Malleus of course, not to give him kitties or anything, can come up with a suggestion as to how I can get back the editting privelages that I of course don't need, because I've got all these alternate accounts out there to use anyway, including you! All so I can go and work on the articles that I was apparently never working on anyway, no siree, being the non-article writing bad faith shitbag that I am. Yep, nothing to be annoyed about at this end, no maaam. Cracker92 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do feel bad. What's funny is how much their behavior resembles a corrupt police organization. When we rightfully dissent they stomp down hard -- your ridiculous SPI has a lot of traction. But if we soudly show their I civility or launch a complaint/ani/arbcom? It's ignored or blockaded by their cronies. We should probably not be surprised that this kind of normal thirst to crush dissent is manifested here too. I wish you the best! I'm sure this guy will keep wasting his time to block my IPs. LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.251.65 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing....[edit]

...how, when someone on Wikipedia gets blocked and so cannot respond to other users who want to talk about that user, that their claims gradually get more and more outlandish and detached from reality, once deprived of the counter-point. Here's the best bits so far:

I've been dishonest from the outset (I was open and honest about being a clean start, and why)
I've admitted to abusing multiple accounts (never have, because I never have)
I'm not allowed to post on arbcom pages (the clerk doesn't seem to think so)
I left Wikipedia in the past due to Malleus (I have indeed said all of these words in a single post, just not in that order unfortunately)
Clean start accounts can't mention the past, ever (just total bollocks)
The community/admins/Jimbo has tried and convicted me of evading scrutiny already (bullshit, quite the opposite if anything)
Checkuser is there for me to prove my innocence, not them my guilt (WP:CU 101 - total crap)
I'm of no value to wikipedia (check the first post to this page)

I give TP his credit for trying to stem some of this abuse, but he's got his work cut out. Cracker92 (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point that that if your second bullet point "I've admitted to abusing multiple accounts (never have, because I never have)" was a reference to my comment here, what I wrote was that "Cracker92 has admitted to using multiple previous accounts" (emphasis added), which is indeed what you did here. The entire point of running a CU to find out what those accounts are is to determine whether you abused them or not -- at this point we don't know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"editor who admits abusing multiple accounts". Cracker92 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OH SNAP. Ken, you just got told son — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.93.219 (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that I made a mistake, and had it pointed out to me, you are correct. I freely admit to being fallible.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, thanks for pointing that out, that was incorrect on my part, and I've struck out "abusing" and replaced it with "using", which -- according to your statement, at least -- is accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contacting the committee[edit]

Hi - can you please contact the arbitration committee about your primary account and why you're choosing not to edit with it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my primary account. I have neither the means nor the will to edit with any other account at this time. Due to the involvement of Baseball Bugs and my block for 'battling' him, it's long past the point now where I feel obliged to provide any further details as a courtesy, which in the circumnstances and per policy, was the only thing that was ever expected of me. I will no longer entertain any suggestions that I am a liar in any of these respects, so claims to the contrary belong at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cracker92 from now on. Cracker92 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your unblock conditions here, and continuing the WP:BATTLE that led to your original block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 7 July 2012 (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).

Cracker92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The unblock condition that I agreed to was, "I will refrain from commenting on other editors". The diff above is not a comment on another editor as I understand it (if 28Bytes had intended that I cannot mention people in general, period, then how is that anything but an indefinite ban anyway?). As for WP:BATTLE, staying away from the MfD in general was also not an unblock condition, and it has closed anyway, so this block prevents nothing in that regard. Ched was given multiple opportunities to specify exactly what he thought I'd done wrong, he declined, leaving it to 28Bytes to set the conditions, which I have complied with. I should not have to live in jeopardy from now on for Ched's laxity, which I might add, contained a huge whopper of a lie about me calling Malleus a troll. I also question the motive of BWilkins in placing this block, coming as it did hours after my last edit, hours after the Mfd closed, making it seem like an attempt to compensate for his apparent unwillingness to accept my assertion that I am a valid CLEANSTART account, if this sequence is anything to go by [1][2]. In that regard alone, this block is unsafe. Cracker92 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined on the basis that ad hominem attacks continued below, again in breach of the original unblock conditions. User is free to appeal to ArbCom by email, but I suggest s/he read the guide to appealing blocks first--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 7 July 2012 (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.

It's amazing...(2)[edit]

Following on from the previous installment, now that I'm blocked again, isn't odd that the games begin again. This time it's an administrator no less, making the claim that "C92's contribs listed above show where s/he states that s/he was previously involved with issues (with another account) to do with User:Malleus Fatuorum". This is based on this edit [3]. So, those of you with functioning eyes, can you please explain how this is anything but a total distortion of what I actually said? (unless, by merely being aware of situations, you somehow become involved in them?) Cracker92 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary is unlikely to get you unblocked. Have you emailed ArbCom and conversed with them? I saw your answer to Casliber, above, but there is more detail you could share with them, and that might help your case. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the answer, why would you think I've emailed them? Wikipedia has got as much information as it's going to get from me, you can take whatever else you want from my cold dead hands, if you can't convince an SPI clerk to probe my privacy based on your wild theories about mobile phones. Perhaps I'd have thought differently about this when it first came up, and perhaps considered providing what is only required out of courtesy, but the threatening approach and wasted day at ANI thanks to Baseball Bugs, and the attempted censorship by Tarc and Nobody Ent, and the resultant one sided slapdash blocks, put paid to that. Admins aside, if you got Bugs, Tarc and Ent to admit to their mistakes and lack of policy knowledge, and simply apologise, I might still reconsider, but their egos will prevent that I'm sure. As for being unblocked, I agree, pointing out how others lie about me in an SPI that is the real reason those people want me censored, is likely not going to be considered at all - but nobody said this place was logical. Cracker92 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLEANSTART - "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start." Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My only thought is, why does Wikipedia put up with admins who can only support their arguments by selectively quoting policies (later on it's clear that this clearly applies to returning to those topics, which I've not done). Logic says that preventing someone who might have clean started, say, to escape stalking by editor X, cannot then participate in any requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases, is of course, patently absurd when put under the spotlight. Such is the danger of selective quoting and relying on the letter, not the spirit, of a policy. But if you want to do what no other admin has yet done, even though it was argued over for a day at ANI, and block me for not being a prima facie invalid CLEANSTART, then go ahead. Or alternatively, you can usurp the arbitration clerk whose already said otherwise, and remove my comment from the page on the basis it's come from an inelligable commenter. Bugs tried. Tarc tried. Nobody Ent tried. Perhaps your status gives you more powers in that regard. Your choice, it will hardly dent your reputation as one of Wikpedia's least reputable admins (dammit, now I've slipped up, now they'll be looking for past editors who both hate the Malleus double-standard as well as abhor the abuses of Black Kite, which is a small group indeed, not!). Cracker92 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is your only thought, you don't need a Wikipedia user talk page to express it; it's a pity your thoughts had nothing to do with regaining access to anything outside your talk page. Revoking talk page access. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine. After all, what's one abuse on top of ten? Nothing really. It's not like I need talk page access at all is it? Not much happening around here that I'd need to comment on eh? Cracker92 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]