User talk:216.164.203.90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from introducing vandalism to it. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.
This IP address has been blocked temporarily.
CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;
the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.
If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a note
referencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).
Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking.
It is suspected that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets.
See block log and list of puppets
The use of abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia is prohibited; use of sockpuppets
to evade bans results in the ban timer being reset.

Contents

Fuck Off!!

This is a message to KimvdLinde: "DO NOT MODIFY MY POSTS! Also, I DO NOT want you posting on my talk page!! Got that FUCKER?" 216.164.203.90 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you better read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And consider yourself warned for making of personal attacks! Kim van der Linde at venus 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add WP:OWN to the list. Wikipedia is not MySpace. RadioKirk talk to me 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think WP:CIV would be a good one. Signed, Freddie 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Posts

Welcome!

Hello, 216.164.203.90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kim van der Linde at venus 04:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Gray Wolf on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah right, it is complete nonsence. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, the next time, you get blocked. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Not as lomng as you are vandalizing the page with adding nonsense. Copnsider to add some real stuff. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Gray Wolf. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. RadioKirk talk to me 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions to articles.

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but please desist in the repeated modifications to dog breeding articles. These additions have been deemed to be unhelpful. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon your return, may we ask that you please read and become familiar with WP:CITE and WP:RS. The overriding factor with an encyclopedia must be, as stated, ""verifiability, not truth". We hope you will join us as a productive editor to Wikipedia. RadioKirk talk to me 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Someone kept removing my contibution}}

Your "contribution" has been removed by another user who has deemed it "utter nonsense". Regardless, Wikipedia policy demands all data include a citation from a reliable source, and your "contribution" cannot be allowed until you can provide such a source. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Someone kept removing my contibuttion. It is a tru fact as i come from an exkimo family and know ti first hand}}

This block will be lifted if and only if you agree to read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. RadioKirk talk to me 01:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Why?

You requested unblock prior to the expiration of the 24-hour period for which you were blocked; it since has expired automatically. Are you telling me you have no intention of learning how to be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia? RadioKirk talk to me 00:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My "this block will be lifted" post was made specifically to your request for an early unblock; obviously, since it has expired after being served in full, it no longer applies. I am glad you intend to contribute constructively; reading the pages I linked above will help you better learn Wikipedia policy and help you, and all Wikipedians, get better. Thank you. RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Gray Wolf. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Gray Wolf, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|My kid got ahold of my laptop}}

Sure, and two days ago, you added EXACTLY the same complete nonsense to the EXACT same article, at EXACT the same place. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See, we kind of doubt this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredil Yupigo (talk • contribs).

It's difficult to assume good faith since you and "your kid" have the same editing styles but, giving you the benefit of the doubt, are you willing to install a password to keep "your kid" away from your laptop? RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that within a few seconds of blocking you, "your kid" magically loses control of the laptop and the first thing you do is immediately request an unblock. Instead of lying to us, I suggest you cool off for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

May 16

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Signed, Freddie 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

RadioKirk, I am putting a password on my laptop right now! I understand if the block must stay, however. Thanks! 216.164.203.90 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin says, yes, you'll "cool off" for 24 hours. Meantime, and you must know this if you know anything at all about Wikipedia, there is now a bunch of admins watching you. I'm trying to assume good faith but, if indeed there is something less than honesty going on here, your wisest move would be to move on. RadioKirk talk to me 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Belief?

Is RadioKirk the only one who belives me???

Am I? RadioKirk talk to me 02:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, if the block was incorrect and there really is this young child who got the computer then a 24 hour block is not that big a deal, one can edit in a few hours. The short length of the block combined with the dubiousness of the claim make me reluctant to unblock. JoshuaZ 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming Clean

I know a load of administrators must be watching this page, so I am going to tell you all this right here:

The recent antics (Nanook Vandalism etc.) preformed by this anonymous user (216.164.203.90) were preformed on purpose, as a part of an experiment. I am currently writing to you from my place of work, located in Boston, Mass, USA. I have chosen to perform this unorthodox experiment from my workplace, in order to avoid negative votes on my possible upcoming election as an administrator, on the Wikipedia username I use from home. The main purpose of this experiment was to know, first hand, what vandalism “feels like,” from the vandals’ point of view. Let me tell you, “I have learned a lot” I appreciate how you all quickly reverted vandalism and left welcoming warning messages in the beginning. When I continued to vandalize “Wolf” I appreciated how you all “Assumed Good Faith.” However, Kim van der Linde, at times you forgot to stay “As cool as a cucumber.” I especially admired Radio Kirk’s reaction and cool persistence with the block he initiated. His direct quoting of the complaints of others was a smart move. I also liked how you all continually to welcome me to Wikipedia even though I was annoying the ^&%$ out of you. So, to recap, the recent problems caused by than account were done on purpose, as an experiment by me, in order to find better ways of combating vandalism with my other Wikipedia account. I thank you all for you response and for now I’m signing out. If anyone else uses the ip to access Wikipedia in the future, please regard them as a new user, as I don’t plan on using my work computer to access Wikipedia in the future. Thank you all and have a great day! 216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. No kid ever really got a hold of my “Laptop” --216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My follow up is here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_candidate_experiment_with_vandalism
I'm not quite sure how I want to react to this. OT1H, it may well be true that thinking like a vandal helps us fight vandalism; OTOH, I can't help but wonder whether I was (and/or others were) being tested. I'm glad you came clean about it, though; I have a file named 216.164.203.90.txt in which I was compiling the evidence against your assertion that there was a "kid" using your laptop (and, yes, this was intentionally vague...). RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a rude thing to do which shows a disrespect for other admins and a large degree of childishness. Whether or not this does affect your admin election, you should feel ashamed of yourself. All you seemed to learn from this is that admins often get mad at vandals. Seems like a pretty small piece of knowledge to gain after deliberately toying with others. --Fastfission 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you didn't mean it to be negative. Toying with others is disrespectful. You should either have the pride to be able to discuss this openly at your vote, or you should not run at all. By announcing that you did it as a "test", you've made this into an issue which will probably effect all of the upcoming admin votes, with people being suspicious of the intentions of others. That's unfair to all other admin candidates, and even though I didn't participate in this incident at all, I find it highly insulting. It is not your place to "experiment" with other people's time on here, and now you are taking up even more of it. It is childish and shows a very poor grasp on ethics, experimental and otherwise. Again, I think you should feel ashamed. --Fastfission 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 ??

I'm removing the {{unblock}} tag that clogs up Category:Requests for unblock. --Rory096 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Ok, you choose not to make clear who you are. What I could do is ask every new admin candidate the question whether they have done this. Are you going to ly also on that question? Kim van der Linde at venus 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course people should vote less yes for you. You should not become an admin in the near future. You have deliberately insulted people (me) by targeting my spelling errors (I am dyslectic) and calling me names. If you would have added a single nonsense thing, and left it at that, I probably would have mind less. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the above claim hard to believe given the anon's previous lies and other behavior. I have therefore blocked the anon for 1 week for serial vandalism and disruption. If this is a real user/ admin candidate who needs to use this IP then he or she can email me to request an unblock. JoshuaZ 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the checkuser request will turn up the linked account. But he says he is using his work computer for the vandalism, and his home computer for the regular work and the filing of the adminship. Kim van der Linde at venus 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea

Last night, after I got home I was re-reading my list of observations I made during my experiment. I noticed I had a note that said, “this page looks very funny,” and it hit me. The sole thing that I liked about being able to vandalize was how the page I vandalized looked very funny, and it was funny to think about other people’s reactions when they read my piece of vandalazation, thinking it was a real piece of information. After thinking about this I thought of a very clever method (if possible) to prevent vandalism. I would like you to post your opinions about whether you think this is a good idea: When there is a repeat vandal on Wikipedia, an administrator could place a sort of “special block” on their account. Instead of directly blocking their ip address, the vandalazation made by that account (for a certain period of time) would only be visible by that account or ip address. This makes the vandal believe they’re vandalizing Wikipedia while their only really hurting the information they will be able to read. I think this would be a good idea because then vandals not familiar with this would be less likely to try to use a proxy to vandalize and Wikipedians and people looking for information would not be affected. Please tell me what you think on this talk page. Thanks! 216.164.203.90 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, thanks for the "support..."?? 216.164.203.90 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"If anyone else uses the ip to access Wikipedia in the future, please regard them as a new user, as I don’t plan on using my work computer to access Wikipedia in the future. Thank you all and have a great day! 216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)" My "support" is getting more and more difficult... RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, I dont nessecarilly mean the support you have shown me here... 216.164.203.90 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Here" as in this page, or "here" as in Wikipedia? In either event, each time I see a post from you, something contradicts a previous post (as I've noted in my previous post), which makes the assumption of good faith more and more difficult. Am I out of line to wonder whether you plan any time soon to come clean for real? RadioKirk talk to me 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your first question I mean here as on this page. However, I would rather there is not any more disscussion about weather what I did was right or wrong, as it is in the past. I would really like to see what people think about my idea about "special blocks" I posted above, that is why i decided to post from work again. Thanks. 216.164.203.90 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Okay. That's a question for the developers, I would think. RadioKirk talk to me 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea? 216.164.203.90 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On paper (screen?), potentially. Whether it can be implemented is the question. RadioKirk talk to me 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear what others think of this idea. If I see a good amount of support for the idea (not weather it will actually work or not) we can bring this up to a dissuscion page read more often such as the admin noticeboard and if it has support there, we can bring it up with the developers. 216.164.203.90 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

This has been blocked for a month. It is suspected that this account is related to User:Rappy30V2. See here for evidence. --HappyCamper 02:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

...and User:Rappy30V3. RadioKirk talk to me 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Messages when logged out

Just to let you know, you inadvertently created pages for User:User:216.164.203.90 (which does not exist) instead of User:216.164.203.90 (which does exist). I've deleted those pages since they won't work correctly. Please fix User:216.164.203.90 and User talk:216.164.203.90 accordingly. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No block

There's no active block on your log. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my ip must be autoed then? 216.164.203.90 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried again. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
WOrks Now :) 216.164.203.90 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: Approximately 19 minutes after the above post from 216.164.203.90, Wikiquote user account User:CrestvilIe (note the capital "I" in CrestvilIe) was created, which immediately proceeded to copy existing user User:Crestville's user page, forge my signature on a welcome page to himself, revert edits by the impersonated user, swear at a sysop, and vandalize two community pages before he was blocked.[1] Essjay used Checkuser on WP to confirm "CrestvilIe" is one of many aliases 216.164.203.90 has used to vandalize Wikipedia, and some of his sockpuppet names have also been used to do this on Wikiquote, strongly suggesting the same IP creator, especially as this IP has been tied to these accounts by strong circumstantial evidence developed in two separate vandalism incidents. (We don't have Checkuser at Wikiquote yet.) Please consider this when reviewing any other requests for unblocking this account. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (Wikiquote sysop at q:User:Jeffq)

This IP is used by a persistent impersonator of others

This IP has been used repeatedly by a vandal who seems to delight in impersonating other users, here and at Wikiquote, and in alternating between being an obvious jerk and someone attempting to feign sincerity as another user. Be very skeptical of the claims of any person communicating from this IP, because there is a growing record of behavior of a person using it that is truly infantile. My username was briefly impersonated, probably by the vandal who uses this IP, and who created a user name using an uppercase "I" to appear like the lowercase "L" in my username. ~ Kalki 05:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Seems that this IP has consistently been used for such purposes. Their is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN/I, pending the outcome of that I am not willing to unblock. Since this appears to be the same as User:Nookdog please refrain from posting multiple unblock requests, it makes it look like you are trying to game the system. --pgk(talk) 18:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify multiple request I mean here and against your user account. --pgk(talk) 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User "quits"

I have quit Wikipedia, contact me at Wikinews as MyName. Thanks. 216.164.203.90 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (restored after unblanking, RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:216.164.203.90. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. CynicalMe 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/6/User_talk%7E216.164.203.90.html"