User talk:203.122.215.44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

User Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.122.215.44

  • First 4 on Talk:Wikitruth: [1], [2], [3], [4], or if you prefer, all at once [5] to point out that a number of users are banned from Wikipedia for constructive editing...
  • 2 attempts to keep User:Ham and jelly butter's userpage accurate: [7] & [8] (both reverted)
  • Adding "Criticism of Wikitruth" section to Wikitruth, care of their own site, and a blog summary of criticisms of Wikitruth: [11], [12] (note: an anon IP vandalised this entry by removing the "What Wikitruth is doing is illegal" section, yet that IP wasn't blocked, or even warned for vandalism - Wikitruth themselves admit its illegal): [13]
  • An attempt to keep User:Thewolfstar's user page accurate (reverting blanking) per blanking policy: [14] (reverted just the same)
  • A message informing User:Woggly that she has been talked about in the mass media, and offering her a chance to respond: [15]. She accepted (sort of) by the way: [16], but then wiped it all from her user page: [17]. Perhaps needs to wipe it from history too?
  • A message on Talk:Joel Leyden pointing out the truth of why it was deleted, with references: [18]. Reverted though: [19] and then protected just to be sure [20] & [21]

Are any of those edits vandalism? Or trolling? Or destructive? Come on now.

Also note the blanking of this user talk page: [22]

Quite odd to blank a talk page after a 24 hour block with no evidence, isn't it? 203.122.215.44 10:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note about the block

This IP address was blocked by User:SlimVirgin on 07:38, 13 May 2006 with an expiry time of 24 hours (Zordrac/Internodeuser)

At 04:35, 14 May 2006, User:Jayjg performed a range block on the IP range 203.122.215.0/24 with an expiry time of 1 month (Zordrac), which means that IPs from 203.122.215.0 - 203.122.215.255 are all banned [23].

Of course, Internode has a much wider range of IPs than just that range. They also have a lot more than just 1 Wikipedia editor. Is Wikipedia prepared to block the entire ISP over their failure to investigate an obviously unfair ban? Or will they finally stop and listen to reason?

And good luck Wikipedia trying to convince Internode that constructive edits to Wikipedia, trying to insert accurate information in to articles, is a good enough reason for Internode to boot me from the service. Wikipedia can try to convince them that it's vandalism to add references to Port Arthur massacre, but they are just simply not going to agree with you. Nor are they going to agree with you that Wikipedia are in the right to allow uncited obviously false information to exist in such an important topic.

Good luck trying to convince them that replying to a torrent abuse by saying to people that it is obvious what is going on and that you are morons for not figuring it out equals a personal attack, and is anything even vaguely along the lines of something which they should kick someone off their ISP over.

Sure, Wikipedia can ban people for any reason they so fit. They can ban me for obviously unfair reasons. They can ban me because they want to have an obviously inaccurate attempt at an encyclopaedia that includes slanderous information about a lot of living people. They can do that, and legally I can't sue them. I've told them that. And so long as they don't release my personal information, they are fine. But Wikipedia don't have a leg to stand on in trying to come after me either. So we are at a cross roads. I haven't done anything wrong, you know this. I haven't broken any of your rules and you cannot justify your ban of me.

So why don't we make peace and compromise? Let me back, and I tell you what, I won't even edit the Port Arthur massacre article. I won't even interact with any cabal members. I'll let them pervert articles to their way of thinking. And I'll keep my criticism of Wikipedia to the Wikipedia Review and blogs and while I'm on here I'll pretend that everything is perfect. Sound good?

Why is Wikipedia so unwilling to compromise? Who do they think they are? Gods?

203.122.215.44 16:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A message for User:WCityMike

"Listen, Mike, yes, Slim Virgin is corrupt, and yes her actions are clear cut evidence of cabalism. But you cannot win this war. If you want to fight, do it in an appropriate place, somewhere where your actions can get you somewhere. Go to Wikipedia Review, where you will have a voice. The Arbitration Committee is going to side with Slim Virgin and ban you over this. You are not helping me out by reverting the comments. While it is amusing in a lot of ways, I don't want to see you get hurt. There is a reason why people sit on the sides and do nothing and allow this corruption to take place - it's because there are more important things for them to do with their lives. Wikipedia hates criticism, and will ban you for it. They'll say its disruption. Nice thoughts, but please back down". I hope that you read this before its wiped. 203.122.215.44 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another message for User:WCityMike

It was a good idea for you to drop the Arb Com case, because I think that Felonious Monk at least was keen to ban you over it, and behind the scenes likely Slim Virgin was too. I still don't understand why you included User:Bishonen in to the Arbitration though.

Note how speedily they "forgave" you though. This is very similar to what they did when User:Grace Note betrayed so many Wikipedia critics, and you should be very careful of them doing this. It is true that it is better to know your enemies. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know", as they say. But don't go too far with it. It would be a mistake for you to regularly communicate with the cabal. People like User:SlimVirgin are best ignored, or else responded to politely in a way that does not involve any more communication than absolutely necessary. Whether you are up against her, or on her side, she will use you to her advantage, and strip you of your individuality and force you to do her bidding, or else. It's not pleasant to be working for the devil. Just keep a safe distance. If you are her enemy, you will be banned. If you are her friend, you will be in hell. Just keep your distance. And anyone else in the cabal, for that matter. Just ignore them. We have to deal with them to some extent, but seriously, they are untouchable.

I obviously didn't like what you said, and how you implied acceptance that I was somehow a "bad" user. Slim Virgin is lying her heart out. She has wiped many things from history which proves her wrong, and continues to wipe them so as to push forward a lie. There was no community hatred of me. Most people here liked me, and I was even nominated for adminship. There were protests at my ban, both from admins and regular level users. The only one who wanted me banned was User:Ambi and the ban was over User:Zordrac/Poetlister and the corruption that that exposed in relation to User:Kelly Martin (which led to the userbox wars) and User:SlimVirgin - the person who was pushing Kelly Martin. Remember the userbox wars? Remember the furore over Kelly Martin? That was all Slim Virgin power tripping. That's the person you are dealing with. And I was someone who stood up to that, and I, along with everyone else who tried to expose the truth of it, was banned. They gave excuses for it, of course, but that was ultimately the reason. Look at User:Bonaparte, User:Mistress Selina Kyle, User:Dschor and while the ban was lifted, also User:SPUI. User:God of war too to some extent, and of course User:Karmafist was de-sysopped over it.

There was no community consensus for this. If you asked the community, they'd have banned Slim Virgin over it. Think twice before accepting her lies. 203.122.215.44 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/3/User_talk%7E203.122.215.44.html"