User talk:68.44.255.244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been blocked because you are apparently the same editor as user:130.94.121.241, who was blcoked for violating our WP:3RR policy. If you can follow our policies and guidelines and make productive controibutions in a collaborative, NPOV manner then you are welcome to return to editing after your block expires. -Willmcw 21:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


Please do not use multiple IP accounts to evade our rules about editing articles. It appears likely that you are the same editor as user:FanofJR. Repeated attempts like this could result in a permanent block on these IP addresses. -Willmcw 00:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] username

CARM-ite or "Very Interested and Concerned Parties"- Get a username. There are a number of IP addresses which appear to be the same user. They also appear to have been used to evade the 3RR and other policies. If the IPs continue to be used without identification of the them as being used by a single person, then I will regard them as fraudulent attempts to evade our policies. -Willmcw 00:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Ganjaman

I do not understand why THOUSANDS of people are discriminated against... I have been blocked even though I have never been to this website before. I do not have comcast and I am not from New Jersey or Penn..... Why should I or anyone who is using a non-stagnant ip contribute to this website when people who have no clue or choose to have no clue make arbitrary decisions based on ignorance and then blather on showing their ignorance or lack of understanding as "PROOF" that somehow they were right and the person they were talking to knows this and "admits" it! "Get it together, make it right...You ain't gonna need anymore advice" Steve Stills wrote that YEARS ago but perhaps YOU should heed it now!

[edit] The Matt Slick article

There happens to be a small group of us all using COMCAST cable which is just about the entire EAST Coast that you plan to block. If you block all of COMCAST users you will block half the country using this ISP. :o) There are a group of us linked through comcast, now I do wonder how you plan to handle blocking the three different users with internet cable using COMCAST accounts? As for frauds, and liars that should not be editing on Wikipedia? We are documenting every bit of this article and the fact that the edit of this wikipedia article has been turned over to a group pushing their propaganda with their POV edits being permitted. I found other users, a Lillian, that also tried to edit... You have ignored the rules of Wikipedia Mr. Willmcw, it is documented time and again in the discussion and history that you handed this over to hyperbole who is known to participate in a CARM 'hate'site and is using this web article to defame Mr. Slick. Any idiot can see that your bias is hanging out and that the propaganda a.a.r.m. posters are using this article and they are using you..... I hope it is worth it to you.

On review I see that you are a part of a different pool of IPs, from a different ISP, than the problem user. My apologies. -Willmcw 07:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


Just to keep everything straight, this is an IP used by user:Peggy Sue. -Willmcw 01:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


Ps....see this from below, several users can use this IP as stated below in the guidelines...."Such an IP address can be shared by several users."

Yes, but I also use an AOL account as well as my sister. My sister Interested Party and I use the same ISP and computer cable company, and Tom husband uses also this one if home, or his work IP. I am no longer going to sign in or login as Peggy, the reason, we all get blocked if using comcast. I will use ONLY this number or the AOL account. Tom will sign in and in the future I will not use my sisters's login as Interested Party that we have shared in the past. We did not want to give out our names to the group of aarm people. We were NOT trying to deceive the admins here, but the aarm and hate websites. I will sign my entries with my name as peggy, but not login, and I will tell Interested P. and Tom to be sure to login. Um, Tom isn't great at typing,:) as you can see with his post yesterday, so I did type for him as obviously we are agreeing on our edits. If we are all going to be considered one person, then we will not bother to login.;-)

Another PS, Interested Party has another ISP similar to this, but not this exact number, because of Comcast, my sister's number is slightly different. I do wonder how we will avoid that problem. But hopefully it won't be necessary if we get some unbiased help on this article and get all the nonsense chatrooms, blogs and ridiculous comments from discussion boards it will stop to the edits. Irmgard did remove all the nonsense but now it is back again, unfortunately.....

Thanks you for admitting that you were sharing an identity in the past, but your logic is backward.

IS THIS PERSON RETARDED??? HELLO??? Your BACKWARD is LOGIC!! Stop using it and LISTEN!!


Please do not allow anyone else to use your account, and please do not use anyone else's account, including typing for them. By signing in instead of simply editing unregistered you make it clear who you are and that you take responsibility for your edits. If several users are using the same IP there is no way to differentiate them. It was the failure to responsibly keep your identities separate that led to your previous short-term block. Please don't try to deceive anyone here. We have been very patient but there is a limit. -Willmcw 01:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS, yes, several users may be sharing an IP, be they may be treated as a single person for the pruposes of the 3RR, etc. -Willmcw 01:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The solution is for each of you to use your usernames and avoid the type of edit warring that makes other users care about how you are editing. -W.

Hello! Are you paying attention to anything I say or write? No one attempted to deceive here. That is a false accusation. Go read again what is listed above and several other times, that we are a group of INTERESTED PARTIES, we announced it several times with NO attempt to deceive anyone. It is stated PLAINLY in the discussion and history that we were several people posting as a group, which IS permitted in the guidelines, shall I post it here. You told us to get a sign on name and it is not necessary. On 3 reverts, we may each revert three times as a group, we were blocked and should not have been. Each of the three of us gets three reverts, you gave us three for three people, and you did not apply the rule correctly. Here is what rule says: "This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct."

The three of us are still THREE people no matter which account we use and each number, account is entitled to 3 reverts. Again, no one deceived or attempted to deceive, we are entitled to three each account, we announced it several times in discussion we were a group....

Go to the three revert rule and it is stated that a group may post with the same IP as state below on this page, we announced ON the discussion that we were a group, we did NOT sign in till you told us to, and it turns out we do not have to, as groups ARE permitted to post, edit in the articles with the same IP.

Unfortunately, since you are not consistently signing in, there is no way of telling who is doing what. You do not get to pool your reverts, they are per-person. I'll treat the unregistered IPs all as one person, and give a long-term block to any which appear to be used to evade our three revert rule. Sing in every time and there won't be this problem. -Willmcw 06:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Posted also on discussion: Urbie has had six edits, hyperbole is LYING in the text to history. " To Willwmc: List here a link to your talk please so that we can confirm our idenities per phone. Hyperbole is lying in the history. Tom, Peggy, Interested Party, will give you our phone numbers to discuss the edits, and we told you they were slanderers on the board and is why we were originally using only Interested Parties to sign. Now we ask that you remove the false accusations from the history of hyperbole, as we will give you our numbers and ask to speak with you on the phone in order to PROVE he is lying. 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Peggy Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Slick" If I sign in as Peggy, then he accuses us of being the same person. I want you to deal with the personal attacks of hyperbole. I will sign in as Peggy ONLY if you post to hyperbole that we each have different IP's, yes we are all from NJ. Is that a crime? We are individuals.00:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing games, talking on the telephone, or proving that anyone is lying. I am interested in achieving NPOV, comprehenisve, concise articles that summarize verifiable sources. I am interested in seeing editors working together collegially and with consensus. -Willmcw 00:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am an administrator and supervise 20 moderators daily, we too are interested in an article that is NPOV, we have enclosed criticisms, the guidelines and we have been forced to fight daily to have the wacko websites and discussion boards removed which should not have been permitted from the beginning, having given you the rules many, many times that the aarm posters were using this article, you have fought us all the way. Another wiki admin has informed you that blogs and discussion boards are inappropriate and yet hyperbole now can still put the boards back in, can accuse us of being the same person, we have been blocked, has he, or urbie that did six edits today. There would have not been any edit wars, if you had simply read the guidelines given and not permitted the aarm posters to disobey the rules to the propaganda war. I would be willing to talk with your supervisor about this on the phone. WE want a NPOV article, discussion boards do not belong, WHEN are you going to stop hyperbole and his friends from linking to chat rooms and WHEN are you going to block their edits or will you only block us?00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I will login as peggy from now on...however,

be aware that 68.44.255.244 is the IP for peggy Sue

Interested party has a different IP 68 but different ending Tom S has a different IP from Pennsylvania and NJ, we are not going to be penalized any longer as one person. If we sign in with different user names and accounts, we do NOT want to be blocked to all three. You don't block all those on the PRO-aarm group, so be fair to us. If we use our names, we are separate people. Again, remember we offered to each give you a phone number to discuss our accounts and expect we will be treated fairly from this time forward.68.44.255.244 01:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Peggy Sue

It is now SEPT 5 and I am NOT peggy sue Whats going on? I am NOT with COMCAST but somehow "I" am lumped in with this? How will getting a username help? The user will just be accused of setting up multiple usernames with the same IP! [[unsigned comment by user:130.94.121.241

It's confusing alright. Why are you writing to this talk page?. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.44.255.244.html"