User talk:69.46.20.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies is currently prohibited. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.


Hi, I don't think appealing to very narrow interpretation of rules and policies is going to help. I also think that there are editors out to keep Merecat banned (Nescio and RyanF for two) which is unfair, but is not helped by Merecat's continued behavior (suspected posting from IP addresses such as this one, etc.) And the continued coyness (referring to Merecat in the third person) is also off-putting, even though I am doing it too since none of the IPs has admitted to being Merecat.

Suppose Merecat edited anonymously from some Texas IPs, and then created the Merecat account because he was tired of being reverted as an IP vandal and wanted the credibility of a user name. That's no problem at all and shouldn't count against him. Unfortunately, Merecat couldn't contain his passions regarding the Rationales AfD and exposed himself as the Anon Texan. Even if no one had created "Anon Texan" as a tracking mechanism, the fact that three Dallas IPs jumped up to continue the talk page spamming would be a significant strike against Merecat.

Suppose Rex moved from Connecticut to Texas and decided to open a new account, having learned his lesson. That's fine too, and even encouraged by Arbcom member Mindspillage. Unfortunately, Merecat's passion over Rationales gave his opponents an excuse to run a checkuser and link him to Rex. Even though Merecat's edits to John Kerry were not disruptive, by admission of one of his opponents, they violated Rex's parole and gave people yet another reason to ban Merecat.

The continued comments on the case by IP users gives people the further impression that Merecat is more interested in being disruptive than in contributing to the encyclopedia. He may feel that certain aspects of the case were out of process, but the situation is what it is, and only important question is what to do next.

My recommendation to Merecat would be to admit to whichever allegations are true--that he used to be Rex, that he has edited from certain IP addresses. Apologize for spamming the third Afd after it was clear from Nescio's block (for spamming the second Afd) that such wouldn't be tolerated. State that he prefers to keep the Merecat account rather than the Rex account. Agree to only use one account (no more IPs) and agree to adhere to Rex's arbcom rulings. If he can get an admin to unblock him under those conditions, I would ask the same admin to replace the sockpuppet tags with a notice, "this account has been used in the past by Merecat but Merecat isn't using it any more) and to tag the Rex account "This user now uses the account Merecat and agrees to abide by all rulings and restrictions previously placed on Rex". If he can't find an admin to do it he can appeal to Arbcom by opening a new case following the example of Saladin1970.

Making the admissions and agreeing to be bound by Rex's restrictions would go a long way toward demonstrating good faith, learning lessons, agreeing to abide by community rules, etc. If under those circumstance Merecat is productive and civil and is still stalked by others, that will tend to show them in the bad light that maybe they deserved all along (but Merecat was so busy drawing attention to himself that obscured their acts).

On the other hand making those admissions and apologies might be difficult, in which case the best tack would be to abandon Merecat and open a new account. I'm afraid that continuing to defend the Merecat account without being willing to make those apologies will only be seen as further disruptive behavior.

Just one man's opinion. Thatcher131 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you amend this fallacious statement? You are well aware that Merecat (talk • contribs) and Morton devonshire (talk • contribs) were votestacking the 2nd AfD, to which I responded. Leaving out the names of the principal offenders, and the crucial "responded," you are misleading the readers of this page.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing fallacious here. I was responding to this anon's comments on WP:ANI suggesting that Merecat has somehow been treated unfairly or that the checkuser that established Merecat was a reincarnation of Rex was somehow out of process. The blocks for vote-stacking the second AfD were suspended early due to the lack of prior warning, among other issues. (The fact that Merecat was missed is not really relevant, and the argument "they started it first" doesn't work past the age of 10. All the blocks in the second AfD were, in my opinion, wrong, because you shouldn't block someone for violating an unwritten rule without warning them first.) When Merecat started talk page spamming for the third AfD, the excuse that there was no prior warning didn't apply and he deserved the 24 hour block. By continung to spam from the IPs previously used by the "Anon Texan", he outed himself. If he had been able to contain himself for 24 hours (or had heeded the lesson of the second Afd), we would not have connected him to the Anon Texan; therefore the checkuser request that connected him to Rex would probably not have been made or been rejected as not sufficiently disruptive to justify. In other words he has only himself to blame. Hence my recommendation that if he wants to continue to use the Merecat account he ought to stop complaining about process and make some admissions and apologies as a show of good faith and willingness to reform/conform.
Based on subsequent events, it is not clear to me he is willing to take this route, however. Thatcher131 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am merely asking to tell the complete story. Feel free to say what you want about the rationale article, but include ALL parties in the debacle. My objection to these comments is that by leaving out important info you mislead the casual reader, coincidently that is exactly what was wong with the rationale nonsense: insisting in not telling the entire story. As to Merecat's behaviour, it sure looks like he is intend on disrupting instead of becoming a serious contributor. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This isnt a book, its not an article, its a statement from one user to another. It doesn't require the whole story, it requires what the user feels like saying. I will however take note of your rationale nonsense comment, its very interesting you feel that way. Nor does this user need to justify anything to you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [1] 69.46.20.59 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop your personal attacks Merecat. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [2] Now he is trying to removing the sockpuppet warning placed on the IP page. 69.46.20.59 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, fixing a link on another person's edit is not a sign of being that other person. I have done it many times. Secondly, a sockpuppet is another registered account owned by the same user. An IP address of a user is not a sockpuppet. Thirdly, if you don't want to get blocked, please stop trolling. AnnH ♫ 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You're definitely trolling now. I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.46.20.59.html"