User talk:12.207.12.28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 12.207.12.28, is registered to AT&T WorldNet, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


Contents

[edit] June 2007

With regards to your comments on User Talk:Pigsonthewing: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. mcr616 Speak! 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User Talk:Mcr616, you will be blocked from editing. mcr616 Speak! 16:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User Talk:Pigsonthewing. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Horologium t-c 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

Your comments directed toward User:Pigsonthewing constitute personal attacks and harassment. Your removing reports concerning yourself from WP:AIV is unacceptable behavior, as is calling another user a vandal for blanking your intemperate posts. If you engage in any more of this sort of conduct, I will block this account for a substantial period of time without further warning. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was illegitimately placed on AIV. I hadn't been warned. I removed myself and left the appropriate message on the talk page of those who relisted me that it was inappropriate to list someone on AIV who hasn't had any warning. It was all proper, and those warning hardly constitute harassment. If you're going to go around bandying threats of blocks for "substantial periods of time without further warning," perhaps you should learn Wikipedia policy first. 12.207.12.28 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What's your purpose for being on WP? What is it, exactly, that you plan to do to improve the site? So far, your only edits have been to harass other users. So how do you plan to contribute to Wikipedia constructively? LaraLoveT/C 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't need to justify my presence on WP to you. You'll see what I plan to do to improve this site once I've done it, like everyone else. 12.207.12.28 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage guidelines

It is inappropriate to tag a userpage for deletion based on "not notable". Userpages are permitted to contain personal information about the user. I suggest you read wikipedia guidelines before attempting to enforce them. LaraLoveT/C 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "wasn't warned before being listed on AIV, no evidence I'm a sockpuppet, didn't harass "multiple" editors, just maybe one (although I contest that), editing while anonymous isn't enough to justify a block... no really, if I'm being blocked for sockpuppetry (see block log), where are my other puppets? wasn't warned before being listed on AIV, no evidence I'm a sockpuppet, didn't harass "multiple" editors, just maybe one (although I contest that), editing while anonymous isn't enough to justify a block..."

Decline reason: "This account has engaged today in a persistent series of harassing actions and personal attacks, and the rationale offered for requesting unblocking is completely unpersuasive. Unblock denied. Newyorkbrad 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "No, really, not a sockpuppet (of who?!), and I'd like my unblock request to be reviewed by someone uninvolved (i.e. not Newyorkbrad.) KTHNX!"

Decline reason: "Just wait for the block to expire. You have multiple warnings from multiple people in a very short period of time. Please read them, and learn from it :) Regards —— Eagle101Need help? 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "A week block for leaving one harassing userpage comment? It seems pretty exessive. Anyhow, my roommate wants me to ask if this can be turned into a anonymous-only block, so he can still edit under his username. We share a NAT."

Decline reason: "This is severely doubtful. Someone on this IP was being disruptive, and we do not differentiate between the original violator of policy and someone who simply claims to be unjustly affected by the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I was not the blocking administrator, but I have no objection to another admin reviewing the block. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the poster of the Final Warning above, you are clearly involved. I never contended that you were the blocking administrator. I would like the block reviewed by someone uninvolved. 12.207.12.28 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that Eagle101 has already provided an additional review and decline of the block (apparently overwritten in the user's posting the current unblock request). Newyorkbrad 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Harassment of User:Christopher Skinner, User talk:Pigsonthewing, and User talk:Mcr616. All posts are acts of vandalism and corrections to said acts of vandalism. Warned four times, then blocked. LaraLoveT/C 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Christopher Skinner, please WP:AGF. I can't really excuse the tone of my post on User talk:Pigsonthewing, but I hold that the point is valid. The warning I put on User:Mcr616's page was and is valid: he re-listed me on WP:AIV even though I hadn't been properly warned. Regardless, I was blocked for sockpuppetry, and that's clearly not the case. And those four warnings all came in the course of like three minutes, and I didn't edit after being warned. There is no justification for a block here. 12.207.12.28 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're not a sockpuppet, how is it that you, on your first day of editing, feel inclined to call someone out for months of behavior and attempt to enforce policies? Regardless of whether or not you are a sockpuppet, you have engaged in inappropriate behavior including harassing other users on their talk pages and biting newbies. LaraLoveT/C 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as your warnings, the fact that your edits were being removed with vandalism cited in the edit summary should have been a tip off to you that you were acting inappropriately. The fact that you continued to restore information repeatedly after it's removal shows your complete disregard for others. LaraLoveT/C 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to WP:AGF on the Christopher Skinner thing. I didn't realize it was a talk page when it came up on Recent Changes. It needs a tag warning that it's not an encyclopedia article, though. If I am a sock puppet, the onus is on you to demonstrate what other accounts I've edited under. The truth is, I'm an editor without an account, but with a Dynamic IP. Sorry, but it's allowed. The fact that the edit summaries of other people reverting me called them vandalism does not constitute a warning; I didn't even see those edit summaries until now. I was still never warned properly before being blocked. Finally, you need to learn to indent your posts. 12.207.12.28 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Your were warned FOUR TIMES before you were blocked, and you're still harassing people. Come back to Wikipedia when you grow up. mcr616 Speak! 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I went from unwarned to blocked in the time it took me to go outside and smoke a cigarette. I never even saw them! What's the point of having warnings if you're not going to be using them? If we're just banning people based on stuff we JUST MADE UP (btw, have I mentioned that no one has yet been able to show that I'm actually a sock-puppet?), I think you and LaraLove should be blocked for an INABILITY TO INDENT COMMENTS ON TALK PAGES PROPERLY! Come back to Wikipedia when you learn to use the ':' key. 12.207.12.28 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Now this is extremely rude. I bet you know where I'd like you to put the ':' key, but w/e. I agree that no one has shown you're a sock puppet, and I just asked the blocking sysop to clarify. I did warn you when you attacked pigsonthewing, and again when you added unnecessary warnings to my page. After you continued to attack other people and add more ridiculous warnings to my talk page, I reported you to AIV. You're misusing the warnings, and you're attacking other people. You're acting like you have the maturity of a toddler. Come back when you can talk to people without attacking them. mcr616 Speak! 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm against a staircase of indents that ends up in a narrow column of text. I could use (unindent), but I, apparently, wrongly assumed you could keep up with the conversation regardless of indentation of comments. Furthermore, I didn't feel like it. Past that, you have shown nothing whatsoever to give anyone the impression that you plan (or have the capability) to contribute constructively. Your "knowledge" (I use that loosely) of policy suggests sockpuppetry, apparently, but that was only part of your ban. Even without proof of it, you've still harassed a minimum of two users. LaraLoveT/C 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've harassed one user. You are harassing me. If you're not here to remove my unwaranted block, please just go away. I'm sure you can think of better things to do with your time; perhaps read up on what does and does not constitute sockpuppetry? WP:SOCK, if you're interested. 12.207.12.28 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole dialog here is probably reaching diminishing returns. This page is now in CAT:RFU, so another admin should be by to provide a further review of the block. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't really see the point of arguing with this person anymore. mcr616 Speak! 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But you do see the point in childishly fucking up the formatting on my talk page? Now you're a vandal too! Re: your edit summary- How can I possibly be harassing you? I'm blocked, for chrissake. 12.207.12.28 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, if you have to curse at me, then go right ahead. I'm not "fucking up" up the format on your page. If I wanted my comments to be indented, I would indent the comments. Please don't modify my posts. You are still harassing me on this talk page, just take a look at your comments. I've tried to be nice and civil, but this is the end. I don't know what your problem is, or why you are singling Christopher Skinner, pigsonawing, and I out, but it's time to stop. This is why you weren't unblocked. mcr616 Speak! 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look! You modify other people's posts too. And not just the formating, you remove completely valid warnings from your talk page. Anyway, I'm not harassing you; you're harassing me. Everytime you leave another snippy comment, I'm the one who gets a big orange box at the top of every WP page. Just go away and let some unbiased admin review the block, kay? You're starting to get on my nerves. 12.207.12.28 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, look! You're the one who left inappropriate comments on my talk page! Thats why I removed them. In no way am I out to get you. Every time, I leave a snippy comment (which by my count was about 2 times), I've apologized to you. I mean, come on, this is an encyclopedia. We're all here to make it better. People shouldn't be attacking each other. I'm sorry that you were offended by my comments. mcr616 Speak!
Um, if you intended to make that "Hey, look!" a link to a diff of me putting inappropriate comments on your talk page, you should try again. But I don't think you can actually back that one up, seeing as it never even happened. When my block is lifted, I'm filing an RfC against you. 12.207.12.28 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you're not. It would be frivolous, and if you file any such thing I will delete it summarily. However, I do ask mcr616 not to post again to this page, please. Newyorkbrad 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Kay, and then I'll refile it listing you, too. 12.207.12.28 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I apologize to the IP for upsetting him/ her. mcr616 Speak! 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Have a great afternoon. 12.207.12.28 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)