User talk:12.72.71.46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop wasting your own time. Nobody takes you seriously anyway. up+land 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I take your harassment of Uppland seriously enough to block you from editing if you revert his page one more time. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
One rule for Devilmaycares and another for up+land? —12.72.71.46 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might get taken a lot more seriously if you did anything but throw out last warnings, or took the time to build convincing evidence of wrongdoing. Just a word of advice. Luna Santin 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do give out more than last warnings. My ISP assigns a new IP number to me every time that I connect. Yes, I could show more of a history by logging-in, but that doesn't changing the fact that the presumption that I never do anything but throw out last warnings is grossly unreasonable. —12.72.71.46 20:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I checked Arbustoo's talk page history, and I didn't see anything but last warnings from a few different IP addresses. Feel free to get me a diff, if you can prove me wrong. Luna Santin 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, I've gotta head off to work. I'll check back here, or you can leave me a note on my talk page, if you'd like to continue this discussion. If you change IPs every time you reconnect, it might be better to centralize any discussion on my talk page, but I'll let that be your call. Luna Santin 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Not much more to be said: Admins here have behaved unreasonably, applied different rules to different editors, and libelled me. —12.72.71.46 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The last warnings on User talk:Arbusto came after — and were linked to — a gentler warning on the talk page for Diana Irey. If you're asking me for a sample of my edits elsewhere, then they would be stuff like
Again, with my ISP giving me a new IP number every time, you're typically only going to see a few edits associated with each IP number. —12.72.71.46 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This anon is a trolling WP:SPA messing mainly with two canidates for the election. I going to be requesting a block pretty soon. Arbusto 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that, even with the list of sample edits shown in the comment immediately prior to his, Arbusto sticks to the absurd claim that I'm a single-purpose account. But he has been accommodated to the point that it makes perffect sense for him to believe that he will be accommodated indefinitely. *shrug* —12.72.69.31 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
(Will post this to my talk page as well) Huh. Fair enough, there's more history here than I realized. If you're still interested in pursuing your complaints, I'd recommend taking a few moments to compose a good pile of evidence (mainly links to diffs, showing both abuse and warnings for abuse, and such), and then start a thread at AN/I. While AIV does tend to get a faster response, it's really not the best place for that sort of complaint -- we have a very narrow definition of vandalism, and while I can sympathize with you, it's not absolutely clear that he's acting with the intent to harm Wikipedia. He thinks he's doing the right thing, you think you're doing the right thing, there doesn't seem to be a truly clear-cut answer -- that's the exact sort of situation suited to ANI. Just my two cents. Good luck, either way. Luna Santin 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether I had other edits such as those was an irrelevancy, though. The only thing relevant was whether my account of his actions were accurate. The problem here is that Arbustoo broke the ostensible rules of the institution. Yes, there is a narrow definition of vandalism, but he did plainly cross it; for example,
I linked to this edit at AIV (where one is supposed to be brief), but the admin didn't even examine the evidence; he just baldly declared that Arbustoo was not a vandal. It would be one thing, if administrators, assessing his character, gave him a warning or a mere slap-on-the-wrist (in spite of giving at least one editor, Devilmaycares, a 48-hour block for doing the same thing). But, instead, the admins are completely waiving the rules (and even the invesitgation) for Arbustoo, and threatening me with blocks and personally attacking me for trying to get the rules followed. I have no reason to expect that at AN/I the very same clique is going to behave substantially better. —12.72.73.61 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing that Arbustoo has done seems to be vandalism to me. While the SPA template is normally used on deletion discussions to let closing-admins know, there is no vandalism in putting it elsewhere (not accomplishing something is not the same as vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism). Furthermore, when someone else removes a warning you should not give that person a warning in return -it more often than not means that one's original warning was not valid or unproductive. JoshuaZ 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As noted above,
That flagging was willful abuse of the tag. (But he guessed properly that admins wouldn't be bothered to check.) And removal of warnings has been declared to be vandalism for other users (such as Devilmaycares). —12.72.72.238 20:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)