User talk:84.13.156.208

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vintagekits

Hello. New editors don't typically turn up and immediately contribute to unblock discussions. This strongly suggests you are an editors with a history of interaction with Vk. While you have the right to editing anonymously if you wish, considering the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for Vk to decline to interact with you.

Added later - after the revert storm by Vintagekits has subsided: M62 coach bombing and I didn't just show up. Because of my job, I take a professional interest in terrorism articles and lurk on many pages - and edit using one non-IP account. When I saw the team editing by Brixton Busters, Domer48, Vintagekits, Padraig, Theoldantichrist and two other editors clearly pushing a single minded agenda and not adhering to NPOV, I decided to make an edit. Before making that edit I saw that another editor had originally introduced their agenda by editing in a particularly stupid and biassed way. That editor was Vintagekits. Imagine my surprise when I checked out who he was. This is a guy that can dish it out but can't take it. He's got multiple socks is very uncivil and revert wars constantly. And yet nobody dares take him to an arbcom because they gnow the rest of the team will gang up on them. And boy did I prove that. I'm just glad that I skittered and anonimized before the gang descended on me.84.13.156.208 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated quite clearly that I was not a new editor and had been harassed by political extermists before. I don't want my auto burglarised again. And I do appreciate that things are different here in Europe from back home. Bit wiki's sedrvers are hosted in FL so my amendment rights are still protected under US law. I'm a comms specialist so it's part of my job to know that, ,unlike the U.S., under European Union law, IP Addresses are considered to be personal data as defined by article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC "'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity; " Also see Directive 2006/24/EC.
In association with time codes, IP Addressing information will always identify unique ISP account holders unless there is translation of that information - which is why I have employed skittering to protect my anonymity84.13.156.208 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Your query about Arbcom has been addressed and Vk is now unblocked, so the point is perhaps moot. If there is anything else you would like to say on the subject, then feel free to do so on my talkpage, but please obey Vk's wishes to stop editing on his talk page. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to - but it seems you are determined to protect these terrorists - I find I can't edit on your page84.13.156.208 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a disgraceful attack, by an editor who recently was warned about such attacks. Brixton Busters 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not me pal. But go right ahead with your fishing. I've skittered to the largest ISP in England so you won't get any joy there84.13.156.208 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You can't edit on my page because you are blocked currently. As I have stated a number of times, you have a right to your anonymity, you do not have a right to attack other editors on any page you choose. If you want to bring Vk to ArbCom, then you can do so (once your block expires). However, I see no need to go through the process. I have already blocked Vk previously, should he revert to old habits, I will not hesitate to do so again, and next time indefinite will mean infinite. Vk is aware of this, so the problem will be solved one way or the other. My strong advice to you, though, is to take a long look at your own behaviour before criticising others. Rockpocket 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletions

You are right we all have to obey the same rules. So do not delete my comments from someone else's talk page, SqueakBox 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. Please stop now or I will take action to stop you from continuing to harass Vk. He has made it very clear he does not wish to continue this discussion with you. Rockpocket 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 hour in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit warring on another editors talkpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Why is it edit warring by me to ask civil and pertinent questions?

Why have you now even censored the whole history of several weeks of contributions on Vintagekits talk page?

Is it because the history would show that I have not harassed anyone?

I think that you misunderstand your job here on Wikipedia, which is essentially to help ensure that editors may write an encyclopedia without enduring disruption and bad faith edits from Single Purpose Accounts and those that do not have a neutral and unbiassed outlook whatever the color of their passport

Thank you for your concern. With all due respect, I'm not sure its the best idea to take advice on how to be an administrator from someone who has yet to learn to sign their comments with four tiles ~~~~. Moreover, I have not deleted anything from Vintagekits talkpage other than your last comment. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
Finally, its interesting you mention Single Purpose Accounts, because your contributions do not appear to cover much editing space, [1] what exactly is the purpose of your interaction with Vk? Rockpocket 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As I made very clear earlier, I am not a new editor.
I am very sorry for not signing. I did not realise that I had that facility on an anonymous account - I've never posted from an IP address before. Now does this work84.13.156.208 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be persistent but why is it edit warring by me to ask civil and pertinent questions?

Why have you now even censored the whole history of several weeks of contributions on Vintagekits talk page?84.13.156.208 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

It has been made clear to you above that you are not welcome to post on User talk:Vintagekits. This is a delicate situation and your contributions have been distinctly unhelpful. You have already been blocked for 1 hour and promised to desist. You have now restored a previously deleted post to that page.[2] This block is for 24 hours. If you continue this behaviour you are likely to be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. You have stated you previously edited under a different ID: if you operate another account to circumvent this block, then the length of the block will be extended (for both/all accounts). Tyrenius 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Vintagekits

Hello. New editors don't typically turn up and immediately contribute to unblock discussions. This strongly suggests you are an editors with a history of interaction with Vk. While you have the right to editing anonymously if you wish, considering the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for Vk to decline to interact with you.

Your query about Arbcom has been addressed and Vk is now unblocked, so the point is perhaps moot. If there is anything else you would like to say on the subject, then feel free to do so on my talkpage, but please obey Vk's wishes to stop editing on his talk page. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello.
But I am not a new editor.
Where editors wish to contribute anonymously and have a good reason (eg: harassment) they are permitted, provided they are civil, to do so.
Why does Vkits get this extreme level of censorship permission?
Why does he not wish to communicate with me?
I don't know why Vk chooses not to communicate with you, perhaps its because he believes you are someone who has previously been in conflict with him. I don't care who you are, and you have every right to remain anonymous. But Vk can remove whatever he wishes from his talkpage. You do not have the right to continue to revert his page when he (and others) have made it clear your comments are not welcome. That is edit warring and bordering on harrassment. If you have something to say to Vk, do so here and I will draw his attention to it. If he chooses to interact with you, then fine, otherwise you will just have to accept he doesn't wish to communicate with you. Rockpocket 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You say "revert his page" but that is being imprecise. I tried each time to restore the questions I was asking of him. And those questions were not harassing. They were simple questions like why he does not wish to communicate and censors the remarks of others. Surely our First Amendment rights count for something even when we are posted overseas?
Germans don't have First Amendment rights. Brixton Busters 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me be clear. Wikipedia is not an extension of American soil, therefore the US Consitution does not apply. We do not have a constitutional freedom of expression here. Secondly let me draw your attention to the text at the top of Vk's talkpage

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of User:SirFozzie or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that User:Vintagekits has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.

This permission is currently available to all editors. By continually restating a question when Vk indicated he did not wish to communicate with you, your actions were becoming disruptive which was why I blocked you. Is this clear? Rockpocket 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It is now. But that text in italics above wasn't there when I posted before. You can't see it now because you have airbrushed out the history of the dits on Vintagekiss page. And you're wrong on my rights - it's where the servers are housed that counts so FL law applies. However, all I ask is that you retired insurgents play nice and according to the rules.84.13.156.208 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That is another disgusting attack. Brixton Busters 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, it has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia is an extension of US soil. Even if Wikipedia were a real, tangible, physical location in the US where people go to collaborate on composition of an encyclopedia, the first amendment would still not apply. The limiting of speech on Wikipedia in certain circumstances such as harassment is an action imposed by the community, board, etc., *not* the government.
(I haven't really followed the situation here; please don't take that to mean that I believe such conduct has occurred; Also, if government regulation were somehow a component of the policy decision you still don't have any standing because the government would regulating either 1) Wikipedia, and you have no standing to force Wikipedia to contest the regulation or 2) if you are contributing from the US the government might be directly regulating you, in which case you need to take it up with the regulating entity not Wikipedia)
The first amendment applies only to government regulation not regulation by private citizens with respect to their own property. (In this context, WMF is a private citizen and Wikipedia is it's property.) (I see this IP is registered in the UK. My guess is that, If you are contributing from the UK than their laws will also apply to you but not to Wikipedia. btw, IANAL, feel free to correct me if I've goofed) --Jeremyb 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you've mentioned admin actions that were taken several times and said that you don't know who did them. They are all logged. Take a look at Special:Log --Jeremyb 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
See, for example, User talk:Vintagekits deletion log and Wikipedia:Sandbox deletion log. Note that the Sandbox log shows deletions and restorations but the talk page log shows no activity. --Jeremyb 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This IP I've skittered to is in England. And I'm overseas in Europe so, unless I'm on base, European law applies. On base, US Federal Law applies to civilians and I'm not stating whether I'm civilian or enlisted. I don't know if you're right or wrong about censorship legally - but it seems kinda freaky that these insurgent sympathisers can spread their hate and twist the truth but I get blocked when I ask perfectly civil and reasonable questions. Just my point of view.
I'll go and look at those logs now. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?84.13.156.208 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletions

You are right we all have to obey the same rules. So do not delete my comments from someone else's talk page, SqueakBox 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake for which I humbly apologise.
It was not deliberate but accidental when huge chunks of your comments (and those of other editors were deleted). I am surprised that you do not deprecate blanking user pages and selectively (and intentionally) removing comments from other editors.
I think its important we give VK another chance. And absolutely vital that we dont wind him up in these first hours of freedom, SqueakBox 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry. I did not realise he had been jailed. I will stop at once.84.13.156.208 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
lol, I know Sarah77 (a militant if ever there was one) said release VK but come one, we also know wikipedia can never quit us of our comfortable lifestyles, your comment appears like trolling, ,SqueakBox 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Vintagekits history restored

Thanks for restoring the history, Rockpocket - at least I assume it was you. I'm on stag tomorrow so I've got to scoot now. Chat tomorrow. Is there a particular IP you'd like me to choose or can I just keep this one?84.13.156.208 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vintagekits & MrDarcy

Hi there. Will you please stop goading the guy now? A number of people have now requested that you stop. He's already on a difficult parole and your baiting of him[3] isn't helping - Alison ☺ 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison! I don't want to goad anyone. I'd just like the rules followed. Are you another one of the insurgent team or an independent editor?
If you go way back to my first comments, I asked the simple question: why no Arbcom? (My conclusion was that everybody was too scared of the team of insurgent sympathisers to do anything about their consistently biassed editing and harassment of other users). This was confirmed by what happened to my good friend: User_talk:MrDarcy. How many good editors have to be driven off by this incivil team of bullies and Single Purpose Accounts before people get some nerve and stand up to them?84.13.156.208 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

It has been made clear to you above that you are not welcome to post on User talk:Vintagekits. This is a delicate situation and your contributions have been distinctly unhelpful. You have already been blocked for 1 hour and promised to desist. You have now restored a previously deleted post to that page.[4] This block is for 24 hours. If you continue this behaviour you are likely to be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. You have stated that you previously edited under a different ID: if you use another ID to circumvent this block, then it will be extended for both/all accounts involved. Tyrenius 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Tyrenius

Wow! This is even worse than I thought. <personal attack removed by Rockpocket>. What's this lie about my post on your block template, Ty? I've only attempted to do 2 reasonable things on your comrade's talk page:

1) restore comments that Vkits deleted so as not to show others the truth about his "reformed" behaviour

2) add my sig - I didn't know I could sign when I post as an IP.

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful?

How can a set of numbers (my sig) be harassment? And what is it about my deleted comments exactly that make them harassing?

84.13.156.208

I've just checked up on you, Ty. Sorry I didn't do my research before. Hope you'll take the same attitude:

"I was asked to respond to this edit by User:Vintagekits, in which he writes, "More Arbuthnot lies!" In my opinion this is one of those issues that comes up when a Wikipedia editor is also a source. It is not generally permissible for an editor to call another editor a liar. However it is permissible for an editor to call the author of a source a liar. In this instance "user:Kittybrewster" is not being addressed but rather the author "William Arbuthnot". So long as the distinction is maintained it is permissible. An author can't expect to be exempt from criticism of his reference material just because he is a Wikipedia editor. That said, I again call upon Vintagekits and Kittybrewster to disengage from this unhelpful dispute. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vk didn't directly call anyone a liar, but he is sailing close to the WP:BLP wind, nevertheless. Tyrenius 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

Cripes! There's even more of them. 'cos I then read: "Absolutely disgraceful block. Not well considered at all. Kittybrewster is violating WP:COI (editing articles about family members anyone?) and "enhancing their notability" (hmm.. sounds like the word that got Kittybrewster to email an admin to block Vintagekits, there, doesn't it?) and slandering Vintagekits left and right, and yet Vintagekits is the one blocked? I'll say it again, absolutely disgraceful block. SirFozzie 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)" And this is the guy assigned to be Vkit's Parole Officer?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.156.208 (talk • contribs).

84. This isn't a game you are going to win. When you come back from your block, you will not:
  • Continue to post questions or comments on Vk's talkpage unless it is directly relevent to an edit he made to an article.
  • Refer to any other editor as an insurgent.
Please either take the time to fully read an understand our guidelines and policies (including WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:HARASS, WP:USER, WP:AGF and WP:NOT) or else take heed of what an administrator or experienced editors tells you what is, and is not permitted. The fact that 4 different editors have all considered your comments to be harrassment should tell you something. Any further repeat of the incidents for which you have been blocked already will likely result in an indefinite block. Rockpocket 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The other editors didn't get a chance to read the sequence of posts in context - cos my posts were censored and I was blocked to fast. I think the way to do this is to get my guys in sigint to fish out a little dirt.
You think the newspapers won't be interested in my automobile and an "attempted suicide"? You guys just don't learn - you need to do some checking-up on exactly who you appoint as admins.
Now I'll give you a little challenge: tell me who I should be next time? An admin perhaps? Or a bureaucrat? 84.13.156.208
Your off-wiki issues have no place here. If you have reason to believe a Wikipedian has committed a criminal act against you, then contact the police and refer them to WP:OFFICE. Since your responses are becoming more troll-like, not to mention sinister (SIGINT?). I am no longer interested in discussing the issue with you. Rockpocket 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You have stated, "I think the way to do this is to get my guys in sigint to fish out a little dirt" SIGINT. The implication of this is that you intend to find and reveal personal information about users. Kindly withdraw this threat. If you don't, your block will be extended, until such time as you do. Tyrenius 03:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)