User talk:213.113.121.42

ANI

Your ANI thread is closed. Something you started earlier was closed for trolling, you said--I might have done that here as well. Now stop disrupting please. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: No, it was closed for reasons that are, as yet, unexplained. That the relevant admins refuse to explain. Wanting to get explanations, wanting to have admins be accountable, wanting the rules to be followed, isn't trolling or disrupting ...and contacting the Arbitration Committee (now with you added to the mix), as is what I apparently should have done, isn't something you could possibly block, so...--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

...so, a needle pulling thread. Go for it. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally, events at ANI and other noticeboards are given consideration in inverse proportion to the shrillness, length and over-the-top-ness of the report. Perhaps going straight to 11 and demanding heads on spikes is a counterproductive way to make a point? Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't do much about the length. I have to include all important info, right? As to shrillness and being over-the-top... I don't really see how any of it, is any such thing.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

As I said after the close of your ANI thread, if you want to appeal your block, you will have to log in to your account and then make an appeal through WP:UTRS. If you continue using IPs to edit while under this block, your IPs will continue to be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What block evasion?

@Ivanvector:It's been more than two weeks since my two week ban, by User:Ched (which was replaced by a range ban, by you). How have I evaded a block, that has already lapsed? At no point, have I been told that I was banned, beyond that two week ban, on the 30:th of October. It appears that you have absolutely no respect for the rules ...but then again, that appears to be common, among Wikipedia admins, as my report to ANI (which apparently was the wrong place to file my report) makes clear.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I may be mistaken about your block being related to an account, then, but your first IP range remains blocked (85.228.48.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and you are evading that block by editing with this IP. Blocks apply to users, not to individual accounts nor IP addresses or ranges. If you want to appeal the original block, read WP:GAB and use this page since it is your current IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:When I click on the range you link to, the contribution I see are indeed mine (the ones by 85.228.52.168 and 85.228.52.251, from the 19:th of October, onwards) ...but as I've said: At no point have I been told that I was blocked for any longer than until the 13:th. Ever. I cannot possibly be accused of evading a block, when I have every reason to believe, that I am no longer blocked.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to investigate this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm unblocking all of the IPs that I've been able to identify that are related to this series of incidents, because the mediawiki software doesn't handle notifications to users of blocked IP ranges very transparently, and so it's reasonable that you understood that your block had expired. As a matter of accountability: you were blocked on 25 October; I won't try to speak for Bbb23 as to why. You did not respect that block but instead you used a different IP to evade that block, and so you were blocked by Sir Sputnik and again by Ched, and when I saw that you were (in my view) using many IPs in the same range to intentionally evade a block and hound other editors I blocked the entire range for three months, and when you continued "demanding answers" your talk page access was revoked. After you thought your original blocks had expired you found a new IP that was not in the range (this one) and posted your note at ANI which revealed that you are editing while the range block is still in effect, and so I blocked you again. But as I said, I am undoing all of those blocks - all of the current blocks are in my name and it is within my discretion to do so. If you happen to find yourself blocked again in the future and you believe it to be improper or in error, the proper process to appeal has been explained to you several times now and so it will not be looked upon leniently if you disregard that and evade the block instead.

If you want to pursue an arbitration case against Bbb23 you are free to do so, but I suggest you don't and devote your energy to creating content instead. All of the admins that were involved here have been acting in good faith and although mistakes have been made, admins are not expected to be perfect, and my advice is that a case request will be a disappointing and unproductive use of your time.

I apologize for the misunderstandings today. If you have any questions please feel free to post on my talk page, although I am logging off for the evening and am not often very active on Sundays. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I don't know you, but you seem to be a tight spot.

My recommendation: wait 48 hours, register an account, email Arbcom to let them know what your IPs were and mention Wikipedia:Clean start, edit some articles, and drop the dispute for now. You can always revisit this matter later, but you might as well be hitting your head against a brick wall right now for all the good it is going to do you for pursuing this report.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would I register to a site, when I have no trust in it? I'll contact the Committee, though. If that works, then I might think things can work. If not, then Wikipedia is lawless and irredeemable. Why register to a site that is clearly worthless? (also, I do have an account, where I've edited for years ...until I was hounded and just couldn't bear with the burden of assembling the the report, to report the guy. Writing a draft for it, would have to be the first thing I do, if I return. It's been years since, and I haven't done any serious Wikipedia editing since [just the occasional, very minor, anonymous edit ...such as the ones that I did, before I was blocked] ...but it seems that either Wikipedia has greatly change since then, or I was just lucky, back then)--213.113.121.42 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is substantially different now. Hounding as an issue is taken much more seriously than it once was. If you either returned under your old account or started a new one under clean start, you would not face the same issues as you had before. Were that not to be the case, I would fight tooth-and-nail to give you back that peace of mind. I don't mind challenging more established users on this site, but I am fortunate enough to be able to pick my battles.
I am happy to see that you have been unblocked. Wikipedia:IPs are human too seems to be more of an ideal than a reality for the most part. I know I try to be as helpful as possible to my IP compatriots, but as you have surely noticed that not everyone is as progressive as me in that regard (where differing levels of biases can come in play).
Best of luck to you in filing your arbcom report, if that is the route you choose to go down. I thoroughly read what you wrote at AN/I all the way through, and that report did reveal there were glaring problems in how you were ultimately treated that need to be addressed. My apologies that I am unable to help you further, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't face any problems, in regards to how hounding was treated, back then. It's just that the effort or compiling the report was too much, so I didn't manage to do so, much less file it. Hence I never actually went through the process. What I am referring to, in Wikipedia being different, is purely about what I have had to endure, now. I did participate in various discussions in talk pages and a few DRNs, when the discussions didn't work (the DRNs never failed, however), and never faced any severe problems. (whatever problems arose, were solved through sensible processes) Now, however... Anyway, thanks for your kind words. (which are very different from your first message) I'll be sending a revised report (some rewording and updates) to arbcom, tomorrow-ish. If it goes well, then it'll regain some of my trust in Wikipedia ..and might, at some point when I have more energy, return to my account. If not, however... I don't know that I see any reason to participate in a Wikipedia, where the only rule that is actually applicable, is "might makes right".--213.113.121.42 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason I am the way I am about this topic is because I've been through it before (and wouldn't really recommend it). My primary concern in all affairs is to keep people I like out of trouble if possible. I would like to see you maintain a healthy editing career on Wikipedia with a minimum amount of strife involved in such. In all things, no one particularly is fond of the person saying there is a problem even when it may be completely justified.
To give you some decent & cheap advice on Arbcom; when filing a case request, never prescribe an action that must be taken besides that the committee should accept the case for further review. Arbitration is a months-long process following the initial case request, so it is best to defer until later in the process all arguments beyond whether or not there is a problem.
Best of luck my friend, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be impossible for me to maintain a "healthy editing career with a minimum amount of strife involved in such", if thing like this are allowed to happen, nor is there any possible reason, for me to desire to participate, at all. As, and for the reasons, I have explained ...and looking at people who point out problems, in a negative manner, is deeply problematic. The knee-jerk rejection of any suggestion that one is (in any way) wrong, or the organization one is in could be wrong, is deeply arrogant, and completely counter to any form of progress or self-improvement ...and completely counter to the stated goals and mindset, of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. One should always be open to criticism. Personally, I also have the habit of always thanking anyone, who has shown me that I am wrong about something. Even if they have been (and typically still are) an idiot and/or arsehole, as has sometimes been the case. After all, not only have they taught me something, but they have, far more importantly, rid me of a misconception. Made me a better man.

Thank you for your advice. I'm not sure I'll fully follow it, but I'll take it into account, whilst writing the report.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

---