User talk:212.200.205.163

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia. To acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utililize a vast array of editing tools

And your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing!

Crusio (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate very much your kind words and support on the ANI. Thanks again. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You wrote on User talk:Ludvikus "i would not make such generalizations about administrators, nor any other group of people. i did encounter a few decent ones, who base their decisions on reason, and not emotion."[1]

You wrote that in the past tense, which indicates that you were (but are no longer) an active editor. Have you ever had a user account on Wikipedia? If yes what was the name of that account? -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

what is this inquiry based on? you seem to not understand the sentence that i wrote. also, you may want to see this diff where i explain that i am editing wikipedia since 2003. [2] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This account is blocked for disruptive editing. The pattern of editing closely matches indef blocked Ludvikus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This account is likely a sock puppet, or it could be somebody with an agenda for POV pushing on Wikipedia who is indistinguishable from Ludivikus. Either way, the necessary response is the same. The continued involvement of this editor is harmful to the endeavor of writing an encyclopedia. Therefore, the account must be blocked. Administrators, please do not unblock without contacting me first. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

212.200.205.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

nonsenical "reason" for block. do the SPI if you think i'm a sock. no diffs of disruptive editing provided. no proof of WP:SOCK. no nothing.

Decline reason:

Per conversation below and general churlishness. -- Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

also, please point out to one or two diffs of my disruptive editing. don't talk out of thin air. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In determining the block I viewed your contribution history and saw that in total your contributions consisted of POV pushing, edit warring and trouble making.[3][4][5][6][7] Why did you jump in and ask for Ludvikus to be unblocked (even though he had not requested unblocking)?[8] Why did you suddenly attack Moreschi?[9] These are not sensible things for a totally uninvolved editor (as you claim to be) to do? Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (diffs added after the user's comments below, due to edit conflicts)

I can ask you same question, why did you jump in to block me and help Moreschi? are you sock of Moreschi? As for the POV pushing accusation, can you provide diffs? Also, what is a threshold for blocking. Subjective "POV pushing", or objective disruption? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See reductio ad absurdum#Legal and everyday use. As for criteria, had there been any substantial evidence of useful contributions from your account, I might not have blocked. I checked a selection of your contributions from start to finish and determined that you qualify as a disruption-only account. Combined with the fact that you appear to be a sock puppet account (there is no way to determine that beyond any doubt), the appropriate response was to prevent further editing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. you "checked a selection of your contributions" and yet don't provide a single diff. if Ludvikus is one country and i am another, can we be sock puppets. i assume he is NOT from serbia, and that SPI will show how seriously wrong you are. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if you are the same person, or if you are some other person carrying forward the same agenda of disrupting Wikipedia as Ludvikus. You are blocked for your edits. The appearance of a relationship to Ludvikus is an aggrevating factor, but it is not necessary to sustain the block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

o.k. so you redraw SP accusations from above, and now i can only focus on your disruption accusations and newly supplied diffs above. is that right? i'll reply to them in a minute, just to see what you linked to. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i see you have no case here. diffs speak for themselves, and i don't need to defend them. no disruption, but normal wiki editing process that involves discussion on talk pages. i think you exercised a very unfortunate judgment. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I REQUEST WP:SPI BE DONE! that will expose the bad faith block of User:Jehochman 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, it cannot be used to prove innocence. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

but it CAN be used to prove obvious lack of guilt. I AM NOT A SOCK. don't be afraid to find that out. do the SPI. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

another request

• I've unblocked, based on explanations below. Please avoid edit warring. Please avoid encouraging or furthering the disruptive actions of others. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chummer, Checkuser cannot prove negatives, hence "clear my name" checks are never done. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 18:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand. if two IP's come from different countries, how can they be sock puppets? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For all we know, one of them's being spoofed or hosting a TOR node. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i learn something new every day! i'll read about that. anyhow, i think that is absurd assumption, because if i was able to do something like that, wouldn't i be able to simply switch IP whenever i want, and don't bother with this block here? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocks TOR nodes, so your argument does not stand. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

TOR nodes are blocked upon discovery, yes, but that doesn't mean that the TOR node will not mask the IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

N.B. only now did i notice that Jehochman linked above only to my edits of article pages, without providing the edits that i made in talk page discussions. for example, here you can see that i discussed the topic with other editors on the talk page. you can also see that my inquiry resulted in the FAQ suggestions for the page. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points, if I may.

1. The writing and personal style of this editor is so different from that of Ludvikus that, unless Ludvikus was actually an extremely carefully crafted persona, there's little likelihood that this is the same human being as Ludvikus.
2. Checkuser indeed is not magic pixie dust, but it is the case that this IP is from Serbia, and at least in the checkuser timeframe, there have been no other editors on this IP, and Ludvikus has never edited from anyplace but one city on the other side of a big ocean.
3. I've been keeping an eye on Ludvikus for quite a while, and there's never been any indication of abuse of multiple accounts.

If this block is for being annoying or disruptive, that's one thing, but the connection with Ludvikus seems highly unlikely, and probably should not be taken into account when considering unblocking this IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The block is for disruptive editing, and carrying on the agenda of Ludvikus. Whether it is him, somebody proxying for him, or somebody taking advantage of this fine opportunity for trolling, does not change the conclusion. The editor has been disrupting Wikipedia and shows no signs of making any productive contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

here's an example of my disruptive editing: [10] which resulted in improved lead of that article. as you can see, my disruption was marked by a sourced argumentation on the talk page. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

here is another example of my disruptive editing: [11] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

here is another example: [12]

as you can see, all these discussions on WP:Talk pages are very disruptive and unproductive for Wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

do i always claim i am right? no. as you can see from discussions, when editors present reasons, i can change my mind. i don't go into revert wars. I revert others removal of sourced content ONLY when they don't explain on talk page why the content is not satisfactory. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

in 2 weeks that i have this IP, i have hardly caused a disruption, and have mainly interacted on the talk pages. i asked questions, argued on issues, provided some sources. i really cannot understand how someone can call this disruption. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Why did you ask Ludvikus to be unblocked?
2. Why did you ask for Moreschi to have his administrator access to be removed?

These are odd requests for a new user. If you are a longtime editor, would you be willing to identify your past accounts (in confidence to a Checkuser) so that we can determine whether you are a banned or blocked user, or if you are just somebody who wants to edit anonymously. There is a very strong appearance that you have some sort of grudge. Whatever your grievance may be, it would be better to resolve the problem and be able to edit happily than to continue along the current path. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Why did you ask Ludvikus to be unblocked?" I didn't. I ask that his indefinite block be reviewed, as I thought it was unjustly extreme. Also, I don't think he should be prevented from contributing to wikipedia just because the way he uses english and contstruct arguments can be confusing and hard to follow, and therefore frustrating. but that is exactly my point -- that is no reason to prevent someone from doing his best to contribute to wikipedia. it is like preventing a child with learning problems from going to school. absurd. [update: i think his arguments get confusing when he writes them in a rush, as now i just read his talk page, and his english seems perfect to me.]

"Why did you ask for Moreschi to have his administrator access to be removed?" because, just like another editor (an administrator Sandstein) noticed that he probably abused his privileges, and that hi may face revocation of same, I made the same observation. it is NOT an attack, as you put it, but simply an observation.

I am not a new user[13]. Not having an account does not mean that user is new to wikipedia, and he may actually be informed about how wikipedia works. And yes, you guessed it, i am someone who wants to edit anonymously. Was i ever banned or blocked before for these 6 years of editing wikipedia? I was blocked only ONCE for about an hour until other administrators intervened and unblocked me as they thought block was unjust. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this user has been unblocked. The user's contributions seem constructive, and not at all disruptive. For whatever reason, some contributors choose to not have an account, which should not result in their being treated differently than any other contributor. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you. unfortunately, in these six years i've encountered few administrators who seem to often treat IPs differently. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very interesting problem and I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to treat IP's better. The issue is that many blocked or banned editors do return as IPs. Further, when we look at the editing history of an IP, we cannot see all their prior contributions if they have switched addresses. In your case, if I could have seen your entire six year history, my conclusion might have been very different. This seems to be a hard problem, not only an issue of bad administrators who are prejudiced against IPs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

problem is not interesting, but unfortunate. treat IP's same way you treat registered users -- without bias. judge their actions. yes, blocked or banned editors can return as IPs, but they can also return as new usernames, so there is no validity in your argument against IPs. if you think that IPs are here mainly to cause disruption and avoid past block and banns, think again. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The "interesting" part of the problem is how to we give an IP editor credit for all their contributions when they keep changing IPs. In your case, you look like somebody who started editing 2 weeks ago. This can make activities look more single purpose and more sockish than if we were able to see your full contribution history. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IPs don't ask for credit. that is why their contributions are in a way more noble. in addition, you don't need to analyze 6 years of someones edit history. if i only want to edit one sentence in one article, that is still a contribution, and there is no one on this project who can tell me my contribution is not welcome, or not significant. take a look at your article space contribution history for last 2 weeks. you have only 20 edits. how many do you have on talk pages? are you constructive editor? what is constructive editing? editing articles? discussing on talk pages? providing sources? fighting vandalism? blocking users? unblocking users? as you can see, all of those can be both constructive and disruptive depending if it is done right. but all of that is contributing. by contributions in last 2 weeks were far from disruption, and not a cause for interrogation about my past 6 years of edits. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)