User talk:173.52.99.208

Strange

I find it strange an IP user such as yourself first appears to defend articles by a certain user. Care to explain?ALongStay (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? I won't even bother. Engaging you might cause further issues as per [1]. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need, your lack of response is all I need. You can go back to your user account next time to vote at Afds, you aren't fooling me, I know exactly who you are. Ta-tah.ALongStay (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent tagging of articles for AFD

If you believe that these articles should be nominated for AFD, you should follow the directions and familiarize yourself with how to properly nominate an article first before tagging them yourself, as you did not nominate these articles properly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. Hold on; you might be right... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your message on my talk page. In short, you are correct! I restored your AFD tags, and I manually fixed the Baby Grandmothers article (you didn't add a speedy deletion tag, you added the notification that goes on the creator's user talk page) :-). Thanks for leaving me a message and for the heads up :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing logged out to evade scrutiny is not allowed

I believe I know who you are too, like the user above. Note that editing logged out to evade scrutiny is not allowed. Please use your account to nominate articles for deletion and all other purposes. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I looked at WP:EVADE. Am I blocked anywhere else? I also looked at WP:SCRUTINY. What have I violated? "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding." What is my IP address linked to? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, IP, that trying to encourage another editor to breach WP:OUTING is as bad as actually doing it oneself. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I'm depressed to see such a dishonest and evasive reply from you, IP. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Afd

Since you are presumably CrazyAces489, I am telling you Hank Kraft has been nominated for deletion.ALongStay (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

You are being discussed at AN/I. I know you know this but I was requested to message you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for evading a previous block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 07:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

"Your IP address has been blocked from editing because it has been used to evade a previous block" Open up an SP/I! Since when was I blocked? I am responding on AN/I. Am I being disruptive? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Accusations of racism (see below) are not going to get you unblocked. And WP:CLEANSTART only applies to editors in good standing, not those currently blocked, so I don't see the relevance of that policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You're mistaken about the role of SPI. An admin doesn't require any SPI paperwork to block per WP:DUCK, it's done all the time. As for when your account was blocked, see [2]. And then you went right on editing after I warned you it had been. Reviewing admin: there are a couple of ANI threads here and here. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen You're totally mistaken! You blocked CA on 06:54, 7 July 2016 and blocked me based on this. CA hasn't edited in any manner since Feb 2016. There seems to be a reasonable case of racism against CA [3] of which you were heavily involved? He wasn't on any current block! You blocked him and used that as a rationale to block me! What did I violate when I nominated an article for an AFD? Why is it ok for one person to nominate multiple articles from one account and I can't do the same? [4] Problem is you're not going to force me to violate WP:CLEANSTART as you suggested here [5]. "If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive, by using the {{::retired}} tag or leaving some other message. You may not use more than one account at a time." At no point will I interchangeably use multiple accounts. Even Omniflames stated that there should be an SPI with evidence brought forth at AN/I.. [6] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender Softlavender why is TGS allowed to remove AFD tags? [7] after you said "Would someone do that according to the rationale the IP posted here" [8] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee A clean start was enacted in February 2016. An outsider was asked to change the password on the old account so that nothing could be remembered. I made another account which I used for a while but cut down in use in late May. I was resetting my computer and had to reinstall my cookies and password remembering tools to the new account. So that is why an IP was being used. Asking me to go to the old account made no sense since in the past, I was previously suspended 6 months afterwards for "sockpupeting" for switching to an old account to make an article. The reason was a violation of clean start. In terms of racism, you should actually see some of the edit history where editors were AFDing articles of various Blacks (while whites with the same amount of references and sources were kept) (proof is very much there) and attacking various accounts for not speaking English the way they do. There was a LOT of racism going on. Racial bias on Wikipedia gives a story about it. There was denials of knowing the people were black but if you look at the articles many of them would say "African American" or "black" in the them. Everything is of course conveniently denied as no one was calling anyone a "nigger" to their face, they just sabotaged their work and efforts. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Also why is it ok for some people to use profanity in the edit summary without punishment? [9] 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, you should make a request that only addresses your logged-out editing, and another admin might be convinced to unblock you. But in that unblock, you should not try to address other problems you feel you have experienced at Wikipedia, not make any accusations against others, and not try to address misbehavior you believe you have seen in others - address just your own logged-out editing only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee ok, can you look at my logged out behavior and see what I did wrong? Also I was accused of editting logged out to avoid scrutiny. Which wasn't the case. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else will review your next request, not me. Please fill out the template properly and explain your position regarding the logged-out editing issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The block evasion is clearly false and editing logged out to avoid scrutiny is false (please look at the above message to Boing! . Please look at and address only only my logged-out editing 173.52.99.208 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It certainly appears that you are editing via this IP to target a specific user. It is evading scrutiny to falsely retire an account in order to continue editing disruptively and you are not eligible for any type of clean start under any account or IP. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ponyo Boing! said Zebedee Did you take a look at the AFD's? If you look on them, they aren't random. They are based on lack of reliable sources such as blogs and self published sources. No need to search take a look. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Grandmothers Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Winston and the Commons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphorics Id. The last one was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man (2nd nomination) and this was because the previous AFD it was shifting towards a merge (4 merge votes, 1 keep, 1 delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man before being speed keep.

User Template:ALongStay has opened multiple AFD's on my old account articles including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Kraft Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Andrianov Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Cohen (judoka)‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Miller (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Miller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Cohen (judoka) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latoya Hanson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Haley . In fact, all of his AFD's except for one have been against articles created by my own account. Now if your argument is that is was done in one day, I believed it was ok, since an argument was made in AN/I and it was essentially ignored. Look at these articles, all by one author, AFD'd by one person Template:Mdtemp, all on the same day Feb 23, 2015. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (Judo) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odell Terry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest R. Smith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robey Reed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Geis (judo) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cofield and one on feb 24, 2015 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Evans I didn't falsely retire any account. I dont have access to the old account. It was retired in Feb 2016. I am using an IP for the past week or so. I have another account (used since Feb 2016) but have cut down on it's use (I was thinking about not using an account period), but don't have access as I am resetting my computer and need to reinstall my history, passwords and cookies. This block expires in under 24 hours, but if I'm forced to use my newer account, I can be labeled a sockpuppet. Which is what I DONPT want to do. I already ran into an issue when I used my old account and 6 months after its last use a SP/I suspended me for using it. Even though EVERYONE knew I had used it when I was using it (and new when I stopped using it) and I believe did this to be spiteful. Anyway, I am requesting you take a look or at least allow me to post on AN/I concerning this. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.