Jump to content

User talk:94.192.38.247

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 20 August 2009 (→‎Unblocked, and an apology: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding comments in edit summary

Per this comment: [1] you do not own this talk page either. The WHOIS template is idenitifying information for this IP address, and is publicly availible information, availible here. If you do not want this displayed, then you are free to register an account. If you continue to edit via IP address, then identifying information about the addresses you edit from will continue to be availible to identify you. By creating an account, you will hide any identifying information like this from public view. Repeatedly removing this information from this talk page can be seen as disruptive, so please stop. --Jayron32 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:94.192.38.247, you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 02:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Sockpuppet

What do you mean sockpuppet? what edits? I haven't done anything. This is my static IP and I left a note here about the fact that I have an account. You are harrasing me and making false accusations, I will now report you for this. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using this IP, even as a extra account, it is considered a sockpuppet. You admitted it in an edit summary. You can report me to WP:WQA all you want. You will only be blocked for vandalism, disruption, trying others patience, removing templates you weren't supposed to, and sockpuppetry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homer, I have no choice in having this IP, it is a static IP. I barely use it except when I forget to log in as everyone does once in a while. There is no sockpuppetry whatsoever, you jumped on that accusation after I left a note about my having an account (which was your request). Why are you treating me in bad faith? I am a member in good staning and I've done nothing wrong. There hasn't even been any editing from this IP recently except to clear my talk page which I am entitled to do. For the last time, please leave me alone. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy and common to accuse someone of sockpupptry, but what proof do you have? The fact that this is my static IP? go look at my contributions form this IP going back to March/April, there has been a small amount where I forgot to log into my account. Have you not got anything better to do then waste my time and yours with this nonsense? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not entitled to clear this talk page. You do not own this talk page. Please read our policies and guidelines regarding IP talk pages. Quit edit-warring or your talk page access will be revoked as well. Enigmamsg 03:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this I am allowed to delete comments as I wish. Excuse me, why I am being treated like dirt here? I've done nothing wrong, this is bullying. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT your talk page, you don't own it, it is not yours. I don't care which IP you use, it ain't yours. Now, you have been blocked for 48 hours by Enigmaman. That means you can't edit on your sign-in account either. Keep it going and I will personally see to it that you are blocked indef. All this over a talkpage. Dude, think before you act. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were doing more than removing comments. You were removing the WHOIS. Stop playing the victim. You're being disruptive. Enigmamsg 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with above) WHOIS templates are not comments. You may remove comments that others leave for you. However, identifying templates such as WHOIS are exempt from that requirement. See WP:BLANKING for other exemptions. You may safely clear away warnings and inactive conversations. You may not remove identifying templates like WHOIS or block templates (while the block is active) or sockpuppet identification templates. --Jayron32 03:39, 17 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is the talk page of my static IP, and I haven't done any editing from it recently, hardly any since March/April when I registered an account. I have not deleted any comments from it since we began discussion here, I have responded to comments in a civil way. I left a note here explaining that it was my static IP and that I didn't really use it as I had an account and left a link to my account as proof, this was then deleted and replaced with an out-of the-blue accusation of sockpuppetry, so I left a comment asking for an explanation and filed a wikiquette request for help. Now I have been almost immediately blocked during the discussion. I am so dismayed at my treatment here, I thought more of the community. Look folks, I am not a bad egg and do not intentionally do wrong things. I thought this was my talk page and I was allowed to clear it (since I didn't use it) There has been no vandalism or anything like that from here so I couldn't understand why there needed to be a whois tag here. When I do something wrong I apologize even if I was mistaken, please can I see good faith from my peers, feels like i'm being bullied, look at the tone of the comments i've received compared to mine.

Decline reason:

You need to leave the info on your talk page about IP resolution. You can wait the 48 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2009 (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.

  • What you refuse to understand is this isn't your (as in ownership) talk page. You removed not only the comments, but the WhoIs templates as well. Then you editwared over the edits. You didn't discuss first, you reverted first. Once you began talking the damage had already been done. There was already an AN post about your behavior and admins acting on that behavior. The sockpuppet tag was added because you admitted you had another account (several times in fact) and that you were using this account as well. That, my friend, is sockpuppetry. You can't do it. You also said back in May you wanted to vanish, per WP:RTV, that is fine and all, but you don't get a free pass to come back via another account or IP. RTV means you are gone for good. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose talk page is it then? I tried to explain my position in my edit summaries. I admitted I had an account because you asked me register an account, so I was letting you know that I had one. I have not edited with my IP since I registered an account, there have been a few edits when I forgot to log in over the months but please take a look and you will see there are no grounds for sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when someone uses an account to edit in situations where they are using another account aswell, the fact that I have this IP as a default when i'm not logged in doesn't make me a sockpuppet. I tried to avoid this problem back in May after registering an account by requesting to vanish the IP page, precisely so I would have the account to use and there could be no accusations of sockpuppetry but my requests at the time were ignored. The WHOIS tag was placed on this page out of the blue advising about vandalism but there hasn't been vandalism from here so its placement is implying i'm a vandal for no reason, that's why I cleared the page. I also got the impression reading through wikipolicy that I was allowed to clear my page. So to summarize, I have been implied to be a vandal, accused of sockpuppetry and now blocked all for clearing what I thought was my dormant IP talk page. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the WHOIS template says. Enigmamsg 04:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a static IP, take a look at the edit history of my IP and my account and you can figure it is me. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. That totally misses the point. Enigmamsg 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you disputing that this is my static IP? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear and obvious now that I am being bullied by the clan of administrators here. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More assumptions of bad faith. Are you sure you want to keep pretending that you're the victim in all this? You caused the problems, and then tried to blame it on everyone else when it escalated. There is no "clan of administrators", and certainly there isn't one here. Enigmamsg 04:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What "problems" did I cause? I have been implied to be a vandal, accused of sockpuppetry and now blocked all for clearing what I thought was my dormant IP talk page. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were warned to stop, yet you continued to edit war. Are you now going to claim that you don't know what edit-warring is? Even if Wikipedia policy allowed you to remove WHOIS templates (it doesn't), you violated WP:3RR. And the WHOIS template does not "imply you're a vandal." Enigmamsg 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had enough of your bad faith and rude manner. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to explain my position in my edit summaries. I admitted I had an account because you asked me register an account, so I was letting you know that I had one. I have not edited with my IP since I registered an account, there have been a few edits when I forgot to log in over the months but please take a look and you will see there are no grounds for sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when someone uses an account to edit in situations where they are using another account aswell, the fact that I have this IP as a default when i'm not logged in doesn't make me a sockpuppet. I tried to avoid this problem back in May after registering an account by requesting to vanish the IP page, precisely so I would have the account to use and there could be no accusations of sockpuppetry but my requests at the time were ignored. The WHOIS tag was placed on this page out of the blue advising about vandalism but there hasn't been vandalism from here so its placement is implying i'm a vandal for no reason, that's why I cleared the page. I also got the impression reading through wikipolicy that I was allowed to clear my page. So to summarize, I have been implied to be a vandal, accused of sockpuppetry and now blocked all for clearing what I thought was my dormant IP talk page.

Decline reason:

You were advised that removing the {{whois}} template at the top of the page was disruptive, and then proceeded to remove it five more times. Your 48 hour block was issued in order to prevent you from causing additional disruption to Wikipedia. Please note that as per policy, an editor may only make three unblock requests before their ability to edit their own talk page is suspended for the duration of the block. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (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.

All WhoIs tags say that. Hell, the one on the IP I used back in 2005 when I first started here said that. It says "In the event of vandalism...", it doesn't say "this person is a vandal". That is SOP for those tags. You are just taking it personal. The talk page is Wikipedia's. The IP is Leeds O2 Residential Dynamic's. Technically you own neither of these. You are just given access to this via your IP. You shouldn't even use an IP account since you have an account unless you are accidentally signed out for some reason (which does happen).

Now, your Unblock Request has been denied. Take these 47 1/2 hours and read up on some of our policies and come back with a clean head and an understanding for the rules here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an Eguor admin to look at this situation. They are the checks and balances against admin abuse. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why when you request an unblock, a different admin reviews the unblock. Of course, when that happened, you claimed that "the administrator clan" was conspiring against you. Enigmamsg 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and when people try to explain things to you, you claim you have "enough of your bad faith and rude manner". Dude, you did wrong, you got punished. Game over. Deal with the consequences. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and bad faith accusations

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. This also includes bad faith accusations of "harrassment", which was a lie, and threatens to report users acting in good faith. Enigmamsg 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

labelled as "sockpuppet"

{{helpme}}

So I have been blocked for edit warring over the whois tag on this page, but why has this IP being labelled as a sockpuppet of my account when no sockpuppet activity has taken place. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you admitted that you have another account (a sign in account) and were using this IP account at the same time. That is sockpuppetry. If it was just an accidental sign out mistake, it wouldn't be an issue. I have done it, others have done it, it isn't an issue. But when you tried to use this IP account to remove things from the talk page and claimed it was yours, you were committing sockpuppetry...hence the tag. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned I had an account out of transparancy and because you asked me to register one. Why shouldn't I mention my account? This is the default account when i'm not logged in, as I earlier explained. A person with a static IP has a default IP page that they're stuck with if they edit while not logged in, now unless they use them together to edit war or for other bad faith activity, they are not sockpuppets. I have not done any editing that would be classed as sockpuppetry. Why don't you grow up and show some decency if you have it in you. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask a couple questions...First, why is this IP account so important to you? Your IP will change in a month or two (whenever your ISP resets IPs), so then this will be all moot. Why is this important? Second...why are you still fighting this? You have had two unsuccessful unblock requests, so you are down for next 46 hours. Why not take the time, read up on the policies, understand them better and come back in less than 2 days and carry on on your actual account.
Let me say now, if your unblock request below is denied, your talk page access will be blocked. Think very carefully before continuing with it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply asking to see the policy that states that I cannot remove the WHOIS tag. If it is explicitly stated somewhere in Wikipolicy, then I have done wrong and I accept the block, otherwise I have been wrongfully blocked. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, you misusing the unblock request templates. They aren't for questions, they are for unblock requests only. Your questions have been answered by three different users. Your bed has been made, lie in it and deal with the consequences. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jayron32 pointed you to it nearly two hours ago: WP:BLANKING. (Note that since I processed one of your two previous block requests, I am recused from this one.) — Kralizec! (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it states -
"Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption; removal of template warnings is rarely an urgent or important matter, and it is often best to simply let the matter rest if other disruption stops"
and this is what Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments states -
"If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment the user has verified that they have read it. Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of whether the talk page is for a registered editor or for an unregistered "anonymous" editor."
A WhoIs template is not a comment or a warning. It is a template. Got it now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So my block is specifically and only because of my removal of the WHOIS tag. Please show me where it states in Wikipolicy that I cannot remove this tag. Bear in mind this tag is not a shared IP notice tag. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop now...and I mean now, or I will have this page protected for the remainder of your block. You have been told repeatedly the rules...you just refuse to understand them because that would make you wrong. You are wrong, you violated policy, you editwarred, you violated WP:3RR, and you were blocked. Now...STOP! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a threat to shut me up simply because you don't like what I have to say. I am simply discussing the issue in a civil way with you. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a threat because your questions have been answered over and over AND OVER again and you don't like the answer. You're blocked, deal with it. Now, I have filed an RPP request and your talk page will be protected either by the admin who rejects the below unblock notice or by the admin who approves the RPP request. Either way, you will be nice and silent for the next 45 1/2 hours. Yes, this has been going on for 3 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 17 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for removing a WHOIS tag from my talk page. Can I see where it states in Wikipolicy that users cannot remove WHOIS tags from their pages. Also the policy on restoring comments that users have removed states - "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment the user has verified that they have read it. Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of whether the talk page is for a registered editor or for an unregistered "anonymous" editor." The exceptions are shared IP templates and unblock requests, but the template in question is a WHOIS template advising about vandalism (which there hasn't been any).

Decline reason:

When one will not see the forest for the trees, then he will not run from the inevitable forest fire. Talkblocked for tendentious editing. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:16, 17 August 2009 (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.

Ummm, it's in WP:Blanking. You were linked to it several times. You are now tendentiously editing. Enigmamsg 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the text. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. Now quiet down, chummer, and be reasonable, or else I will be reasonable for you and revoke your talk page access for tendentious editing and misuse of the unblock template. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 06:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a shared IP notice template it is a WHOIS template. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, any IP is a shared IP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude" it is a WHOIS template not a shared IP template., and this is not a shared IP. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A WhoIs template IS a shared IP template and how do we know that it isn't a shared IP? You are just thinking of things to argue about now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I saw this in recent changes, and I'd like to say something as a neutral party. All of this is ridiculous. To the IP - You aren't allowed to remove the WHOIS at the top of the page. To the others: the sockpuppet accusation is abusive. Try and understand it from the IP's POV. He/she registers an account. They blank the page using the IP since it is static and they will not be editing using it anymore. I don't see that as abusive sockpuppetry at all. Why blank it with the account? That just creates an uneeded IP-account association. Now, I will recommend this to the IP: just wait out the block, and stop removing the WHOIS tag, and everything will be fine. To everyone else: drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno, I wouldn't be as concerned with the sockpuppetry if they didn't request the right to vanish here on this IP back in May. That is what concerns me. You can't request the right to vanish and then come back under another name. We had that discussion with User:Pzrmd and he was indef blocked for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I requested to vanish in May after registering an account was precisely so I could have my account to use from there on, and there could be no accusations of sockpuppetry but my requests at the time were declined.
Wasn't the RTV declined (making the point moot)? Anyways, I'm just trying to lower stress levels on both sides here. Sitting here for hours over a couple of stupid tags is excessive. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 06:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Inferno: I am not sure if the RTV was declined or not, that was outside of my area of knowledge.
To the IP user....then why come back to the IP now?! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I arrived at my IP page because I wasn't logged in. These things damage my credibility in the long run as they crowd my block log and give other admins the impression that i'm a problem editor. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so why did you decide that it was necessary to remove a template that only indentifies your ISP? It doesn't say who you are, just which ISP owns this IP number. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I noticed was a random edit from an anon IP requesting help - [2], no idea what that was about, then I noticed it had been checked by someone and then someone else had placed the WHOIS template, which advertised my internet details and prompted a WHOIS search on me, advising that "any vandalism from here should be reported.." I thought this was inappropriate and not needed, because I am an established and respectable user. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template was added by an admin. I think an admin would know better than anyone where or where not to put a WHOIS template. Also, the template says "In the event of vandalism", it does not say "this user is a vandal". This is standard for any WHOIS template. It does not accuse the user of vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page guidelines state -
  • Behavior that is unacceptable
  • Do not threaten people
  • Now look at this discourse between us -
  • Me - "So my block is specifically and only because of my removal of the WHOIS tag. Please show me where it states in Wikipolicy that I cannot remove this tag. Bear in mind this tag is not a shared IP notice tag."
  • You - "Stop now...and I mean now, or I will have this page protected for the remainder of your block. You have been told repeatedly the rules...you just refuse to understand them because that would make you wrong. You are wrong, you violated policy, you editwarred, you violated WP:3RR, and you were blocked. Now...STOP!"
OK, you know this has been lovely and all, but I think I am going to take that Vicodin that has been calling my name for oh the past hour. You have literally given me a migraine. The RPP request stands (takes some time on those sometimes) and your blocking admin has requested your block be increased for your behavior tonight...I wholeheartedly agree with it. Now, I am going to go take that Vicodin, I suggest you have yourself a nice cup of coffee, it is 3am, and go to bed. You have officially tried everyone's patience. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou greatly Inferno, everything they try and throw at me doesn't stand up to scrutiny and they then try and gag me as they cannot match my argument. We have all wasted alot of our time as a result. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RTV is per person, not per account/IP. What you are trying to do is a clean start under a new name, which isn't sockpuppetry as long as you discontinue using the IP, and aren't doing it to avoid scrutiny. Does that clear things up a little bit for you? I now advise the two of you to turn off the computer, to grab a cup of tea, and to sit down and relax for a bit. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 06:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really grateful for your help with this inferno. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he understands what you are saying and gets the whole template thing, my job is done. I will be more than glad to move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the penguin inferno. This is all incredibly pathetic. A more or less problematic (I haven't made up my mind, and it's not very relevant) static IP user from England creates an account and misunderstands RTV. He blanks his talk page.[3] A confused or mischievous IP user from the US leaves a helpme tag on the talk page.[4] Hersfold responds. Jayron32 adds a template that contains language about vandalism that doesn't seem to apply in this case. Basically these are instructions for harassing the user in case of content disagreements. Then people edit war against the IP's blanking of the IP's own talk page with the following insightful edit comments:

  • "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247. (TW)"
  • "Rmv, sorry, but since IP addresses are dynamic, they don't 'retire.'" (to a static IP)
  • "Reverted edits by 94.192.38.247 (talk) to last version by Dayewalker"
  • "return WHOIS info."
  • "hey."
  • "Reverted 3 edits by 94.192.38.247; This is not your account, you are an IP user.. (TW)"
  • "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247; This is not your page, you are an IP. Get an account, then you can claim it is yours.. (TW)"
  • "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer. (TW)" (followed by an entirely bogus vandalism warning by Neutralhomer, including silly language about "if this is a shared IP" and instructions about creating an account, which Neutralhomer should have known all didn't apply)
  • "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247; Then user your regular account, stop vandalizing this page. (TW)" (followed by abusively and incorrectly marking the page with a sock template)

This was the first attempt at a serious explanation of a situation that is sufficiently unclear that there was serious discussion at AN about who is actually right. In fact, one needs to interpret WP:BLANKING very loosely and against its spirit to justify the edit warring against this IP. Hans Adler 11:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I never left a template and never used the word "vandalism". I used my own typing (not any template) to inform him to stop removing the WHOIS template header from this IP talk page. I have stated every time that he is free to remove comments from this talk page whenever he wishes, but the WHOIS header is not a comment. I also asked for additional input into the situation at WP:AN. Beyond that, my involvement ceased. Please do not imply that I once mischaracterized this users edits as vandalism; I never did so. I only returned the WHOIS template when he removed it, and reminded him not to remove it again. --Jayron32 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be referring to "Jayron32 adds a template that contains language about vandalism that doesn't seem to apply in this case."
Here is the diff. [5] Here is the relevant part from Template:Whois, which you added and that, presumably, the IP reacted to:
In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact Leeds O2 Residential Dynamic to report abuse, which can be done here.
You started this entire travesty by adding the whois template in the first place. Could you please explain what function it was supposed to serve in this specific case. Has this user committed vandalism in the past? Hans Adler 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLANKING you were simply wrong when you told him he can't remove the whois template. There are exceptions for very specific cases where templates serve very specific purposes. There are no exceptions for redundant templates that merely list the result of whois request, insinuate that an IP might be a vandal, and tell others how to report him to his internet provider in this hypothetical case. Such a silly exception wouldn't survive long. Hans Adler 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you come back

Go to your account and bookmark MY WATCHLIST as your start page for Wikpedia. If you always use this as your start page, you will never edit while not logged in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked, and an apology

I've unblocked this IP, and I apologize for my own part in this (having reverted the removal of the unnecessary templates); other people may wish to consider whether they acted hastily or unthinkingly. The editor is correct; the tag on the page implied misbehavior when none existed. Yes, the editor did seem to act angrily and with harsh words, but he was being accused of wrongdoing without adequate cause and certainly without the expected assumption of good faith. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add my apology as well. I know it means nothing, but this clearly got blown out of proportion, and for my part in this mess, there is no adequate excuse. I only offer an unqualified apology. --Jayron32 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, sorry I couldn't stay logged in in longer to help settle this (I've actually been suffering from a lack of sleep lately, and I'm trying to catch up.), but I'm glad everything has worked out. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
Though I wasn't involved..I am a horrible talk page stalker ;) and happeed to stumble to this page and read what happend. I am very sorry that this happened to you and for being resilient and never quitting to try to clear your name---and never letting discouragement get you. You deserve this;) Feel free to transfer from this IP page to your account if you want. SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


P.S.Can you sign my guestbook located at a link on my userpage, when you sign in?SchnitzelMannGreek. 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.38.247&oldid=308984696"