User talk:121.72.145.82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop vandalising the GTD page. If you have serious concerns, then log in with your name, then make your changes, and discuss your problems on the discussion page. Thank you. Lausianne (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Contents

[edit] Discussion of GTD Article Concerns

121.72.145.82 (and 121.72.142.198, which resolves to the same range): When you deleted the GTD article citation, you referred to it as "spam" and "misleading." (See history here and here.) Would you please explain and discuss your reasoning here, or weigh in on the two similar discussions on the article's Talk page?

Your edits may be well-intended, but they appear to violate Wikipedia no original research, verifiability, and no plagiarism policies. (Removing a source doesn't fix plagiarism, it creates it. Sources need to be cited. Spam or not spam should be decided by group consensus when in dispute. If spam, the source should be replaced with a legitimate, researched source or the article section removed as original research.) Your comments? Kcren (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You know it's spam and I know it's spam. We also both know that you are using sockpuppet accounts to maintain your spam link on the page under discussion. It is not in your interest to bring further attention to your spamming, since it will be recognized as such by the community and you will likely be banned, your ability to construct word salads from wikipedia rules notwithstanding.--121.72.145.82

The only interests that WP cares about are WP's best interests, and your edits are NOT in the best interest of WP. 3 different users want to discuss your removal of this link. All you have said so far is "sockpuppet" and "spam". We heard you. That doesn't cut the mustard this time; because, removing the link causes a portion of the article to be plagiarized. You can't just remove this link as you could with the average external link. We want to see this resolved, do you? You obviously hate this link for some reason. Why don't you start by explaining why.--JCrenshaw (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This IP Address not is a Sockpuppet

Just above 121.72.145.82 accused another user of sockpuppetry and failed to document any evidence. This is the third user he has accused of this, and in no case was any evidence listed, just an accusation. I believe that this user call users who contest their edits "sockpuppets" in order to hide their own policy violations, including sockpuppetry. 121.72.145.82 doesn't use multiple "accounts" per say, but they do use multiple IP addresses. After a quick peek at edits between 28 Apr 2008 and 23 May 2008, I think any reasonable individual would agree that 121.72.145.82 is also: 121.72.142.198, 121.72.139.189, 80.44.195.153, and probably 85.17.58.111. These IP addresses have all made the same edit, demonstrated equal persistence and agression, use the same language, in several cases resolve to the same range, have the same response time (< 24 hours), and have no purpose whatsoever beyond a vendeta against one link. So far they have been unwilling to discuss the problem whatsoever, instead hiding behind a screen of "spam" and "sockpuppet" accusations.

I spent some time in the history plucking out those IPs, and found something potentially even more interesting. A hot spam war raged for around a month before they appeared. That war, oddly enough, stopped abruptly, just before this one started. The repeat offenders in that war were:

84.119.31.1, 84.119.28.166, 84.119.4.145, 84.119.0.57, who championed a gtd-matic link
80.229.30.220, who pushed a "why gtd sucks" blog article
Parkerhome, 24.24.211.28 who added "my-todos" several times
72.94.45.100, 199.67.138.83, 166.217.150.151 who likes the joelesler blog (apparently a lot)

Now maybe I'm going out on a limb on this part, but I wonder if, in addition to the 5 addresses originally mentioned, 121.72.145.82 might also have been one of these 4 parties in the first war? Kcren was the party primarily responsible for removing this spam (over and over again), and (though he hasn't been actively adding it) his partiality to the software comparison link is no secret. Perhaps this is all a cover up for, not only sockpuppetry, but retaliatory editing?--JCrenshaw (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 121.72.145.82 has provided a reasonable accounting of these IP addresses, and I am satisfied that the rate at which they changed was simply a result of anonymous editing, and coincidence.--JCrenshaw (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the IP addresses I have used - IP addresses I have used in the past are: 121.72.145.82 and 121.72.142.198 (a side effect of rebooting my router was being assigned a new IP address). This is my home ISP at the moment. In the last few weeks, I have used 80.44.195.153 (a server I was using as a SOCKS proxy while on vacation for security on a public network) and 85.17.58.111 (an IP address at another place I was staying on my vacation).
I have no connection to the other IP addresses mentioned above. I have never posted on any blogs and I have no commercial interested in GTD. I just don't like spam, and there is nothing wrong with anything I have done.--121.72.145.82
OK, that makes me feel a little better about the multiple IP issue at least. Thanks for clarifying. As for nothing wrong, at the very least you got a 24 hour warning block for violating the 3R rule. I understand not liking spam, nobody does. Unfortunately not everyone sees the same things as spam, as in this case. The waters are especially muddied this time by the fact that the link is the source for that section, and even if it were overwhelmingly determined to be spam, it can't be simply deleted. Either the whole section has to go, or a viable replacement has to be put in. If replaced, the replacement should be a better source (more reliable, more accurate, something like that, but still documenting the existence of over 100 compatible apps), not just a better link (for example, someone might like the listible list better, but it is a terrible source due to spam, inaccurate count, and almost no peer review.) If the whole section is going to be removed, then the community should really weigh in first, since that is a pretty big change. I personally think that not liking a source is a bad reason to remove a large piece of an article, unless the source is shown to be academically inappropriate.
The best option, in my opinion, would be to see if you can be satisfied without replacing the source or removing the section. What about this link feels like spam to you? Perhaps with a simple change everybody can win here?--JCrenshaw (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am being harrassed by an organised group of spammers (meat puppets/sock puppets) who are trying to defend their spam link."

Decline reason: "When you disagree with other users, you don't edit-war. Edit-warring is pointless, because no one can win an edit-war on Wikipedia. that's why we have the three-revert rule. I checked the article talk page to read the discussion you started with other users, seeking consensus regarding this link, but you don't seem to have discussed your desired changes at all. When your 24 hours is up, if you still think this link doesn't meet the external link guidelines, try some of the solutions at WP:DISPUTE instead of edit-warring. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have not violated the 3 revert rule."

Decline reason: "Yes you have. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I don't see any attempt by you to discuss this argument; could you point out such an attempt, or commit to resolving this by discussion rather than brute force? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

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.

Renewed edit-warring at Getting Things Done after extensive discussion on this very Talk page of how to work within consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss your issue with Getting Things Done on the talk page instead of continuing to revert. I'm going to report you to WP:AN3 if you continue reverting. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What discussion page post are you talking about here? I don't see anything relevant on the talk page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)