User talk:24.155.244.245

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (24.155.244.245) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conservapedia; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not label legitimate edits as vandalism. See what vandalism is not. Thank you. El_C 06:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Taking the user to AIV after I had already reverted you as well as having written the above message constitutes disruption. Please stop, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 07:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that with respect to the conservapedia article, if necessary, I am prepared to elevate this to the level of dispute arbitration if necessary. You are inappropriately playing favorites, and nobody can seem to cite defiative sources against my position. The consensus was clear on the article talk page that direct attribution was appropriate. If you continue to threaten to ban me, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter to the level of dispute resolution with the request that your moderator privleges be revoked for inappropriately playing favors to users. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do whatever you see fit, but further disruption will result in sanctions. El_C 07:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the threat. And thanks for giving me all the documentation I need to post up on Conservapedia to prove what Wikipedia's moderators are all about. I can play for one side or the other, and this is what happens when people tick me off. This whole speal has been documented for liberal manipulation of Wikipeda policy to suit the liberal agenda, and will now be posted on conservapeda as a prime example. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you failed to use dispute resolution in a content dispute and instead went the route of accusing someone of vandalism? Sure, whatever you say. But that is a lot of innuendo for naught, me thinks. El_C 07:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see why you feel compelled to split the conversation. We are already having it here. Continuing to place messages on my user talk page seems unproductive. El_C 07:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you failed to add User:NewsAndEventsGuy as a party to your DRN although threatening to treat any more reverts from him as vandalism. Whether you are right or wrong in this dispute, such an action is not allowed and you can expect a block if you continue to call good faith edits vandalism or accuse other editors of vandalism. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a nasty threat as you claim on my talk page, it's an explanation of the probably consequences of your acts. I didn't even say I'd block you, it's just what happens when editors throw accusations of vandalism about. I think you misunderstand DRN, but I don't care if you add me as a party or not. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

"I think you reacted the way you did because you and Seraphimblade are buddy-buddy".[1] This is a serious accusation of bad faith against El C, with no evidence. As people have already pointed out, you're misusing DRN. But that's not my point here: if you attack people, no matter where on Wikipedia, you're supposed to supply evidence (for instance diffs that illustrate that El C and Seraphimblade are "buddy-buddy", and that El C lets it influence his actions). If you post another such evidence-free insult, you will be blocked per the no personal attacks policy. Doug Weller says above that he didn't say he'd block you, but I'm saying I will, if you continue on this road. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

I happened across your report at WP:DRN and took the opportunity to review your contributions. In the past few days, you appear to have engaged in disruptive behaviour. You have:

Made a lot of noise about bias at Conservapedia without making any real efforts to fix it yourself. This is a wiki.
Forum shopped: filing a DRN report, and posting complaints to user talk pages, and reported somebody for vandalism. This was all basically about the same issue.
Made our articles worse with a stack of awkward edits that are skewing the neutral voice of the article.

This is unlikely to go anywhere productive, so I have blocked your account for 1 week. For technical reasons, we try not to indefinitely block IP addresses on Wikipedia, but I will be blocking you again if you continue this conduct after the block expires. Please take this opportunity to review what you are doing on Wikipedia and whether you possess the requisite appreciation of Wikipedia's basic policies. AGK ■ 11:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK To the contrary it is likely to go somewhere because interestingly, none of the accused users deny the accusations against them. Therefeore, your block is clearly unfounded and meritless at best and outright malicious at worst. Therefore, you are at this time formally accused of malicious blocking, playing inappropriate favors to users, and showing inappropriate favortisim. You and the other users are welcome to deny those charges if you wish, but it is noted that no one has denied anything so far and therefore Adverse inference indicates guilt on the part of the users complained of. Accordingly, this matter will now be thoroughly documented and used as an example against Wikipedia on Conservapedia's page describing Wikipedia, to indicate Wikipedia's brazen unwillingness to adhere to it's own rules when those rules contradict Wikipedia's liberal slant, and Wikipedia's wilingness to subject users to administrative abuse whom do not conform to the liberal political narrative. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I wonder if 1 week is enough to prevent future disruption? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may well not be, NewsAndEventsGuy; if it was an account, I'd be glad to indeff it. It's harder when people skulk behind a "Likely Dynamic IP" for the purpose of trolling and provocation. ("Formally accused", heh, that's quite funny.) The idea is presumably to provoke us into blocking IPs that well-meaning people also use. Ignoring may be the best way of annoying them back. Anyway, I think AGK is watching. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I think all of this will go well to document on other wikis such as the one at https://american-society-of-liberal-slants.fandom.com - and no this is not any kind of threat, its a simple observation. Nothing more and nothing less, as I know the situation here is being monitored closely by the owner of that Wiki. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are under the mistaken impression that we care. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 28 July 2019 (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.