User talk:Emnetinlurve

March 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mull of Kintyre (song); 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't intentionally sock. Zanet and Jennifer live with me, we share a computer and go to the internet café together. We didn't know that came across as spamming. From now on, we'll only use this profile, if that suits as a situation? Otherwise, we could all declare that we share the same I.P. on our pages. The profile used are Emnetinlurve, ZanetaStepanova, Jenniferjacques. WillieMcMillie was a joke of a nickname that was unfortunately misconstrued as a false identity. It was only a fleeting joke. If it came across like spamming, I'm sorry, but I only put information there to help. I am, however, deeply upset and angry at Binksternet, whom I am contemplating writing a harassment email against. He has taken a slight to me for no reason, despite the fact that others have said that the Possum, Big Train and Marguerite interviews are essential for the page. He has come across as a bully, eager to trample on those who try to write. His colleague Nzd has made derisory remarks and I do not deserve it. I feel deeply upset at being slighted, and am going to suggest a compromise that neither he or I will be happy with. If he restores Big Train as it was, puts back the Carl Davis quotes and reverts the Graham Gouldman edits, we can leave it at that. I am sorry if some of my (and our) behaviour came across as spamming, and will discuss more carefully in future on talk pages, but would ask that Binksternet leave me and my work in peace. To everyone else on Wikipedia, I am sorry for any duress that we caused. The sentiment is genuine and will be respected in future

Decline reason:

This story seems to change according to who is telling it. Given this, the simplest explanation is that you're engaging in disruptive socking to promote yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2019 (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.

. -emnitinlurve[[User:Yamla|Yamla]

To the reviewing admin, please see the discussion at the bottom of the page. This user no longer wishes to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in block evasion as of March, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the actions of Special:Contributions/86.41.107.246 are Emnetinlurve evading his block. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, I find the bullying tactics of one Michael Knowles unfair. For someone who proclaims himself an engineer, a musician and an artist, he seems to have an agenda against a twenty five year old he has never met. He's the one who has come across as insensitive, needlessly and thanklessly aggressive, despite my efforts to compromise. I take it Knowles likes objectivity; he's letting his emotions rule an unfair punishment.-emnetinlurve

The "tactics" of mine that you don't like are me protecting the wiki from WP:REFSPAM, the systematic promotion of one writer's works for the purpose of pumping up that writer's web presence. Some 80–90% of your contributions are in the form of adding or tweaking a reference to the writings of a particular Irish writer and English professor-cum-music-critic. By "your contributions" I mean the contributions of all the registered accounts and more than a dozen IPs listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Linkspam citing Eoghan Lyng... Filter? So tell me, is it unfair to our readers to have your promotion removed? I don't think so. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your information sir I did not put in the Possum interview. Others put it in and you called it trivial. What gives you the right to judge someone's work? When did you interview a writer or director? User:Binksternet. If you want the Taste of Cinema pieces removed, fine. But to take it out on this piece? And you call yourself "systematic"? That's as gutteral a reaction as any. "Protecting the wiki". You've acted nothing short of a troll.

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel that I am being unfairly bullied by a moderator, I'm not allowed to speak my piece because one editor will not allow it

Decline reason:

This does not address your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft a reasonable unblock request. You won't be unblocked unless you clearly explain why your behaviour was bad or how your future behaviour would be significantly different. Yamla (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2019 (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.

{{unblock reviewed |I didn't sock. Zanet and Jennifer live with me, we share a computer. If it came across like spamming, I'm sorry, but I only put information there to help. I am, however, deeply upset and angry at Binksternet, whom I am contemplating writing a harassment email against. He has taken a slight to me for no reason, despite the fact that others have said that the Possum, Big Train and Marguerite interviews are essential for the page. He has come across as a bully, eager to trample on those who try to write. His colleague Nzd has made derisory remarks and I do not deserve it. I feel deeply upset at being slighted, and am going to suggest a compromise that neither he or I will be happy with. If he restores Big Train as it was, puts back the Carl Davis quotes and reverts the Graham Gouldman edits, we can leave it at that. I am sorry if some of my (and our) behaviour came across as spamming, and will discuss more carefully in future on talk pages, but would ask that Binksternet leave me and my work in peace. -emnitinlurve[[User:Yamla|Yamla]

That is a violation of WP:SOCK. Please read it again, particularly the WP:MEAT part. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to list the specific accounts you and your friends have been using. Note at least one of those accounts has falsely claimed to be a different person, while also signing as this account. You'll need to address this attempt to mislead us. --Yamla (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback,but I would ask that users Binksternet and Nzd tone down their aggressive bullying tactics. They blocked me from a conversation about spam that does not give me a right to reply, yet expected me to watch their accusations and aggressive language decrying some of my writing as "trivial". What gives someone the right to level that ignorant an opinion? But I will put in the addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs)

You have acted shamefully here, violating WP:SOCK and attempting to mislead us about this. Please reread WP:GAB. You need to address your bad behaviour, not go around casting aspersions at others. Above, you indicate the following are your sock/meatpuppets: Emnetinlurve, ZanetaStepanova, Jenniferjacques, WillieMcMillie. The latter two accounts do not exist, and you missed at least KylieMcMilie and 86.41.107.246. I'm giving you one more chance to honestly address the extent of your sockpuppetry. Please think hard before making your next edit. So far, you have demonstrated a lack of honesty and forthrightness and it needs to stop now if you ever want to have a chance to edit Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we are deleting these accounts. We feel that the behaviour here has been appalling. Neither of you have spoken with any grace. We are deleting our accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs)

I also see Jenniferjaques (you incorrectly said Jenniferjacques) and several more 86.41 IP addresses, which attempted to silence discussion. This also indicates there's a conflict of interest going on here. You cannot delete your account but you can stop editing with them. Alternatively, if you wish to make a full and complete accounting of your behaviour here, including multiple attempts to mislead us, including multiple violations of WP:SOCK, including your apparent violation of WP:COI, you are welcome to do so. Anything other than a full and complete accounting will result in you losing your talk page access, though. You are free to stop editing. You are free to make a full and complete accounting of your actions here. Nothing else is acceptable at this point. --Yamla (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see a simple mistake gets attacked! Do you realise that some people aren't entirely technically literate? Nobody wanted to silence discussion, some manouevres to improve wikipedia pages went awry. I can see they're not welcome here. Ciao x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs)

Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Given your latest tweet is directed specifically at me, I'll repond to that one.

Firstly, your tweet and the message above say that I and @Binksternet have blocked you. That isn't the case. You, and your related accounts, were blocked by @Yamla for abusing multiple accounts, per our rules on sockpuppetry. You've denounced my responses to this issue as "aggressive" and "derisory", but I fail to see where. My responses at WP:AN/I are clearly factual (OK, the bit about getting Binksternet's name wrong might be a little "derisory", but hey, you did ).

You seem to be under the impression that you have a right to have your work published on Wikipedia and that you are being "punished" by having these edits removed. I would suggest reading WP:CONSENSUS, which explains that content on the site is derived through the collective decision-making of its many editors. Requests to "leave me and my work in peace" aren't acceptable by any editor on a collaborative platform. I stated on AN/I that I thought that, on the face of it, some of the additions seem to have some merit, but what we're talking about here isn't content, it's about conduct. When I initially encountered these edits, by various IPs and by @ZanetaStepanova, I specifically asked whether there was a relationship that might represent a conflict of interest. This was ignored, and then flat-out denied. It is now evident that there is a clear COI. There were also obvious cases of edit-warring.

My recomendation would be to take Yamla's advice in explaining precisely your actions and motives in an unblock request, detailing those previous accounts and why they were used. I see you have now had talk page access revoked, but you can still submit a request via WP:OTRS. Then, if you do have your account unblocked, to follow the guidelines at WP:EDITREQ when suggesting your own work for inclusion. Other editors may consider such content worthwhile, but these should be editorial decisions based on consensus, and not be steamrolled in as they have been up to now. Nzd (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan, regarding this and this, I won't be engaging any further. If you need to contact Wikipedia for any reason, please do so through WP:OTRS.

@Bbb23: you might also want to have a look at Rorylyng (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Nzd (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nzd: There must be an awful lot of people living together.

Confirmed and blocked. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24287 was submitted on Mar 12, 2019 14:03:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24288 was submitted on Mar 12, 2019 14:30:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Ingham here

Hello.

I have just read that someone has written that I might be a "sockpuppet" of "Emnetinlurve".

I can say right now, having read up about sockpuppetry on the page, that I am not. I do not know what this "Emnetinlurve" is--Marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyIngham (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and block evasion was confirmed. Emnetinlurve is now in danger of an indefinite ban under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]