User talk:Who R U?

Hello

(talk page stalker)

Hello there, You're on ANI now.

Clearing talk pages wont help, If you've got something to say about this report please explain, or you might get blocked. Invisible(Talk) 07:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a right to clear my own talk page. I was not clearing his. Why does todd get put a report against me on ani but also erase my report of his? Since when is that "okay"? Who R U? (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that, You didn't create new report, but you changed Toddst1's report so he reverted that here. Invisible(Talk) 07:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I created a NEW report to add to his. THEY WERE BOTH THERE, and then he kept assuming that only mine was there and ERASING it.

May 2016

This is to let you know I blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring at the edit warring notice board. It may be extended for the activity listed on that board as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does todd get put a report against me on ani but also erase my report of his? Since when is that "okay"? Why don't you block him for erasing MY report? Who R U? (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] says it all. Toddst1 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that is a LIE. I didn't change your report except to add my rebuttal. Do I not have the right to rebut your report? I see rebuttals on reports all the time! Otherwise how would we defend ourselves?

But then I also tried to ADD my report against you (not replace yours with mine, although that did happen accidentally until I caught it later and fixed it); I saw that at that point BOTH were there, but you STILL kept erasing mine! Who R U? (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Todd forgot to mention, but there is a discussion at WP:ANI over this. He didn't erase your report. He filed a report, you kept swapping your name and his. If you want to file a report, fine, do so, but don't modify someone else's report. My block was because you kept changing an already filed report at an admin board. His actions in reverting you were simply to restore the original report. As to the merits of the report, I will leave that to others. In the mean time, I suggest you read WP:3RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't forget: [2]. That was reverted too. :) Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. Reverting that was fine, just proves he saw it. With all the reverts, I didn't see it, so was just covering the basis by adding the notice myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't swapping my name with his, I ADDED my own report. He kept erasing mine by reverting it out! Look at the history! They were both there! The only changes I made to his were my rebuttal. Don't I have a right to rebut his false report? And then don't I have a right to add my own? And if you claim that I was edit-warring there, why does he not get the same block for the same warring to erase my report?

I didn't break 3RR at the article. I reverted maybe 3 times but that is not breaking 3RR. And then I edited DIFFERENT areas. Who R U? (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• And they will hash that out at AN3. By the way, you can be blocked for edit warring without reverting more than 3RR. The 4th revert is a bright line rule, but it isn't required to block you. If you had reverted twice at the admin board, I would have blocked you just the same. It isn't about the number of times you revert, it is about behavior that is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But he was falsely reporting me specifically for "3RR," which I didn't break. So how about that? And then how about you answer my question about todd's warring at ani while I was trying to report him for his false report of me, and I then made sure BOTH reprorts were there? If he was edit-warring the ani too, why doesn't he get the same punishment? Who R U? (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I told you, I didn't look at the report, you were too busy reverting it. You were blocked simply for changing a report filed on an ADMIN board. You don't do that. Once it is filed, leave it to admin to figure out. If he did something wrong, he would be dealt with. Instead, you started changing up the words of someone else. Seriously, if you don't have the social sophistication to understand that, then maybe Wikipedia isn't right for you. Once a different admin looks at the report, if they think action is needed against Todd, they will deal with it. If they think action is needed against you, they will extend your block out more. Right now, you aren't helping your case with the immaturity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're the one being immature, dennis, just for falsely accusing me of being that way. I told you, I wasn't changing todd's report except to add my rebuttal. I submitted my own report by swapping things around, and then when I noticed that I had ACCIDENTALLY overwritten his, I let him revert that but then I COPIED mine in and then his AND mine were both there. But oh, NOO, he couldn't let that go. He still had to erase mine even THOUGH his was still there. Why didn't we BOTH get blocked for warring in that case? Why do you ignore the phrase from the 3RR rules that says, "even if you are RIGHT" or something like that? Who R U? (talk)

Indef blocked for socking

Not sure how stupid you think we are, but it appears, not that stupid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you would've just resolved your unfair blocking of me for restoring my report WITHOUT erasing todd's (see above), then I wouldn't have made that other account. Moving forward then, restore the ANI so that BOTH todd's report and mine are there (which I meant for it to be anyway; not so that mine replaced his), and then block the sock Wanna Hertz Donut? and unblock this account, and we'll be back to normal. Who R U? (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That... is not how it works. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 08:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Then... how DOES it work? You've never heard of an appeal? People do get unblocked even from indefs, ya know, based on the appeal. That's basically what this is, is it not? If the point of blocking a socker is to deter the socking, then to reverse that, simply have the user choose which ONE account to stick with and leave the other(s) blocked. Just because of this that person shouldn't have to stay blocked for the whole rest of their life, ya know. That's why you HAVE appeals. Who R U? (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• How it works is that now you are blocked without an expiration date, and if you come back with another account (and you are easy to spot) you will be blocked again. Allow me to be frank. Wikipedia isn't the hobby for you. You probably should find something else to do. You seem to think that just creating multiple accounts is ok, and edit warring is ok, demonstrating you lack the capacity to work in a collaborative, collegiate environment. Not everyone can, so it isn't a personal judgement, just a fact. The only way to get unblocked is using this account, after demonstrating you've bothered to read a bit of the policies and have a clue what you did that violated them, and give a convincing explanation of how you would move forward. Read WP:GAB. And if you can't bother to read all that, then you don't need to be at a place that is focused on reading and writing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said I thought edit-warring was okay. But tell me this: If there's a rule in edit-warring that even the person who reports the warring can be under scrutiny for it him- or herself, meaning that the REPORTER (screw wikimark) can be blocked for the same thing, EVEN if the reporter's reversions were right--but actually, in this case, MINE were right (more on that in a minute)--why WASN'T todd blocked for reverting my edits at Louie C.K.?

How do you decide which editor to give immunity to? As far as blocking goes, usually it looks like you have a few criteria for letting someone go free even though they warred too: 1. if they were more "right" (like if their reversion seems to follow consensus even though the other editor's work wasn't true vandalism; even though the edit-warring RULES say that shouldn't matter); 2. if they were the first to report, even though they were WRONG, as in my case here (my edits on Louis C.K. were IN LINE with the MOS about pseudonyms, yet toddy gets free simply because he reported me before I reported him).

But the edit-warring rules SAY that even the person who writes the first report can get the same treatment as the person they're reporting because they were edit-warring too. In order for toddy to have reverted my edits--which were NOT vandalism (something like just putting junk in there, duh), but which were, in fact, conforming that article TO THE MOS)--that means he had to have been edit-warring too. So why was he given immunity here instead of ALSO being blocked? Who R U? (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• All I looked at was the admin board edits. Under any and all circumstances, your actions were clearly wrong and disruptive. I haven't looked at the article. Had you not been disruptive at the Edit Warring board, then starting socking, then I would have, but you made it moot by your own actions. And it doesn't matter who writes the report, we examine everyone's activities. In this case, we didn't, we just examined the warring at the board itself. The report became irrelevant. You shot yourself in the foot. You are trying to do what we call "wikilawyering" and you don't fully understand the policies to begin with. You are focusing on how someone else was wrong instead of accepting your own actions. Don't expect a follow up, I'm done here. I gave you the link for unblocking. I can promise that if you just focus on someone else's actions, you won't be unblocked, ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, duck out of the discussion before giving the defendant a fair chance to get the complete explanation into your head. Did you not even read my explanation up there for how BOTH reports were there at ANI but he kept ERASING MINE? Did you not even read the part where once I saw that my report ACCIDENTALLY replaced toddy's, I went back and put his back so that they would BOTH be there, but instead of looking to see that fact, toddy just kept blinding reverting mine out? Why are some editors so lazy that they can't look at the actual outcome of the edit (i.e. to see that both reports are, in fact, THERE), but instead just look at the history and that the reversion happened, so they instead just assume that the same old edit happened over and over even though that is NOT the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who R U? (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 May 2016‎

You're not far away from having talk page privileges removed. If you're serious about wanting to build an encyclopedia, I'd focus on Dennis's advice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What Toddst1 said. Who R U?, you REALLY need to DROP THE STICK and move on. You were clearly in the wrongdoing, there is no question or doubt about that. Whether you agree or not is your problem. In fact, constantly bringing the same points shows that you lack WP:COMPETENCE and confirms what Dennis has said about you. Also, Wikipedia DOES NOT WORK by unblocking the socks and unblocking this. If you can't handle that, go elsewhere. Socking is a policy and a big no-no. If that's hard to swallow, Wikipedia is not for you. Also, to criticize Dennis, who is an admin with plenty of experience, when you're socking is hypocritical. Now, if I were you, I would listen to what everybody else is saying and leave it alone before you lose your talk page privileges. Enough is enough. PS: {{tps}} is NOT VANDALISM. It is a template meaning a person "stalks" a talk page. I have few myself on talk page. Everybody does. And also, regarding that, please read WP:VANDALISM because your understanding of vandalism is very misleading and misunderstood. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure I have supposedly "stalked" talk pages? I did post something to someone else's page, but we all do that at some point or another, do we not? So how should it supposedly be any "different" for me? And what supposed "good" do you figure it is to falsely accuse me of being one? And why do you keep adding it back even against WP:BLANKING?

How do you figure I was in the "wrong" to have reported toddy when he was reporting me? Follow these steps and tell me where my supposed "wrong" was, according to you (other than a submission mistake I admit to making and then correcting):

1. I made an edit to Louis C.K. that fell right in line with the MOS about pseudonyms.

2. Supposed "admin" toddy reverts my GOOD-FAITH edit by falsely complaining that it was "not in line with the pseudonym MOS," but then ironically shows me the specific part of that MOS that my edit _IS_ in line with. Haha, fancy that!

3. So then I edit it back because my edit was actually IN LINE with that MOS while his was not, still not crossing the 3RR mark.

4. He reverts again, creating his OWN edit war, so that when he reports me for blocking, he ends up reporting himself implicitly, and the edit-warring rules even SAY that a reporter who was edit-warring, whether they have broken 3RR or not, will (or at least SHOULD) be scrutinized as well.

5. I made a few other editions, but just "dummy edits" to add something I forgot to include in my summaries from before, which of course don't count as part of the reversions and therefore don't count towards 3RR.

6. So then toddy sends this false report to the ANI (whether warring or not, I had not crossed the bright line of 3RR, remember, which is the specific thing that toddy falsely reported me for).

7. So then, because toddy has reverted my edits a few times, he actually deserves to be reported to the ANI for edit-warring, so I make my report.

8. I added my defense to toddy's report that he was wrong to have said that I had "broken 3RR" when, in fact, I had not. I didn't intend to change his report but just to add my rebuttal as any editor has the right to do (and the system should be corrected to allow even blocked editors to defend themselves there; otherwise the reports are one-ended and not fair).

9. I tried submitting my report by copying parts of his report and then just flipping the names around.

10. But I made the mistake of reverting toddy's report before submitting mine, when I really meant to just ADD mine.

11. However, once I noticed the problem after his reversion of his report back into place, I then CORRECTED my mistake by COPYING my report so that they would BOTH be there.

12. But toddy was too lazy to take notice that BOTH our reports were there, and thust kept ERASING my report even though I had made SURE both were there. All he paid attention to was the history, rather than the ACTUAL page text where BOTH reports were present.

13. So it was really TODDY, not me, that was in the WRONG here. If anyone should've been blocked it should be him. Can't you see that?

So up to this point (these 13 things), since I CORRECTED my mistake of accidentally wiping over toddy's report, making sure they were BOTH there, and since my edits at Louis C.K. were IN LINE with the pseudonym MOS and toddy's reversions against those took them AWAY from the MOS, then how do you figure I have supposedly been in the "wrong" here and toddy has not?

Who R U? (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Who the hell said you're an stalker?? That {{tps}} tag means I'm talk page stalker, not you!! 😑 Invisible(Talk) 07:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it looks like one of those asinine "HAHH, we GOTCHYA!" labels you guys think it's "cool" to use. All right then, if it wasn't meant as that, then why are you using it? And is it hooked to you in the same way that the Autosinebot knows who wrote what to sign it? And why don't I have the right to keep replacing junk onto other people's pages after they've deleted them, then?

And then what about the answer to my other question (with the 13 points)?

Who R U? (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out, it seems you were adding your own report, and removing part of Todd's report. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 10:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone revoke Who R U?'s talks page privileges? I see clear WP:COMPETENCE issues and they refuse to move on all the while socking with numerous new accounts and a few IPs. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. If needs be User:Who R U? can contact Wikipedia by other venues. Lectonar (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)