User talk:207.81.154.64

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

Sockpuppet and Meatpuppet allegations[edit]

Ari is a problem user who has been blocked edit warring, personal attacks, reposting possibly copyrighted material etc. Part of his edit warring technique is to post false sockpuppet tags like the one below. Many editors get caught up in this trolling. I have decided to ignore it and let editors decide who is the real sockpuppet. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Hint : It is not me![reply]




Who am I[edit]

I am a respected Biblical Scholar who presently resides in the beautiful Okanagan Valley. I decided to edit anonymously because the article entitled Gospel of the Hebrews has gone toxic and I do have a reputation to maintain. (Sorry, That sounded arrogant which I am not) -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) or sometimes 207.81.154.64[reply]

A respected Biblical Scholar, eh? I am Barrack Obama, what is up? The reason for the "toxic" nature of the Gospel of Hebrews page has an awful lot to do with your POV pushing and disregard for consensus. Your POV pushing has been objected to by multiple editors and your radical changes have been objected to. This is not consensus building. Instead of pretending to be something, try being an honest editor. Join the discussions, explain your problems. Not talk about a conspiracy against you and your precious views. --Ari (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the nasy personal attack nor the slur. You seem to have lost your temper. Please calm down. I am going to give you time to chill. Please read a source before you delete it. Cheers - - 207.81.154.64 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a nasty personal attack and slur? Pardon. I have fallen over myself begging you to come and discuss changes to the article. You refuse. I stand by my statements. Your repeated personal attacks against editors and constant running from discussions is what makes an article toxic. --Ari (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have fallen over yourself begging me to come and discuss changes to the article? Wrong! You have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, reposting possibly copyrighted material etc. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. "Barrack Obama" is a slur now apparently. Good job screwing up the article, guys. I came to the article to learn something, but reading bouts of sockpuppet solipsism passes the time too. George W. Bush 21:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say it was all their fault, but I must say my behavior has been far from perfect! -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should register and link to the IPs you have edited from on your user page. That would give you some clout and make it look like you're actually investing in the community. There is quite a bit of bias against anonymous editors since they can pretty much vanish or avoid blocks and such. That is, if you aren't a sockpuppet. If when you say "I do have a reputation to maintain", you mean that you already have an account but you are keeping it uninvolved with your current behavior, then that is definition of sockpuppetry. Spacexplosion (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that if I have a User Account I cannot make Anon edits? I think you are mistaken. Please cite the Wikipedia policy section that prohibits a user from making anon edits. Thanks for taking the time to deal with me in a polite fashion. A good faith editor.-- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully read sockpuppetry which states the "position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only... The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects." From my reading, an "honest" anon edit by a person with only one account is acceptable. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read a little bit farther: "Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account." Spacexplosion (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to read that way. Thus if I were to become a registered user, I would be prohibited from anonymous editing. I am going to run your position up the flag poll. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if I were to become a registered user" - This type of weaselly answer is what's getting you in trouble. The consternation you have shown already makes it obvious that you have a registered account. Your refusal to openly to admit such is irritating, and it leads one to make the tempting conclusion that you are also the same editor as 96.22.215.70, even though you have essentially denied it here under the Sockpuppet and Meatpuppet allegations section. Although you have the right to stay anonymous, you won't win any friends with the "I know I'm behaving poorly so I won't tell you my identity" argument. I suggest being up-front and devoting your time and effort into making valid academic arguments. You might also want to read Ad_hominem to understand why certain topics keep getting removed from a certain article talk page. Spacexplosion[talk] 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss/Dispute Resolution[edit]

I requested page protection in an attempt to force you to discuss your radical and POV charged edits. So, no one will be able to edit the article - although if we do come to a consensus on changes we can request an admin implement them for us. So, I will again invite you to the talk page to discuss moving forward with the article. For some pointers see WP:DISPUTE. --Ari (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least that will put an end to your constant edit warring. Now if I can get you to stop falsifying my edits to the talk page we will be making progress. It would also be nice if you stopped the slurs and personal attacks? -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caution[edit]

Unless you are going to positively discuss the article and objected edits, do not post on my talk page. I do not care for your personal attacks or childish games. You have received a final warning from an administrator for your disruptive behaviour, and numerous editors have complained of your behaviour.

If you decide to act like an adult and finally discuss the problems with the article I am all ears. But again, I do not care for your childish games. --Ari (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Gospel of the Hebrews for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ari (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ari (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Personal Attacks and Boxes of Mass Deception[edit]

  1. Please note that the toxic material above has been falsified and it is important to check the talk page.
  2. Here is where it is tricky. Ari has also falsified the Talk page many times. I keep restoring it.
  3. The personal attacks and slurs against me are untrue. I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V last week... and have come under serious attack. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at User talk:Ari89. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Smashvilletalk 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I do apologize for losing my temper and breaking the 3RR. I got angry at the personal attacks. Thanks for only blocking me for only 24Hrs. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Talk Pages[edit]

I am again reminding you that article talk pages are not the place for non-article related discussions. However, feel free to chime in on the article related discussions. See wp:talk for more details. --Ari (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, discussion page for article, not personal attacks. Please post your sockpuppet claims in the appropriate place. That said, you will need to explain why these people are sockpuppets of each other. Simply saying they are because you do not like them is not a reason. See wp:SPI. --Ari (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put up the tag in the "appropriate place". Thanks for the help. Have a good weekend. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you vandalised my user page. You have no permission to edit or vandalise my user space. --Ari (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain? In any event, as a sign of good faith I moved the tag to your talk page. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Gospel of the Hebrews has been compromised by sockpuppetry[edit]

It has been alleged that this article and talk page has been compromised by sockpuppetry. Specifically, it has been stated that

are in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Not only do the edit histories, but more particularly the block logs show the editing to be ad idem. Ari, would you kindly explain the nature of your relationship? -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all those interested, there is no investigation into me or the three editors under me on that list. This is jut more harassment by this anonymous editor. --Ari (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

If you make another disruptive, tendentious and false edit like this one again, I will seek your permanent block. Making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry is not only cowardly and scabrous, it undermines your credibility as an editor and provides a very strong basis for considering your edits as little more than point driven disruption. Worse, such accusations constitute a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Do it again at your peril. Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very careful. Thanks, for the warning -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your allegations[edit]

You should back away from the sock puppet investigation. The truth, when exposed, may be too shocking, even for you. SpigotMap 14:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.81.154.64&oldid=1140906360"