User talk:24.211.172.115

Plea for Mercy

@5 albert square: I admit what I did was wrong, and I would have undone my actions. I edit-warred, moved comments to another editor's talk page -- I would have done whatever was necessary to ameliorate for my grievous error immediately after I saw it as such. I know what I did was wrong, and I won't be doing it again tonight, tomorrow, next week, next month, whenever. The only action I've done today is post this message because I rarely get any time online due to my involvement with school. Honestly, all that will be solved now by keeping me blocked will be punishing me for a mistake I admit that I made and completely regret. If I'm forced to stay blocked for something (broken record) I now realize was wrong, I won't feel like working on this site anymore. I don't want to be another burnt out editor, but I've had multiple occasions where I've felt like this project just sickens me, but I realize that something has to be fixed about it. There was no imperative to keep myself in the IP editor category for my entire tenure. It seems that for however long I had removed myself from it, no one felt the need to block me. But now when its noticed, there's a sudden need to chastise me for it. Right now, I'd rather work on my exchange program essay rather than worry about Wikipedian politics. And I sent TRPoD $371 as an "unblock fee" but I haven't heard anything back and I'm still blocked. --24.211.172.115 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How to handle disruptive editors

Hello mysterious IP person. I noticed you made a post on Brennan's talk page asking about how disruptive editors should be handled. Given that you posted it on Brennan's talk page I'm guessing you're talking about someone being disruptive on that article? Well there's two (maybe 3) ways of reporting them if you feel they need to be reported. But before you file a report, you should seriously consider whether or not they're actually doing something against the rules. As an IP editor (and a previously banned IP editor at that) you will be taken less seriously than most people who make a report, and it could WP:BOOMERANG on you, unless it's actually legitimate. If you want to you can tell me who you want to report and why here first, and I'll try to figure out if you've got a point worth pursuing.

As for where to report there are three options. You can place a report on WP:ANI if you want. Alternatively because Brennan's page is under GamerGate sanctions, you can report the user here, BUT only if they've been notified about the sanctions and their name is one the list here. More editors watch ANI, but more editors who edit GamerGate pages watch the sanctions page. In my experience GamerGate sanctions page reports are much more likely to lead to punishments than those on ANI, but the person being punished could be you so watch out. Also if the reason the editor is being disruptive is because they broke The three revert rule, you can report them at WP:AN3. In each case read the rules carefully and make sure to notify the editor you have reported.Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Apparently irrelevant now as I've been blocked. Yes, my question concerned the Fredrick Brennan article. While I haven't contributed significantly I've followed the talk page, where you'll find a number of editors (with more patience than I) responding repeatedly to the same set of questions from a single editor apparently re-litigating the settled AfD. While this single editor's actions seem contrary to the spirit of collaboration I don't know that they break any rules. Not being able to edit it won't affect me, but if you or anyone with the authority to "do something" could take a look, I'm sure the remaining editors would appreciate it. --24.211.172.115 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through the talk page and I cant really see Ryulong (and I'm assuming it is Ryulong because it's always Ryulong) doing anything particularly wrong (other than reverting your question which I answered above). While usually it would be better for an editor to WP:DROPTHESTICK after an AfD, another editor (one who wants to keep the article) specifically opened the Request for Comment section to discuss this issue and continue the discussion. Ryulong having an opininion and expressing it when asked to do so is not sanctionable.Bosstopher (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I'd say 90% of his ~70 comments on the talk page either argue directly (or indirectly support the argument) that "Brennan isn't notable outside of 8chan", which was already decided (to the contrary) in the AfD. If that's not sanctionable then I guess that's that. Thanks for taking a look. --24.211.172.115 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification: Gamergate

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Have fun Bosstopher (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong chatlogs

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Videmus_Omnia/IRC_Log

Note: Ryulong hates Videmus with a passion because Videmus called Ryulong out on his broken promises; see "Links" for more.

-->| Ryulong (n=ryulong6@wikimedia/Ryulong) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock

<Videmus> Ryulong, thanks for joining

<Ryulong> Videmus, contact me privately about the other account you had

<Ryulong> Then I will consider lifting the block

<Ryulong> okay?

<Videmus> what was the reason for the block?

<Ryulong> I saw that you were performing edits related to policy, even though your account was extremely new

<Videmus> I'm sorry, but is that a block reason?

<Ryulong> I assumed that you were a sockpuppet of another editor and violating policy by existing as a sockpuppet account

<Videmus> which policy?

<Ryulong> WP:SOCK

<Ryulong> Using an account to avoid scrutiny on the original one

<Videmus> I know, but what part - I wasn't doing anything disruptive

<Ryulong> oh balls, new now know how

<Videmus> look, I'm trying to be civil, please

<Ryulong> I recognize that name

<Ryulong> But I cannot recall who it belonged to

<Videmus> I used to have an account associated with my real name but started a new one under right to vanish

<Videmus> I have done nothing but constructive edits, look at my contribs

<Ryulong> Just PM me with your former username

<Ryulong> I will not reveal this information on Wikipedia

<Videmus> I don't know you, I'm sorry

<Ryulong> ...

<Videmus> why was I blocked?

<Ryulong> And if I knew your real name, would it matter?

<Videmus> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but...

<Videmus> would you mind posting the block at [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] for review?

<Ryulong> You claim that you chose this name as a right to vanish.

<Ryulong> I am just asking you to reveal this other user name to me in a private message, and then I will unblock you.

<Videmus> would there be a problem with letting neutral admins decide if the block was justified?

<Ryulong> Irrelevant

<Videmus> how so?

<Ryulong> There is no need to request input on a new account.

<Ryulong> *block on a new account

<Videmus> what behaviour did I engage in that was disruptive?

<Ryulong> Well, for one thing you tagged a free image with {{subst:nrd}}

<Videmus> I admitted on my talk page that was an honest mistake - is it usual to get an indefinite block for that?

<Ryulong> Now, I have asked you in a private message window to tell me what your prior account was. Please respond

<Videmus> I'm still requesting a neutral review, please

<Ryulong> I'm done with this.

<--| Ryulong has left #wikipedia-en-unblock

<Videmus> ?

And then of course, Ryulong harasses the user endlessly...

• 04:12, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (I did not see the time stamps)
• 02:44, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Harassment of User:Alkivar, User:Mike Halterman, and User:NeoCoronis)
• 02:43, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (too long this time...)
• 02:40, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Harassment of User:Alkivar and User:Mike Halterman)
• 02:39, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (extending)
• 02:38, 29 July 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Harassment of User:Alkivar)
• 02:24, 18 June 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Mistaken identity)
• 05:27, 17 June 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)

---