User talk:84.13.156.208: Difference between revisions

Hello. New editors don't typically turn up and immediately contribute to unblock discussions. This strongly suggests you are an editors with a history of interaction with Vk. While you have the right to editing anonymously if you wish, considering the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for Vk to decline to interact with you.

I have already stated quite clearly that I was not a new editor and had been harassed by political extermists before. I don't want my auto burglarised again. And I do appreciate that things are different here in Europe from back home. Bit wiki's sedrvers are hosted in FL so my amendment rights are still protected under US law. I'm a comms specialist so it's part of my job to know that, ,unlike the U.S., under European Union law, IP Addresses are considered to be personal data as defined by article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC "'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity; " Also see Directive 2006/24/EC.

In association with time codes, IP Addressing information will always identify unique ISP account holders unless there is translation of that information - which is why I have employed skittering to protect my anonymity84.13.156.208 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your query about Arbcom has been addressed and Vk is now unblocked, so the point is perhaps moot. If there is anything else you would like to say on the subject, then feel free to do so on my talkpage, but please obey Vk's wishes to stop editing on his talk page. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to - but it seems you are determined to protect these terrorists - I find I can't edit on your page84.13.156.208 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right we all have to obey the same rules. So do not delete my comments from someone else's talk page, SqueakBox 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable. Please stop now or I will take action to stop you from continuing to harass Vk. He has made it very clear he does not wish to continue this discussion with you. Rockpocket 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 hour in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit warring on another editors talkpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Why is it edit warring by me to ask civil and pertinent questions?

Why have you now even censored the whole history of several weeks of contributions on Vintagekits talk page?

Is it because the history would show that I have not harassed anyone?

I think that you misunderstand your job here on Wikipedia, which is essentially to help ensure that editors may write an encyclopedia without enduring disruption and bad faith edits from Single Purpose Accounts and those that do not have a neutral and unbiassed outlook whatever the color of their passport

Thank you for your concern. With all due respect, I'm not sure its the best idea to take advice on how to be an administrator from someone who has yet to learn to sign their comments with four tiles ~~~~. Moreover, I have not deleted anything from Vintagekits talkpage other than your last comment. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Finally, its interesting you mention Single Purpose Accounts, because your contributions do not appear to cover much editing space, [1] what exactly is the purpose of your interaction with Vk? Rockpocket 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I made very clear earlier, I am not a new editor.

I am very sorry for not signing. I did not realise that I had that facility on an anonymous account - I've never posted from an IP address before. Now does this work84.13.156.208 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be persistent but why is it edit warring by me to ask civil and pertinent questions?

Why have you now even censored the whole history of several weeks of contributions on Vintagekits talk page?84.13.156.208 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. New editors don't typically turn up and immediately contribute to unblock discussions. This strongly suggests you are an editors with a history of interaction with Vk. While you have the right to editing anonymously if you wish, considering the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for Vk to decline to interact with you.

Your query about Arbcom has been addressed and Vk is now unblocked, so the point is perhaps moot. If there is anything else you would like to say on the subject, then feel free to do so on my talkpage, but please obey Vk's wishes to stop editing on his talk page. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

But I am not a new editor.

Where editors wish to contribute anonymously and have a good reason (eg: harassment) they are permitted, provided they are civil, to do so.

Why does Vkits get this extreme level of censorship permission?

Why does he not wish to communicate with me?

I don't know why Vk chooses not to communicate with you, perhaps its because he believes you are someone who has previously been in conflict with him. I don't care who you are, and you have every right to remain anonymous. But Vk can remove whatever he wishes from his talkpage. You do not have the right to continue to revert his page when he (and others) have made it clear your comments are not welcome. That is edit warring and bordering on harrassment. If you have something to say to Vk, do so here and I will draw his attention to it. If he chooses to interact with you, then fine, otherwise you will just have to accept he doesn't wish to communicate with you. Rockpocket 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "revert his page" but that is being imprecise. I tried each time to restore the questions I was asking of him. And those questions were not harassing. They were simple questions like why he does not wish to communicate and censors the remarks of others. Surely our First Amendment rights count for something even when we are posted overseas?

Germans don't have First Amendment rights. Brixton Busters 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me be clear. Wikipedia is not an extension of American soil, therefore the US Consitution does not apply. We do not have a constitutional freedom of expression here. Secondly let me draw your attention to the text at the top of Vk's talkpage

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of User:SirFozzie or another member of the administrator community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment. Constructive dialogue is always welcome, but if your message is removed it is safe to assume that User:Vintagekits has read it and chooses not to debate with you at this time.

This permission is currently available to all editors. By continually restating a question when Vk indicated he did not wish to communicate with you, your actions were becoming disruptive which was why I blocked you. Is this clear? Rockpocket 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right we all have to obey the same rules. So do not delete my comments from someone else's talk page, SqueakBox 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake for which I humbly apologise.

It was not deliberate but accidental when huge chunks of your comments (and those of other editors were deleted). I am surprised that you do not deprecate blanking user pages and selectively (and intentionally) removing comments from other editors.

I think its important we give VK another chance. And absolutely vital that we dont wind him up in these first hours of freedom, SqueakBox 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I did not realise he had been jailed. I will stop at once.84.13.156.208 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]