User talk:Chris.usnames

Block circumvention

Your two previous accounts, User:Spyro02 and User:Ghqs are both blocked indefinitely. Such blocks apply to the person, not just to the account. If you want to become a constructive editor, see WP:Standard offer for guidance. Meanwhile, you are not allowed to edit and I will revert all your activity without considering whether it is constructive or not. Hans Adler 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure why you think you have a chance of getting away with obvious lies such as in this comment. Hans Adler 23:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did never have any of these two accounts. Please leave me alone and don't claim such shit you don't have any proof for, ~~or I will have to report you to police.~~ Thanks Chris.usnames (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. [1] At least you seem to have realised your mistake. Feel free to call 110 while I report you for violating WP:NLT. Hans Adler 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I shouldn't say where I live actually. What's 110? Is that emergency? We call 911 here in the states. But I don't think it's such an emergency. ~~I will just log onto ic3.gov and file a criminal report with them (it goes directly to the Feds~~). I know I don't make a lot of sense (but that's because I am an Asperger's guy). But you make a lot less sense, and that's because you are a ~~meth guy~~ or was it math ~~(?)~~. Sorry it's been a while since school. Anyway, as I said, back off and let me be. You only get in ~~trouble~~(perhaps I should phrase it, it doesn't any good) if you do me. Chris.usnames (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't say where you lived a few months ago if a quick Google search for that location together with your nationality and your occupation at the time easily leads to news reports about your conviction. Who do you think you are? Felix Krull? Hans Adler 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What news reports and conviction? If I type in Chris Wilson, the first thing I get is my classmates. I only briefly visited Schraplau back in 2007, when a student I used to host for an exchange married. I have no idea about you guys over there in Germany. Really, I don't actually care about this article. Forget about it. I will stick to the Lewes and Clarke Museum and all the other stuff we have here. You do your stuff, I do mine. Just leave me be. If you try to find me or try to break into my house, you are in a lot of trouble. Just saying. Chris.usnames (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block for WP:NLT

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for legal threats. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have never made a legal threat. I simply and politely advised him not to stalk me. I don't know this guy and he is making false claims that I am related to some other accounts without providing evidence. That is slander, therefore he should be block from editing the Wikipedia. I have no reason to sue him, unless he is trying to hunt me and my family. After he said he is going to report me, I clarified that all I want is that he backs off and minds his on business, instead of mine. He hasn't commented again on my talk page for over an hour now and I'd rather watch my show instead of having my computer tell me I got an email. So I consider this issue solved. If he keeps stalking, I will talk to Wikimedia.

Decline reason:

"Please don't stalk me or I will have to report you to police and the Internet Crime Complaint Center" ... under what color sky is that not a legal threat? — Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Well, you guys seem to have a different understanding of things than I do. I am little paranoid, you know. I used to live on the East Coast and I always felt like people are following me all the time. I went back to the Mid-West because we have more space and wilderness here. I had my Wikipedia account in good standing for over half a year. I made few but contributive edits. Now this guy, Mr. Adler, is coming out of the blue and claims I am associated with some other accounts that got blocked without providing any evidence. I don't know this person and of course I have nothing to do with these accounts. So I felt insulted and threatened. I have Asperger's (an autism spectrum disorder) which may have caused the misunderstanding here. I apologize for that and wish to be unblocked. I will no longer make any edits to the article on Schraplau and avoid any interaction with Mr. Adler. There are no legal actions outstanding. Accordingly to Wikipedia's Legal Threat policy, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding," I qualify for being unblocked. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Per the comments below, Asperger's might explain your actions but it does not excuse them. You need to unambiguously retract the threat of legal action if you wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (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.

Comment from the blocking admin. It doesn't look as if you've withdrawn the legal threat; you've merely stated that there is no present legal action. As for the WP:SOCK accusation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spyro02 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spyro02/Archive. I am not a WP:CheckUser, so I cannot comment on the investigative techniques used. Having dealt with people with Asperger's, I can appreciate your misunderstanding, so I'm trying to make this as clear as possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did as you kindly advised me and I striked out everything that might be interpreted as a legal threat. I did not mean to offend; merely intended to defend myself. I promise to not use such wording again.

Decline reason:

You say that you have "striked [sic] out everything that might be interpreted as a legal threat", though you have not struck out either "I will get a restraining order instantly" nor "Don't touch my family or you go to jail". However, even if we assume that you intended to convey that you were withdrawing all your various legal threats, that is by no means the end of the problems with your editing. Your editing has been highly contentious, you have shown clearly that you wish to impose your own views, rather than acting collaboratively, and despite your denials it is perfectly clear that you have indulged in sockpuppetry. It does not seem at all reasonable to think that unblocking you would be to the benefit of Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2011 (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.

I will stay away from the Schraplau article. And I wish that Mr. Adler is told to not talk to me on my talk page again or anywhere else on Wikipedia and the rest of the web, since we seem to have, how should I put it, an issue in communicating effectively ([2]). Thank you. Chris.usnames (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-Puppet???

Can someone please explain this to me? I had my user account for over half a year in good standing. Now someone is claiming that I have a sock-puppet account of some other user and my account gets blocked? Why? Where is due process? According to Wikipedia policy I have right to due process through a discussion. My rights have severely been violated. I would like the blocks to be reversed because they're unnecessary and against Wikipedia policies. You must prove your claims by clear and convincing evidence. Again, I am not a suck-puppet, I have never had any other accounts. If you want, I can fax a copy of my driver's license (with the ID number and my street address cleared out) to an independent administrator to verify my identity. And then I would like to know why you think I am associated with any other account. Chris.usnames (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is so incredibly stupid. I have enough of this. It's past 11 pm and I am sick of getting an email every few minutes because somebody is trolling and blocking my account. I am starting to get a headache. I am going to bed now. You guys are a real joke. If I ever get to see you here in Iowa, I will get a restraining order instantly. Don't touch my family or you go to jail. This entire Wikipedia has become platform for discrimination and stalking. Night now. Chris.usnames (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it is relevant for the above unblock request, I note that the SPI I opened ended up positive and was closed only because the user is already blocked. Before considering to unblock this user, please consult the Spyro02 SPI. Hans Adler 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is SPI on Wikipedia? In computer science it's stateful package inspection. Don't know if you mean that. I read this block investigation log (no one told me about it but I figured it out by following a link). Now for some reason I might have the same IP address as the person who made the edits without an account. I dial into the Internet by AOL, which has proxies in place. And I work for an International software development company whose network I connect to by VPN. Whether I am connected to the VPN or not, whatever my IP address is, it's blocked because there are network sharing proxies in place. The AOL thing is more public, our VPN is limited to authorized users only. So I tend to say this guy used AOL. I will still check our internal NAT firewall logs and see if there are any matches. And Hans Adler, I would like to avoid any interaction with you from henceforth and I kindly ask you to make no more edits on my talk page. If you do, I will consider this stalking and report you to an administrator. Chris.usnames (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what this investigation page and the log trying to say. I tried to read a "compare user" page for my own account and this weird IP address. But it says the page doesn't exist. So I would assume that this page doesn't get generated automatically. So there is no indication that I am related to this IP address or the other account that appears there. It's just put together. I reason that from the fact that most IPs are allocated dynamically, so they change. You can't match up a user accessing and an IP address that logged on a year apart each because the user will unlikely have the same address then. So something is definitely going wrong here. This is all not really fair because things don't get explained to me clearly. And actually the only user that complained about me are you, Mr. Adler. There was no other user showing up and said I am a sock-puppet but you. Can you please explain this to? No, don't reply below my comment, please write it in big letter using plain English on your own talk page. Thanks Chris.usnames (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "compare user" page is restricted to those with CheckUser permissions. Access to and use of the tool is heavily restricted due to the Foundation's privacy policy, which also forbids checkusers from revealing personally-identifying information - such as your IP, from which where you live can generally be deduced. Seeing as how you're complaining about being stalked and harassed, why would you want that information out in the open? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with this IP address that commented on the British English tag, so there can't be any evidence in the log. Unless someone falsified the logs. I live in the State of Iowa and if this person with this IP address lives somewhere near here too (even if that is statistically unlikely), so be it. An IP address is no proof of anything, some ISPs were already forced to share IPs by putting NAT in place because they are running out of space, and if that's not the case, IPs are gennerally reassigned to another user every few hours. My employer also has to put in a NAT because we don't have enough allocations. Also every day some IP allocations are reallocated from one ISP to another. I know about this because I dealt with all of that in the past. A couple of years ago, our solutions made use of tracking cookies because IPs alone weren't reliable, now we switched to digital IDs because they identify the computers and persons behind inquries to our apps. Wikipedia is a self-declared open encyclopedia where everyone can contribute. And unless I vandalise or break the rules (which I do not intend to do) or you can reliably prove beyond reasonable doubt (that means you should have enough evidence to be able to prove your case in front of an independent abitrator if necessary) that I have done so or I was affiliated with such actions in the past, you cannot (I mean should not because it's not fair) prevent me from making contributive edits on this platform. Thank you for understanding my concern.Chris.usnames (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

First, if you want a reply, you cannot ask them to reply elsewhere than on your talkpage
Second, you may request they not post on your talkpage after your discussion with them is complete
WP:SOCK can be found by behavioural means (ie articles edited, grammar and spelling or interaction similarities)
If you actually retract a statement, you must use <s> ... </s> around it, in order to strike it. You still have not done this on the 2 or 3 specific legal threats I see on this page alone
Choosing to attack ANY editor who has a concern about you or your editing is inappropriate, and will not be tolerated
Stalking and harassment have specific legal meanings - do not toss them around willy-nilly with respect to your interactions here in Wikipedia, as that's equivalent to a WP:NLT as well

Right now, I see absolutely no reason to unblock you - regardless of Aspergers (which I know a lot about - and we have a LOT of editors who have that afflication), your interactions above and on Wikipedia are not tolerable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to point out that the person behind this account has in the past engaged in extremely questionable behaviour related to domain registration, and a Canadian took pains to make this fact public on a related mailing list, albeit somewhat overzealously and unprofessionally. The present user attacked this Canadian in a way similar to how he is now attacking myself. When you now google the Canadian, among the first ten hits there are claims that he is an "internet terrorist", and somewhat further down also claims that he is a "known Pedophile and Registered Sex Offender".

It is clearly ironic that this user accuses me of stalking and harassment merely for making sure that his indefinite block from editing Wikipedia is enforced. In fact, I am taking pains not to present evidence against him on-wiki that would normally be part of on-wiki investigations and discussions but is not appropriate in this case because it would out him. Evidence for all my accusations is available to responsible admins per email. Hans Adler 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, cut it out. You have already been asked not to post here by the user - you are permitted to respond there ONLY to the questions that he asked. Anything else is merely poking the bear. If you have evidence with diff's, provide them directly to an admin (or 2). If you reply to anything OTHER than the questions posed, you'll be getting a rest of your own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins, I have no idea what Mr. Adler is talking about. With your permission I would like to remove his inappropriate allegiations from my talk page. I don't care about whatever he sends you by email, I don't care because it's either not true or has nothing to do with me. I don't know any Canadian and I have never been in the business of domain registrations. I am a software designer! I hope he finally gets it now. This is not up for discussion, I have my own private life, my family and only one Wikipedia account. Again, I repeat, I don't care if he tells anyone anything about what he thinks about me, I just don't want it to happen on my talk page or near my sight. Everyone has a couple of inches of privacy around oneself which ought not to touched. It is my personal opinion (and this feeling might be different for every one else) that Mr. Adler has severely trespassed. I therefore wish that he is blocked from interacting with me. Thank you for understanding my concern. Chris.usnames (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Editing this page anonymously is considered block evasion and is not permitted. I have reverted the changes.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]