User talk:Orthacanthus
Sockpuppet report
[edit]Hi Orthacanthus. As you seem to know, I opened an investigation of sock puppetry regarding your anonymous IP edits as they might connect to the banned user Ring Cinema. As you also seem to know, this string of edits between 8:15 1 August and 12:23 2 August included your reversion six times over the span of four hours. This behavior, and its location in the No Country For Old Men (film) plot section, is very similar to that exhibited by Ring Cinema.
You have stated that you are a different editor than Ring Cinema. For some perspective, Ring Cinema was temporarily or permanently blocked from editing 12 times over the course of four years for his or her disruptive editing. The user particularly struggled greatly to express himself or herself. His or her inability to edit constructively and insistence on maintaining poorly worded and opaque copy, coupled with many and endless inarticulate ad hominem attacks on talk pages, caused his or her many disruptive and counterproductive behaviors in violation of Wikipedia policy. So as you might imagine, there is much concern that these violations don't resume.
If you indeed are not Ring Cinema, I trust that you will be willing to let the Wikipedia:CheckUser process proceed so that we can sort all of this out. Thanks for understanding. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- If anyone's curious and stumbles across this bit on my Wiki talk, the tl;dr is that this guy really, really wanted me banned for editing one of their precious pages, even after providing proof. The investigation cleared me. Orthacanthus (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, the investigation concerned Ring Cinema, not you, assuming that this account is indeed not a sock puppet account for Ring Cinema. There were no factors concerning "precious pages" or banning you qua you as you assert. In any case, I'm not sure why you're being so defensive if you are indeed not a sock puppet. Had you seen the work of the banned user, you would understand the need to keep him or her off Wikipedia. That person was really, really bad at editing, writing, reasoning, and engaging with other Wikipedians. CCS81 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a bit funny, considering that you still wanted me gone for "being similar" to Ring Cinema and contributed the most to that "investigation". Over descriptions in a movie article. But it's a bit moot, given Jacobite isn't getting bizarrely angry over film plot and you haven't touched the page in a while. Orthacanthus (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your first conjunct before the italicized "and" is false. The goal was to investigate sock puppetry, not wanting anyone "gone for 'being similar.'" I contributed to the sock puppetry investigation after this string of disruptive edits, which is unambiguously you and also similar to edits from a previous editor who was banned for good reason. This is not the same as wanting you "gone." I cannot understand the rest of what you have written in your response. In any case, if you are not Ring Cinema, then our business seems to be resolved, no? So you will need either to explain why we are still talking about this or to drop it. CCS81 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- My eyes glazed over, but leave it to Film Wikipedia to say adding to a plot is disrupting, lmao. Orthacanthus (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- An admin, not "Film Wikipedia," determined it was disruptive, not because of "adding to plot" but because of numerous aspects calling for WP:DBLOCK, including harassment, edit warring, gross incivility, and suspected sock puppetry. See edit here. CCS81 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- For anyone curious, TheOldJacobite wwas someone who got extremely angry over film plot edits and ragequit when they were tempbanned for fighting over Motorama, of all things. Orthacanthus (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- An admin, not "Film Wikipedia," determined it was disruptive, not because of "adding to plot" but because of numerous aspects calling for WP:DBLOCK, including harassment, edit warring, gross incivility, and suspected sock puppetry. See edit here. CCS81 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- My eyes glazed over, but leave it to Film Wikipedia to say adding to a plot is disrupting, lmao. Orthacanthus (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your first conjunct before the italicized "and" is false. The goal was to investigate sock puppetry, not wanting anyone "gone for 'being similar.'" I contributed to the sock puppetry investigation after this string of disruptive edits, which is unambiguously you and also similar to edits from a previous editor who was banned for good reason. This is not the same as wanting you "gone." I cannot understand the rest of what you have written in your response. In any case, if you are not Ring Cinema, then our business seems to be resolved, no? So you will need either to explain why we are still talking about this or to drop it. CCS81 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Orthacanthus, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Orthacanthus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
AKIRA explosions
[edit]Sorry, where is it described as an explosion exactly? Vranak (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)