Morty C-137
Welcome
|
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- So instead of bothering to read anything or pay attention, you lob nukes? I don't really know what to say. I've responded, for whatever it's worth. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Followup
Morty, I know you have the idea that I am out to get you, and I'm sorry you have that impression. It is incorrect. I'd just like to explain why I showed up at that 3RR report: it was not because of you. It was because I had noticed Doorzki on the talk page of Snooganssnoogans, which I watchlist. Doorzki was obviously a problem account. I scolded them at that page for their edit summaries,[1] and then followed them to the 3RR board, where I recommended a block for them. I could have just gone ahead and blocked them for disruptive editing, but at admin boards I tend to wait for a consensus. My initial comment at that page was about them; it was not about you or directed to you. I did make a general comment about sock puppet accusations, which you responded to by making another such accusation.
About socks: there are two issues. One is that you are unfortunately targeted by a troll, who creates accounts mocking you. That's a tough situation for anybody, and I wish there was a way to prevent it. Those are purely abusive accounts; they should be, and are, blocked on sight by any administrator. One of them turned up yesterday and was blocked within minutes. Any time you become aware of one of those troll accounts, let any admin know; there is no need for confirmation or investigation.
The other issue is that (possibly because of your bad experiences with the troll) you tend to claim that some regular users are socks, and to call them socks on talk pages and discussion boards. That's a problem, because calling someone a sock without evidence is regarded as a personal attack. I do recommend that in the future, if you think someone is a sock of D.H.110, you file an SPI with diffs, and get them definitively dealt with. And in the meantime not keep saying "sock, sock, sock" at discussion pages. I gave you credit for having filed an SPI about Doorzki, but I was mistaken; someone else had filed that. The SPI people concluded he was not a sock of D.H.110, but it was worthwhile finding that out. And he is blocked anyhow, as he should be.
I regret that you regard me as an adversary; I am not. I do not follow you around, but I do watch some pages where you are active, and that means we will occasionally cross paths. I do hope our interactions in the future can be less antagonistic and more focused on whatever is the issue at hand. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: - there you go again. "I gave you credit for having filed an SPI about Doorzki, but I was mistaken; someone else had filed that." - No, you upbraided me for not having filed one when I had been in the middle of doing so when User:LionMans Account had simply beaten me to it, filling the form out first. But you insist on making snide comments like that and treating me in an adversarial manner, which is why I regard you as someone likely to continue doing so in the future. If I regard you as an adversary, it's because of your repeatedly adversarial conduct towards me and your seeming inability to treat me with an assumption of good faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I tried. I hope our future interactions are more cordial. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: No, you didn't really try. If you had actually had intention of trying, you wouldn't have been snidely insulting me. But this seems to be your pattern - you'll insult me, you'll make constant assumptions of bad faith about me or twist anything I do to mean the worst possible so you can justify arrogant put-downs and insults towards me, and then you'll act aggrieved when I notice it and point your behavior out. If you want cordial interaction, then change your clearly WP:CIVIL-violating behavior. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Morty, MelanieD is a good editor - assume good faith and move on, please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: No, you didn't really try. If you had actually had intention of trying, you wouldn't have been snidely insulting me. But this seems to be your pattern - you'll insult me, you'll make constant assumptions of bad faith about me or twist anything I do to mean the worst possible so you can justify arrogant put-downs and insults towards me, and then you'll act aggrieved when I notice it and point your behavior out. If you want cordial interaction, then change your clearly WP:CIVIL-violating behavior. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I tried. I hope our future interactions are more cordial. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI
Just for your information: the recent swarm of sock puppet attacks on you was from D.Pearson, not from D.H.110. See here. Not that it matters - a troll is a troll, and just as nasty either way - but it can be helpful to know who your enemies are. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Attack page?. Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
New Proposal
I've made a new proposal on the ANI thread. It's almost certainly "the best deal you'll get"; the consensus on that page may add other conditions. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm making good edits. I helped by submitting it to RFPP when there was obvious vandalism by IPS and throwaway accounts going on. Can you point to even one bad edit I've made there, @Power~enwiki:? Morty C-137 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Morty, I've just seen what you're dealing with, and I don't blame you for being upset. But you have to put it in perspective. There are assholes in the world, and they thrive on the anonymity of the internet. You know what else they thrive on? Getting a rise out of others. Don't rise to the bait. The most productive thing you can do is laugh it off and not let it cause you to behave in a way that will give them what they want. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Morty, Lynn is giving you some good advice. I've restored a welcome message to the top of this page and I'll offer you an apology from the community for the way you've been treated by some anonymous bullying trolls. That being said, I'll offer you some advice of my own: go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for Snow Close and reply to Guy Macon, who is also offering you good advice there when he says
...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change.
Sure, it's not all your fault, but we all make mistakes, and you've been provoked into making some rash ones. But don't dig your heals in – instead take this opportunity to be the better man, reply to Guy's offer at ANI, tell the community you could've handled it better and that you'll make an effort to change (maybe by avoiding contentious articles for a while), then put this all behind you rather than having to deal with a six month topic ban. Mojoworker (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)- I just got back home from my grandmother's funeral after being out of town so our family could be with her in hospice. When a gaslighter like Guy Macon starts in with insulting phrases like "are you listening morty?" I don't plan to read any further, and I really don't have the emotional energy to deal with any of the new false accusation stuff I'm seeing from DHeyward or any of the constant abuse that wikipedia administrators are willing to let slide just because it's directed against me. You're the FIRST person out of this shitty collection of aspergers and bullies that has so much as offered me a simple apology for what I've been put through, do you realize that? Four months of being fucking stalked and bullied up to and including being told to kill myself, and you're the first one to actually use the word "apology". I am not equipped to deal with this crap right now so congratulations, your collection of aspergers bullies win. I'm not going to be editing anytime soon again. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- My condolences on the loss of your grandmother. I've been through that myself, and I understand why you won't be volunteering your efforts here anytime soon. If you have a change of heart in the future, drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like. There are some good people here among the myriad of WP:DICKs, and contributing can sometimes be a rewarding experience. Take care Morty. Mojoworker (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pity, you did some good work and had an aptitude for finding sources. Goodbye, Moonmen. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just got back home from my grandmother's funeral after being out of town so our family could be with her in hospice. When a gaslighter like Guy Macon starts in with insulting phrases like "are you listening morty?" I don't plan to read any further, and I really don't have the emotional energy to deal with any of the new false accusation stuff I'm seeing from DHeyward or any of the constant abuse that wikipedia administrators are willing to let slide just because it's directed against me. You're the FIRST person out of this shitty collection of aspergers and bullies that has so much as offered me a simple apology for what I've been put through, do you realize that? Four months of being fucking stalked and bullied up to and including being told to kill myself, and you're the first one to actually use the word "apology". I am not equipped to deal with this crap right now so congratulations, your collection of aspergers bullies win. I'm not going to be editing anytime soon again. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody who has been paying attention believes for a moment that Morty C-137 is a new user. All the signs are there: The strong knowledge of policy, the enemies list, the deep knowledge of wikimarkup, the chip on his shoulder. I don't have enough solid evidence to name the username he used before, but I have strong suspicions. So don't worry; Morty will be back, carrying on his same old behavior with a brand new identity.
- "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
- And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
- or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
- 'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
- --The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel
- "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
- And, needless to say, my comment ("give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change.") was made in good faith.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've studied this case for a while now and have been rather sympathetic to you to a lot of extent, but calling people "aspergers" and "collection of aspergers bullies" very much highlights that you indeed seems to be a problematic user. Sorry for your loss, but don't use words like that to insult.★Trekker (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Per discussion at ANI/I, you are banned from all edits and pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, for one month. GoldenRing (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Been busy mucking out my house with my dad after we were flooded, so I really don't care, especially after it meant dealing with bad faith stalkers and harassment. Wikipedia admins didn't do shit to protect me from abusers, they seem to want to protect the abusers instead. @MelanieN: and other admins, after all her "you can't say things without evidence", were more than happy to let Guy Macon make completely false accusations. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by my opinion. You show all the signs of being a "new user" who is actually an old user trying to evade a previous ban. I also acknowledge that I may be wrong but I don't think I am. I also stand by my prediction that you will return to the behavior that resulted in your topic ban, but in this caser I am really hoping that I am wrong.
- @MelanieN: So you bludgeoned into me that I can't even state possibilities without some hyper-specific evidence (which I then wasn't allowed to compile in a safe space and try to boil down to appropriate format), but Guy Macon is allowed to continue in this manner? Morty C-137 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by my opinion. You show all the signs of being a "new user" who is actually an old user trying to evade a previous ban. I also acknowledge that I may be wrong but I don't think I am. I also stand by my prediction that you will return to the behavior that resulted in your topic ban, but in this caser I am really hoping that I am wrong.
A cupcake for you!
|
Please don't feel bad that a bully is attacking you. Administration is always there for us, and has to remind us every day that the best way to deal with these idiots is to not give them what they want. There are many venues you can go to in case that happens, such as AIV, LTA, SPI, etc. And don't forget that if you think a regular Wikipedia is out to get you, just assume good faith and rub it off. Be bold and improve upon others' mistakes if you have to. And of course the Talk page of an article is there in case there's disagreement over an edit you made. Good luck! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Current vandalism, admin action must be taken!
This article: List of shortest-lived sovereign states is being heavily vandalised under a wave of new users or anonymous IPs which are vandalizing the page.
Can you please return to my last edition in that page and protect it? Or at least semi-protect it for a month? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- @TechnicianGB: I'm not an admin. Sorry, can't help you. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
In other news
Your troll has resurfaced. For AIV it should be "block on sight" and you can feel free to quote me on that. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
| Hat this trolling nonsense. Wikipedia is not a forum nor the public square. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
 Morty C-137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: "Checkuser" is wrong. I suspect this is retaliation against me. Decline reason: Procedural decline with no comment on the merits. Admin can not overturn a Checkuser block, so appealing here is useless. Your only means of unblock would likely be WP:UTRS, and request a second CU review the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC) 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. @MelanieN: So, you still think I'm not being harassed? This is ridiculous, I'm no "sockpuppet" and previous checkuser checks showed it. @Acroterion: Found my troll. It's named DoRD. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Morty C-137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Being demanded to admit to something you didn't do is a form of gaslighting. It's bullying and abusive. This is how white supremacy works, and I'm not surprised. I'll wait for 6 months taking my knee if it's what it takes but I'm not happy about it. I'm no sockpuppet, and I saw the comments by the stalker just as I saw last time the people saying I should be blocked so that the stalker would go away, which is victim blaming and enabling abuse. Also, I'm unsurprised "Cjhard" came back today. I'm 100% sure this is retaliation and Cjhard is some admin's sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 18:36, October 17, 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: "how white supremacy works"? That looks like a slight twist to the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument but both that and making unfounded sock accusations don't work when appealing a block. Declined. 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. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change. Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer. You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. - MLK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 19:48, October 17, 2017 (UTC) I marched with him at Selma. Your quote doesn't excuse your behavior. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Protect
Pretty clear that this page will continue to be vandalized. Could it be protected?★Trekker (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Samsara 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
