User talk:2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:746F:B9B0:D09:B82A

Block evasion? Wikistalking? You are making things up. I have done neither of those. Which block am I supposed to have evaded? I have edited several pages but none were done because of whoever is supposed to have edited them previously (I edited the Long article once, which was to correct a grammatical error - no stalking, no reverting). If you are going to block people, please at least do so on legitimate grounds without making things up. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:20F3:8D9A:CC2C:FD65 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You were blocked back in September for block evasion by Ritchie333 after you "retired". Editing logged out is one way to evade scrutiny, hence your block (also this isn't the first time you've returned after "retiring"). You've returned to previous disruption (see edit history of W. D. Ehrhart) and Huey Long has been worked on pretty extensively by HAL333, an editor you've had conflicts with in the past (hence the wikistalking). If you're truly done with Wikipedia for good this time, then you should have no problems with this block. Consider it an extended wikibreak enforcer. Sro23 (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are making it up then. There is no block evasion (the Ritchie block was for one month and finished on 19 October). There is no Wikistalking (that's just a falsehood - I have worked on thousands of articles in my time on WP, and making one coincidental edit to correct an error is not wikistalking - that's just untrue). I am no longer associated with the previous account - the password is scrambled and unobtainable, so this is not about evading scrutiny. As for Ehrhart, I guess that me reverting a Bold edit is a "Bad Thing"? I don't suppose you've had a word or blocked the others who decided to ignore BRD and edit war? No? Didn't think so. And given my last edit to that page was over ten days ago, this is hardly within the "preventative" justification allowable for blocks, and utterly within the "punitive" area which is supposedly a no-no. This block has absolutely no merit or justification at all - and if you were being at all honest with yourself, you'd agree. But I don't expect that - I just expect another scree of self-justifying fabrications that don't make much sense. Oh well, time to hit the reset button on the router again. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:20F3:8D9A:CC2C:FD65 (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care you scrambled your password. Retiring and then coming back days later as an IP is absolutely evading scrutiny, and several editors have been blocked in the past for abusive logged-out editing after claiming retirement. And I'm just supposed to believe you came across Huey Long all on your own? Give me a break. You are being disruptive and exhausting our patience. That's your choice to continue your evasion, but each time you come back, you will be blocked. Sro23 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So I take it that by ignoring the points I made, you are acknowledging you lied with the claims of block evasion (no block was in place). A claim of wikistalking was also a lie. I am evading nothing, but will continue to dip in from time to time as an IP editor. My editing is not abusive or disruptive, but you have made up your mind and taken the most narrow-minded view available. It's the thoughtless and pointless actions like this that led to me leaving in the first place. And no, I doubt I will be blocked every time I return, unless some petty and childish vendetta is being played out - but there again, my opinion of many editors is so low that nothing would surprise me any more. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:20F3:8D9A:CC2C:FD65 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When Ritchie blocked you, he was also blocking you, as a person, from editing Wikipedia, not just your IP range. The only reason the block was so short is it's generally not allowed to block IP addresses for an extended period of time as most are dynamic, however it's clear this range is static, so I lengthened the block. Sro23 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: lies
. Ritchie blocked me (yes, me as an individual) for a month. That ended on 19 October. It is now 2 December. There is no block evasion. It is a straight lie to claim otherwise. 86.190.102.252 (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And you never protested that block. Why was that block justifiable, yet my block of you not? Sro23 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can you show a diff where I have said that was justifiable? Can you also now please acknowledge that you were not speaking the truth when you claimed you were blocking me for "block evasion". You have still not shown which block I am supposed to have been evading. 86.190.102.252 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So,, you've been active online since my last comment and still shown no evidence I was under a block that I was supposed to be evading. So you lied. You. Lied. That's really not a great thing for an Admin to do. Please try to be honest when making public actions. Lying as an Admin is a route that will lead you to ArbCom at some point. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:D0F0:7354:A37E:F72A (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Read Courtesy vanishing. You abused the courtesy vanishing process by leaving, rather conveniently, right when you likely were about to receive sanctions, then coming back right after "vanishing" as an IP, therefore avoiding criticism and scrutiny. Since coming back you've returned to disruptive editing. By the way, I have the full support of another admin when I block you for block evasion. I suggest you find a different hobby, if your opinion of many editors is so low. There are far better things to do than edit Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (the liar) 1. You are deeply in error to think I would have received sanctions. That was not the way that ridiculous circus was going; 2. You are again moving into lies in your reference to this being linked to courtesy vanishing. I asked for courtesy vanishing, was given it very briefly and this was then not allowed (Ritchie was told to reverse it). I did not abuse it at all when it was in place, so it’s just another bald-faced lie of yours to claim it (your lack of ability to tell the truth is beginning to become a recurring theme here, isn’t it). 3. Ritchie’s thought is out-of-process and has been questioned elsewhere for being something that is not a valid step to take. So, to sum up your actions so far, you’ve lied about the reason for the block, lied about my actions, lied about your actions and are relying on an out-of-process suggestion as further justification. Just a sad little liar telling sad little lies. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:746F:B9B0:D09:B82A (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's funny you think I'm a liar. You and me both know this was you wikihounding HAL333, and yet you lie to me it was a completely innocent edit. You deceived the community by making it appear like you were retired for good, and then instead returned via IP. Don't say you're done and retired, and then do the opposite of what you said! It's not that hard! To leave the "retired" banner on your userpage while you continue to edit anonymously is the very definition of deceit. You should be more like your friend; when he told everyone he was done, he really meant it, and has had the integrity to stay off the site since. Sro23 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)