User talk:82.132.219.145

Once you have your account and log in, you can remove your email address. Or, you can create a throwaway email address to use. Having an account is a good idea in your situation, as any random IP user can claim to be any notable person and we have no way to verify that. If the information at issue is incorrect to the point that it is libel, you don't need an account to address that, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not libellous, just a very serious error of basic accuracy, one that should never have been made if people like you (and I am informed that you personally have assisted this person in helping them think this sort of shoddy practice is acceptable) were paying more attention to what the people you do let edit without revealing any of their private details (my IP address is not personally identifying) are actually doing with that awesome power to instantly publish a person's "biography" (which is a very generous description of the page they have produced). I have no wish to burden a responsible internet company by abusing their services just to create a throwaway email account to fix an issue that I should not need an email address for, period. Are you going to sort this out for me by giving me an account, or are you going to continue to extort my personal information, in exchange for my basic right to correct this crappy website's manner of publishing details about my own life? If I ever do get an account, I will purposefully not be identifying myself with it, firstly because I already know it is not a requirement (precisely because at least someone in this organisation does value people's rights to privacy), but also in large part because I have also been made very aware, with several examples, that your first response to such things is typically to make accusations and insinuations of nefarious intent, and make VICTIMS beg other people, often the very people who are guilty of making the crappy edits or who otherwise oversaw them, to fix the problem.


 * I am not familiar based on what you say here with whatever situation you are referencing so I can't really respond to your accusations against me. Though I can't understand- it makes sense to me that you might be upset about something in your article. However, screaming at us about this situation will not help you.  We want to help get the article correct if it is incorrect.
 * As Wikipedia is a private entity, it can have whatever criteria it wishes to access it; there is no right to access Wikipedia by any means necessary. Just as you have certain rules about who can enter your residence and what they can do, the same applies to Wikipedia. As correctly noted by, this IP range has been abusively used for a decade.(you don't have to believe us, check for yourself)  It is true that it is not your problem that others have abusively used this IP range, but it is our problem, and we must act to protect Wikipedia.  Yes, these sorts of blocks do affect innocent people, but those that abuse Wikipedia make such things necessary.  Just imagine the information that could be put in the article about you if vandals ran rampant, unable to be stopped because we were unable to block the ranges of IPs that they use.
 * If a law in your country requires Wikipedia to grant you access to editing without an account and without an email address, then you should communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation, and you may find information on contacting them at WP:LEGAL.  I don't really understand your reluctance here; the issue likely could have been solved hours ago if you simply requested an account. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will also note that if you create an account and accomplish your goal, you can request a courtesy vanish. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Californian law that says I do not need to comply with your made up demands that I provide you with an email address before you will let me edit to make a factual correction, is the same law that allows people to edit this website as pseudonyms at all.

Let me be clear. I already know the technical means exist. I already know that if I were to be speaking to an employee of the legal owner right now (feel free to fetch one if you doubt me), they would recognise the seriousness of the situation, recognise their exposure, and they would flip whatever switch needs to be flipped, to allow me to register an account using this IP address, and correct a simple factual error. They can presumably monitor the edit in the background, and it will only take one edit, if they are concerned I will somehow damage Wikipedia.

I am not not surprised you have no idea of the issue I am referring to, but that is really not my problem, it is for Wikipedia to identify and resolve your failings, ideally before a formal complaint is registered. To give you more details, indeed to make it a formal complaint, would allow you to know who I am, and yet would still leave me in the dark as far as who you are. If I was still unsatisfied with your level of contrition or the explanation as to how you were ever allowed to even be in a position to be able to do it. I am told that to do what you did, requires you to be a trusted user.

You will for now simply have to take it from me, that you were told at the time of the consequences of your actions by someone who was trying to fix that biography on my behalf (the same person who, after being thwarted, has informed me via email of the existence of the error), and yet you still acted in a way that harmed me. The way you justified it was remarkably similar to the way you are speaking to me now. Namely that you seemed to think that your word alone represented the express wishes of the private owner of this website.

My biography has never actually been harmed by vandals, presumably because I am not a very famous person. It has been barely edited at all, which, together with the fact that they too were apparently trusted, is presumably why that person's mistake was never noticed. I am not minded to give you any benefit of the doubt as far as your willingness to help me correct it, because you were already given that opportunity once, and you ACTIVELY worked against my interests, and you ACTIVELY worked to ensure it remained uncorrected.

This inherent suspicion you seem to have against people you do not know, seems to be the underlying cause. You don't know me, and I don't see any need why you should have to know me. I am the victim here. I didn't ask you to be the overseer of my interests here. I have no reason to believe you have any revant professional experience in publishing.

The error is serious. But not so serious that I am not tempted to leave it, to see how long it might persist here. It's not like any future appearances of this error can't be corrected through a quick email to a properly identified Editor (note the capital letter). I might actually enjoy the opportunity to shout at anyone who is found to have copied this Wikipedia biography without realising Wikipedia is not to be trusted. I can probably get that person fired. And rightly so.

All I can do here, all I am willing to do here, on this platform, which takes a very different approach to the serious business of publishing, is to anonymously correct a page that anyone can edit. That is my right. You are not entitled to anything else, except what I have already given you.
 * If you don't want to work with us, even if we want to work with you, that's your decision. Again, I can't address grievances with me that no one will point out so I guess I will need to proceed in ignorance.  I don't recall doing anything like that which you describe.  I don't work against anyone's interests and want articles to be correct and correctly reflect what reliable sources state. This could have been fixed hours ago if you would just request an account so I'm wondering how important that really is to you; apparently Wikipedia access policies or IP range blocks are more important to you- which is certainly your option. I've also told you how you can request that a gross error about you be corrected without creating an account.  If a law requires Wikipedia to give you access by any means required and without providing any information, then you need to communicate that to the Foundation as they would need to be the ones to "flip the switch" and do that, since that doesn't just affect you, but (according to you) every California resident. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The law already exists, and it already governs how Wikipedia currently operates. This much is clear, given you are still refusing to prove with actual documentation, that your recommendations are correct and in accordance with the wishes of the owners of this private website, as far as how people in my situation are supposed to be treated. I am not required to give you an email address. Not in this situation. If you think differently, why is it proving so difficult for you to prove it? This would have never needed to have been fixed at all, if what you think you do here, was what you actually do here. You aren't finding it hard to prove that reliable sources are important, or the procedures for removing libellous content, are documented. So why no document that says your ability to stop vandals trumps my right to fix my own biography without first handing over an email address, even if that is on a promise of you deleting it immediately? The document you linked to, clearly isn't meant for that kind of situation.
 * I'm now just repeating myself, so I'll close by saying that all your inquiries have been answered, but you don't seem to like the answer. You have four choices: 1, request an account by which you can request correction of this error; 2, find another IP address by which you can access Wikipedia; 3, refuse those actions and remain unable to correct the problem, and 4, communicate with the Foundation if there is a law that they are not following, with information on that law. That's all I can say since you decline to identify yourself or the specific matter at issue- which is your absolute right to do- but doesn't help us correct this issue you say exists. I guess the error is not as important to you as your access and IP issues are. Good day. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)