User talk:86.159.237.243

Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change

 * Adoption of the Gregorian calendar 21:11, 13 September 2016‎ user:Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (23,805 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "Adoption of the Gregorian calendar": long-term disruption from banned user ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 21:11, 13 March 2...)

The day that block comes off:
 * (1) Adoption of the Gregorian calendar Revision as of 12:14, 13 May 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by 80.195.190.249 (talk) to last version by Jc3s5h) (diff)
 * (2) Adoption of the Gregorian calendar 12:16, 11 July 2017‎ 86.159.237.243 (talk | block)‎ . . (40,836 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Rv addition of claim that the Gregorian calendar as used in Thailand is different from the Gregorian calendar as used elsewhere. Picture of August 2004 shows it beginning on Sunday and having 31 days. Some evidence of the alleged difference required.) (diff)

Note that (1) and (2) make the same edition point. This ties IP 80.195.190.249 and IP 86.159.237.243 together
 * Adoption of the Gregorian calendar Revision as of 12:34, 11 July 2017 (edit) (undo) PBS (talk | contribs | block) m (Protected "Adoption of the Gregorian calendar": Persistent block evasion: long-term disruption from banned user ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 12:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoc...) (diff)

history of IP (86.159.237.24) minutes before making edits to Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, this IP address edited Old Style and New Style dates (diff).


 * (3) Old Style and New Style dates 16:55, 10 July 2017‎ Favonian (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (20,658 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Reverted 3 edits by 5.150.93.133 (talk): Ban evasion, User:Vote (X) for Change. (TW)) (undo | thank) (diff)
 * (4) Old Style and New Style dates 12:07, 11 July 2017‎ 86.159.237.243 (talk | block)‎ . . (20,663 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (Rv. Edit removes the full stop from the end of a sentence. If someone feels the need to do this they should seek consensus on the talk page before doing it.) (diff

user:Favonian revered an edit by IP 5.150.93.133 (3) this edit was reverted (4) by IP 86.159.237.243 which ties the two IPs together.

I reverted that edit and protected the page: Just after the block comes off
 * 12:33, 11 July 2017‎ PBS (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (40,833 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 86.159.237.243 (talk) to last version by Mojoworker) (undo) (diff)
 * Protected "Old Style and New Style dates": Persistent block evasion: long-term disruption from banned user ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 12:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfir...) diff)
 * 18:46, 15 July 2017‎ 86.159.237.243 (talk | block)‎ . . (20,627 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Start of the year in the historical records of Britain and its colonies and possessions: I fail to see how adding a missing full stop at the end of a sentence warrants the description"long-term disruption) (diff)

So I am blocking this account. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You've never been through RfA, and when such administrators make claims which cannot be substantiated it usually leads to an ANI thread about de - sysopping.  You've posted a message on the user talk page of 80.195.190.249 saying "this IP address has been repeatedly blocked etc. etc."   According to its contribution record, it has been blocked once.   Please explain your edit before I examine your claims in detail. 86.159.237.243 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't really get it, do you.  You haven't blocked anybody for two years and it shows.   Your "more appropriate template" is no better than the old one.   It now says "an editor has expressed concern" blah - blah - blah.   "Please refer to blocked for evidence".   That's not English, it's gobbledygook.   You've used the same wording on the other page you templated.   Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators who have been through RfA get de - sysopped if they fail to explain themselves when asked.   I don't rate your chances of survival very high, as I've spotted another lie (and I wasn't even looking).


 * In bullet point 1 you refer to the protection of an article ("expires 21:11, 13 March 2017").  In bullet point 2 you link to an edit of 12:14, 13 May 2017 which you say was made "The day that block comes off."   Anyone with competence would realise that there's a little matter of 61 days intervening between 13 March and 13 May.   Further evidence of a WP:CIR issue is that you say the two edits are the same.   They're not - the first was 60 bytes, the second 3 bytes.   Grandfathering sysop rights never works out, as this episode demonstrates only too clearly.   My advice to you at this point would be to unblock and apologise - or go down with the ship. 86.159.237.243 (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)