User talk:71.198.247.231

Please log in for trolling ANI[edit]

You have been observed posting rampant assholery while logged out, presumably in order to avoid sanctions to your account. See the hungry Grizzly tipping up stones looking for woodlice? Better desist before she finds you. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen called me a troll for saying that another editor should be topic-banned from American politics for being incapable of collaborating with editors who have different political viewpoints. That editor now calls for witch-hunting "editors who get their information about the world from Breitbart but know better than to directly cite it on Wikipedia."[1] This means editors who have different view points, the only evidence being that they have different viewpoints. This more than justifies my position. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.198.247.231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a false accusation and an improperly WP:PUNITIVE response to my request that a disruptive user be blocked until that user shows an understanding of Wikipedia policy and ceases being disruptive.[2] The blocking editor improperly removed my request and insulted me in the edit summary,[3] a disruptive action and a violation of the civility policy.

I ask the reviewing administrator to look at the banner at the top of this page and imagine that someone had done that to you when you had not done anything like that, and then imagine finding yourself blocked for reporting this disruptive, uncivil, and insulting behavior to ANI. I also ask the reviewer to enforce your civility policy.

In summary:

There was no trolling by me.

There was no disruption by me.

There was disruption and incivility by the blocking editor.

71.198.247.231 (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are afraid people will take exception to you publicly expressing the view that "Breitbart is a real news source that meets WP:RS" on your main account, that is your problem and nobody else's. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.198.247.231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The previous reviewer declined my appeal on partisan political grounds rather than policy because I said that an established news source which meets WP:RS, has editors, hires real journalists[4], and issues corrections for its errors meets RS, which it does. WP:IDLI is not an excuse for insulting other users or issuing blocks for reporting another editor's misconduct to ANI. WP:BATTLEGROUND: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear 71.198.247.231 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not only is Breitbart not a reliable source for Wikipedia, it's so unreliable as to be explicitly listed by name in WP:PUS. As your false claim that Breitbart is reliable appears to be the sole justification for your unblock request, I am declining it. Yamla (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.198.247.231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla did not read my unblock request. Please see WP:COMPETENCE. To repeat the multiple justifications for my unblock request,

There was no trolling by me.

There was no disruption by me.

There was disruption and incivility by the blocking editor.

The first denial of my unblock request cited only that editor's political partisanship, in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND

As for the off-topic subject of Breitbart's reliability, Breitbart was added to PUS last month by one editor with a history of partisan editing.[5] Someone's edit to a wikipedia page does not take away from a news source having editors, hiring mainstream journalists, and correcting its errors, meeting the qualifications for WP:RS. Every source is potentially unreliable and must be reviewed in context, but that is a discussion for the other boards. This is not the place to have this discussion, and there are no policy grounds for insulting and blocking someone for participating in the discussion.

71.198.247.231 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your belligerent response above makes it yet more obvious that you have no intention of being constructive. As you are now wasting our time, I'm revoking talkpage access for the duration of this block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello[edit]

Looks like you should have read WP:NOTTHEM, confession and genuine remorse appears to be the way here. I'm sorry about all of this. The "ban" on Breitbart looks to have followed a semblance of protocol and is currently considered legitimate. If you would like to get them to be considered a reliable source directly, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard would be the place for it. I think I'm done with that for a while though, other users can continue my arguments on the issue if they find them persuasive. I have a lot to think about. Thank you for defending my actions. But, some of the things I said were definitely out of line. I have stuck some of my most disruptive comments, as I no longer stand by them. Endercase (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I didn't actually say Breitbart is a reliable source or not (I'm sure that their claim that Donald Trump was democratically elected President is believed by pretty much everyone); rather that implying it is a good source for political discussions in particular is likely to be controversial and throw up arguments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Well no, but you did cite their use of an IP in place of a "your main account" as your sole reason for not removing the ban. That was not following policy as I currently understand it. Could you explain that to me? Endercase (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bishonen said this IP was an obvious sock, and since she has a track record of talking sense, I didn't see any reason to question it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Actually, they said "observed posting rampant assholery" which would be a case of wp:civil not wp:sock but semantics, right? Additionally, you didn't check for yourself? And you didn't cite wp:sock, did you mean to do so? If you would like I can leave you alone, I am just trying to understand protocol. I am a relatively new user. Endercase (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase:Yes I know this was very long ago but you seem to have missed most of the comment "You have been observed posting rampant assholery while logged out, presumably in order to avoid sanctions to your account." The later part which you didn't include is clearly an accusation of a WP:SOCK violation. New user or not, you should learn to read whole sentences, preferably whole paragraphs rather than just bits and pieces and coming to conclusions solely from those bits and pieces. If you don't understand why it's a WP:SOCK violation, I suggest you re-read the policy as it specifically notes "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" as problematic sockpuppetry in the summary. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disrupting ANI[6][7] harassment, and personal attacks.[8]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.198.247.231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. This was an improper block by an editor who blocks without regard to policy and has a personal vendetta against me. 2. We have established through a consensus of five administrators that deleting another person's comment at ANI and calling them a troll is not disruptive behavior. This block is against consensus. 3. Wikipedia has established through countless other ANI procedures that accusing someone of being paid PR is not disruptive behavior. The evidence in this case is offsite and referencing it would violate policy, but word gets around and the responder must have heard of it.

Decline reason:

Nothing you say reflects any policy or "consensus". Your behavior clearly warranted this block. If you were a named editor, you probably would have been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Based on your past history, your Talk page access will probably be revoked soon unless you show some minimal insight into your disruptive conduct. Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.198.247.231 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nothing I have done is outside of Wikipedia's behavioral norms. Bbb23 is the same admin who blocked me for appropriately reporting Bishonen's disruptive behavior to ANI.71.198.247.231 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reading this page closely (and not just skimming it) and considering your continued belligerent responses, it seems clear to me that you have no intention of addressing your own problematic behavior. As you are now wasting our time, I have revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The reviewing administrator should read this page closely, don't just skim it. You will see a completely unjustified accusation of trolling followed by administrators refusing to read appeals at all or upholding invalid blocks based on "that other admin is my friend" or "I personally don't like Breitbart" which are not policy and should be grounds for removal of their admin powers. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior is no different from that of, specifically, Bbb23[9] and Bishonen[10]. Five administrators have decided here on this page that considering such behavior to be disruptive is a blockable offense. To the reviewing administrator, please follow the consensus of these administrators and block Bbb23 for considering my behavior to be disruptive. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.