User talk:Two.25.45.251

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).

Two.25.45.251 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have never edited in any way except productively and well. I am truly fed up of the absurd attacks on me which started when I got blocked with a false accusation of vandalism. I. Have. Never. Vandalised. Anything. OK? Two.25.45.251 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked because of vandalism. You are blocked because you are believed to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. You have not addressed this in your unblock request, so there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Note that I strongly recommend WP:UTRS if you wish to address those concerns. Your case is substantially complicated and an unblock request is beyond the capability of most adminstrators to thoroughly investigate. Yamla (talk) 13:01, 3 September 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.

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).

Two.25.45.251 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not that person. There are no grounds to believe I am. I have only ever made good edits. Right now, I am merely trying to defend myself against lies, but it seems you want to be free to lie about me as you please. It's unbelievably tiresome and ridiculous to see good editing treated in this way. Note that: I was blocked for vandalism; blocked for complaining about being blocked; blocked for redoing good edits; unblocked after an utterly absurd faff; blocked again by wheel warring administrators on spurious grounds. All for making good edits. You say try UTRS. I did that; I was unblocked as a result; I was reblocked on spurious grounds by someone else. Again: all for making good edits. Two.25.45.251 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's quite obvious that you either are the "Best known for" IP editor or edit in exactly the same style that got that editor community-banned, so similarly that it makes no difference. Thus you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 14:14, 3 September 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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Two.25.45.251 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I only ever made good edits. Is that the style you mean? If you think I made bad edits, so bad that I need to be banned from Wikipedia, please indicate which ones. Two.25.45.251 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I only ever made good edits. Is that the style you mean? If you think I made ''bad'' edits, so bad that I need to be banned from Wikipedia, please indicate which ones. [[User:Two.25.45.251|Two.25.45.251]] ([[User talk:Two.25.45.251#top|talk]]) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I only ever made good edits. Is that the style you mean? If you think I made ''bad'' edits, so bad that I need to be banned from Wikipedia, please indicate which ones. [[User:Two.25.45.251|Two.25.45.251]] ([[User talk:Two.25.45.251#top|talk]]) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I only ever made good edits. Is that the style you mean? If you think I made ''bad'' edits, so bad that I need to be banned from Wikipedia, please indicate which ones. [[User:Two.25.45.251|Two.25.45.251]] ([[User talk:Two.25.45.251#top|talk]]) 14:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

All this blocking, unblocking and wheel warring happened where? Not on this account. If you previously used another account, please tell us the username; otherwise, please point us towards the IP or IPs you have used so we can properly evaluate the above. Huon (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/2.25.45.251, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Or ask the person who blocked me this time why they blocked me. Two.25.45.251 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by 2.25.45.251

I was the victim of this situation. I have been watching this case develop, and notice that a number of editors have slandered me and spread falsehoods. I have therefore created an account to respond on this page.

• User:Ivanvector posted a timeline, in which they claimed "immediately after block expiry, the IP begins rapidly and indiscriminately reverting Winhunter's recent edits on multiple articles, earning a 3-month block with talk page access revoked by Berean Hunter". The first part is utterly false. After the block expired, I reinstated all the edits I made. There was nothing indiscriminate about it. It was correct and useful to reinstate those edits. They were good edits each time I made them, and undoing them was destructive. The second part is indeed true, and the reason for that block remains unclear.

• User:Arianewiki1 claims that User:Winhunter's block was justified because I expressed my anger at the refusal to lift it. That obviously doesn't make sense. I would also like to point out that this user described the very material I removed as "vandalism" and "abhorrent",[1] and yet restored it to an article [2] and then aggressively denied that they had done so.[3][4][5]

• User:Banedon says "PS: Somewhere, the long-term-abuser is laughing. "Ha! Look at all the disruption I managed to cause, all the way up to an Arbcom case request." I guess that highly insulting name-calling refers to me, despite all my edits being useful and productive. And believe me, I have not laughed at any point during this whole vile situation.

• User:Opabinia regalis says that the blocker was "successfully trolled by a different long-term nuisance who has made it their business to bait vandal-fighters and admins into making exactly the mistake Winhunter did". Again, the insult presumably refers to me. I have made it my business to improve Wikipedia. The first interaction I had with Winhunter was when they falsely accused me of vandalism. As has been clearly established, there was no possible basis for that claim. There was no baiting of any kind.

• User:Lankiveil says of the block that triggered all this, "personally thought it was fine". Fine to block someone for vandalism when they were making good edits supported by consensus?

I have not previously interacted with any of these editors. I made good edits which improved articles. There were no grounds to block me, nor is there any good reason for the stream of insults that have been hurled at me for complaining about the bad block. I do hope that the administrator is sanctioned in some way as it seems clear they have treated the community with contempt by entirely failing to engage with this discussion. Now that it has been so clearly established that the original block was obviously wrong, I hope also to establish why it was not lifted when I appealed it, and why instead an escalating and deeply unpleasant series of attacks were carried out against me, culminating in the points I've dealt with here. Two.25.45.251 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pathetic

Now someone's taken the trouble to undo some of the edits I made so that my account was auto confirmed so that I could defend myself against slander that they themselves perpetrated against me. Christ almighty, do you people remember that you're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia? How does relentlessly hounding good contributors and undoing all the good edits of theirs you can find help with that, exactly? Two.25.45.251 (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC) User:Ivanvector, why did you lie about me? Why are you hounding me? When have we ever, before you started hounding me, interacted? I think never, so your actions are completely inexplicable. Two.25.45.251 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)