User talk:67.180.5.41

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (67.180.5.41) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

The recent edit you made to Economy of India constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Economy of India. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Done but please don't use that tone in future- at least say please. It was a mistake. Thank you. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I'm accused of being a sock without a Checkuser request against me. Secondly, no reasons have been mentioned as to why my edits were disruptive. Thirdly, and again, User:VirtualSteve has not mentioned a single specific edit of mine which was in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Can't Wikipedians, who choose not to have an account, revert others' edits? And I did raise the issue on the concerned user's talkpage and I also raised the issue with Wikipedia's Administrators' Noticeboard. How come this ip was blocked without any warning? --67.180.5.41 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, nobody ever said a Checkuser scan was required for sockpuppet blocks. That helps in complicated problems, but is not necessary and is often redundant. Your familiarity with our procedures, for example, shows that you know a great deal more than the average IP editor. Secondly, it's rather unnecessary to cite specific edits when we can just point at your contributions, wherein you blanked a good portion of an article against consensus, edit warred over it, attacked other editors via edit summaries, all in a similar style to a blocked user. Finally, you appear to have had at least two warnings above, so I really don't know what you're talking about. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (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 is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

Blocking administrator: VirtualSteve (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

Yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia's procedures because I've made numerous edits to this project and my current ip does not reflect that. So? Did I ever say I'm an average IP editor? Secondly, those warnings were given in completely different context. And, I didn't make a single edit to the concerned article after I received the last warning. Given that, is the block justified? And consensus? What consensus? Have you looked at the concerned article's talkpage? Please look into the whole picture before giving your opinion. And just because two users reverted one user's edits, it doesn't mean both of them are socks. The fact that so many have raised objections to Lalit's edits shows that his work is questionable and not in good faith. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=Yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia's procedures because I've made numerous edits to this project and my current ip does not reflect that. So? Did I ever say I'm an average IP editor? Secondly, those warnings were given in completely different context. And, I didn't make a single edit to the concerned article after I received the last warning. Given that, is the block justified? And consensus? What consensus? Have you looked at the concerned article's talkpage? Please look into the whole picture before giving your opinion. And just because two users reverted one user's edits, it doesn't mean both of them are socks. The fact that so many have raised objections to Lalit's edits shows that his work is questionable and not in good faith. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

[reply]

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

{{unblock reviewed|1=Yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia's procedures because I've made numerous edits to this project and my current ip does not reflect that. So? Did I ever say I'm an average IP editor? Secondly, those warnings were given in completely different context. And, I didn't make a single edit to the concerned article after I received the last warning. Given that, is the block justified? And consensus? What consensus? Have you looked at the concerned article's talkpage? Please look into the whole picture before giving your opinion. And just because two users reverted one user's edits, it doesn't mean both of them are socks. The fact that so many have raised objections to Lalit's edits shows that his work is questionable and not in good faith. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

[reply]

Further comment from blocking administrator

Daniel Case has kindly approached my talk page with questions concerning the recent edits from this IP and I have responded in detail there. I do note briefly however (for the sake of future considerations of this account and for its posterity) that whilst you have only just arrived at the scene two days ago, two days after the blocking of one editor, and one day after the blocking of another IP; you have also (very similarly to two other accounts) raised edit summary concerns with Lalit Jagannath's edits - but at least 5 other editors (and cluebot) have reverted adjustments to the article in favour of a return to Lalit's view. To my mind that was either singular or orchestrated edit warring and hence my short block.--VS ^talk 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that still doesn't prove anything. I understand your concerns but as I have said again, just because two or more users made the same revert, doesn't mean they are socks. It just shows multiple users with similar concern regarding the concerned user's edits. You also fail to notice that I raised the issue on Wikipedia's Administrators' Noticeboard before making the reverts. Also note, that I will be using this ip temporarily until I'm on vacation and I would have raised the issue over this topic much earlier had these edits not been made during the holiday season. And I'm particularly concerned about the edits made to these articles: Culture of India and Economy of India because I've made quite a few edits to these articles in the past. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Steve, while I appreciate your good intent, you fail to realize that the concerned user has made massive edits to the concerned articles in a short span of time without taking other users into confidence. I don't want to say this, but this plain bias. I would anyways file for a RfC, as User:Nichalp suggested, once I'm back home against the changes made by Lalit. And to be frank, this block serves little purpose. But the logic behind this block is definitely baffling. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one last thing, you specifically mentioned that one of the reasons why you blocked this ip was because I "only just arrived at the scene two days ago". For the record, I was active on Wikipedia from 2005 to 2007, made about 15,000 edits in that period and then retired. In mid-2008, I started making edits to Wikipedia again but they were seldom and under a particular ip and chose not to resume my previous account or create another account. What really annoys me is these preconceived notions some Wikipedia editors have against IPs. Unfortunate, I must say.. --67.180.5.41 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against IP's and (as you refer to) my good intent was/is to uphold my duty and protect the project. That said, given you are on holidays (and of course I could not possibly have had any idea that you had a previous 15,000 edit record) and I assume you are using an IP that is not normally yours - can you tell me who you are when signed in. I'd be happy to revisit the situation if I knew that?--VS ^talk 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned before, I chose not to resume my previous account and disclosing it is anyways irrelevant since I haven't signed in for the past 2 years. But, since you asked, the ip I've usually made changes under recently is: User:128.211.201.161. Thanks --67.180.5.41 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A university is going to give you plenty of anonymity which is good. That said, my record on maintaining privacy abounds my history. Please come to my email and let me know your previous 15000 edit account - once I have checked - if it all pans out I will unblock you myself. My sworn promise is that your previous account name will remain between you and I under all and any circumstances.--VS ^talk 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not interested in disclosing my previous account. Anyways, it is fine if you want to continue with the block. I anyways won't have enough time to file for a RfC since I'm on vacation and would be able to do so once I return. It was just baffling to see how easily ips get blocked nowadays. Thanks --67.180.5.41 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (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.