User talk:67.181.231.129
November 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm Mélencron. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mélencron (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mélencron (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014, you may be blocked from editing. Mélencron (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014. Mélencron (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
November 2018[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Stop adding nonsense about Jeff Sessions being a Democrat. That type of disruptive editing is simply not allowed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. You were warned to stop pushing this bizarre theory about Jeff Sessions and yet you persisted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I was blocked because I kept pushing my theory that Jeff Sessions is a Democrat. However, the problem with this is that I stopped pushing the theory and now am just asking for a compromise. I am confused on why I would be blocked for simply trying to find a compromise.
Decline reason:
Your messages indicate a deeper misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia solely reflects what reliable sources have said, and is not a publisher of original thought; see also WP:OR. Until you have demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia policy, a commitment to abiding by them, and a level of competence necessary to contribute effectively to the project, you will not be unblocked. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:10, 13 November 2018 (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.
.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look, I understand why you guys don't want to change Jeff Session's party affiliation on his articles. I have given up that quest. However, I do think that because there is doubt about his party affiliation that any mentions of his party should be removed from all articles. This way there won't be any arguments and we know that we won't get the fact wrong. After all, it is impossible to be wrong about his party affiliation if we don't include it in the first place. :)
Decline reason:
We don't settle content disputes in unblock requests. It's your behavior here that is the problem, not the article. Katietalk 00:49, 14 November 2018 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason I was blocked maes no sense. I was specifically blocked for pushing the theory that Jeff Sessions is a Democrat, but by the time I was blocked I had stopped doing this and was simply looking for a solution to the problem. I clearly learned my lesson, so why is it that I am blocked now after I had stopped doing the offending action? As a new user it does not feel very welcoming.
Decline reason:
Jeff Sessions. Sure. You also seem to have changed all of his opponents to Republicans. This is either simply trolling, or a severe case of WP:CIR. I can't help you either way. I've removed your talk page access to prevent any future nonsense. Kuru (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2018 (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.
November 2018[edit]
You have been blocked again and this block is longer. You have been advised to stop with this Jeff Sessions nonsense, and yet you have persisted. Let me be clear: This encyclopedia is not the place for your personal theories about Sessions. You will be blocked every time you try this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Let me start this off by saying that I fully deserved the original 2 week block I received. I was blocked for spreading my personal theories about Jeff Sessions and saying that pages about him should be edited to fit those views. Yes, I handled this terribly originally. I should of recognized that the purpose of Wikipedia was to report what reliable sources say, not to spread the theories of the people editing. I didn't understand that original research was not allowed. At the time I was a new user and did not fully understand the mission of this site. I fully apologize for the issues I caused and the time I took up. I deserved that original block. During that block, I educated myself on rules of the website and came to understand what I did wrong. Although I still personally believe that Jeff Sessions is a Democrat, I no longer think that Wikipedia should be edited to state this, as the sources, as skeptical as I am of them, say otherwise. When my original block ended I was determined to make these mistakes right. In the discussion about my edits on Cullen328's user talk page, I conceded that Jeff Sessions' party affiliation should not be changed to Democratic, and that I was wrong and stubborn for claiming that it should be. I said that I was done pushing my theory and would not argue about it anymore. However, I did say that because there is doubt about Jeff Sessions being a Republican and it is simply a theory, that the article shouldn't unequivocally state this as a fact. Wikipedia rules make clear the theories should be stated as what they are, theories. The argument I was making was simply that the claim that Sessions is Republican should be stated as a theory rather than a solid fact. I was no longer spreading my personal theories. I was simply explaining why I think this piece of information was wrongly stated as a clear cut fact rather than a theory. Despite this, Cullen328 blocked me again for spreading my Jeff Sessions theories and arguing about it, something that I stopped doing weeks ago. I am clearly long past doing those things, and now am arguing about something entirely different. Rather you believe that Jeff Session's Sessions' party affiliation should be stated as theory or fact, it should be clear that I am no longer spreading personal theories, have learned my lesson, and am now here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. I promise that I will not spread any more personal theories on Wikipedia. If I do, you guys have the right to immediately block me. I understand how that comment could be interpreted as me still trying to spread my theories and hold to my original faulty argument that already got me banned, so I understand why Cullen328 blocked me again and I am not mad at him. I would actually like to thank him for showing me what I did wrong in the first place and helping me become a better editor. His misreading of my new comment that lead to him blocking me this time is not his fault. It is mine because I should have made the comment clearer, and it looked bad due to my history of arguing about this. Thank you for taking your time to consider this request, and I sincerely hope that you will accept it so that I can continue to help make Wikipedia a better place. I hope to help edit more articles in the future and to be a productive user here
Decline reason:
I considered extending your block. You manifestly lack sufficient competence to edit here, or you are outright trolling. I can't tell which is which. I decided against extending your block and settled for just revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block. This at least gives us one month of quiet without dealing with your disruptive behaviour. I warn you, the next block is likely to be substantially longer. Yamla (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2018 (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.
February 2019[edit]
Apparently there is vandalism/non-constructive edits coming from this IP again, this time on the 2017 Virginia gubernatorial election. Thus, it may be blocked again without any further notice. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- This IP has now been blocked again, this time for a longer period than the last one. Similar to the non-constructive edits back in November 2018: switching political party affiliations on articles based on this user's unsourced WP:FORUM/WP:OR/WP:POV, not verified reliable sources. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hah, my block is only 3 months long ? LMAO, I've been such an obvious Russian troll and I still have gotten such light punishments. You guys even fell for my Jeff Sessions thing and thought I was being serious about my apology. You guys are too chicken to block me for longer. I would dare you to extend my block, but that would never happen. You are nothing but weak Americans. You guys have no balls. Papa Joe Stalin will guide Mother Russia to victory and defeat all of you. MOTHER RUSSIA WILL PREVAIL!
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2019 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for being a Russian troll who vandalized election articles by switching the political parties of the politicans. Afterwards I claimed that these edits were done with good intentions, and you guys fell for it! And you barely punished me for any of this. Even when I admitted that I was a Russian troll and dared you to extend my block, you guys still didn't extend it! This whole thing proves that Americans have no balls. I once again dare you guys to extend my block. We both know that you guys are too chicken to ever do that. Americans have no balls. GOD BLESS MOTHER RUSSIA! 67.181.231.129 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've increased your block to a year. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2019 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize for what I did on the Jeffery Tomblin talk page. I thought that wikipedia talk pages were supposed to act as forums to talk about and give opinions on the article subject. I now see that I violated policy by posting jokes and opinions instead of staying on topic, I promise that I won't do this again. I am very confused about why this minor offense is worthy of a 3 YEAR block? All I did was post some crap on a talk page because I misunderstood some rules. As long as I don't do it again and stay on topic in the future shouldn't this warrant a week block at most? Sorry, but I am baffled about why this offense means I and the other people on my range can't edit for 3 years. Hopefully y'all can clear this issue up!
Decline reason:
Based on how much vandalism has come from this IP over the years, a 3-year block is justifiable. Everytime a block ends, new vandalism comes and more justifications of why bad edits should be allowed. only (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2020 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I originally submitted an unblock request saying "I apologize for what I did on the Jeffery Tomblin talk page. I thought that wikipedia talk pages were supposed to act as forums to talk about and give opinions on the article subject. I now see that I violated policy by posting jokes and opinions instead of staying on topic, I promise that I won't do this again. I am very confused about why this minor offense is worthy of a 3 YEAR block? All I did was post some crap on a talk page because I misunderstood some rules. As long as I don't do it again and stay on topic in the future shouldn't this warrant a week block at most? Sorry, but I am baffled about why this offense means I and the other people on my range can't edit for 3 years. Hopefully y'all can clear this issue up!" This request was declined for the reason of "Based on how much vandalism has come from this IP over the years, a 3-year block is justifiable. Everytime a block ends, new vandalism comes and more justifications of why bad edits should be allowed." I checked the history of the range to see if it is true that there have consistently been vandalism over the years. Looking through the history, this is clearly not true. There was vandalism from November of 2018 to February of 2019, a period in which I never used Wikipedia. Between that February almost 2 years ago and now, there have been no vandalism or any issues on this range. According to the unblock history, this IP has been unblocked since February 2020. In summary, this IP only had issues during one 3 month period almost 2 years ago, and there have been no issues in the 8 month period it has been unblocked. Why should me and other people on this range be unable to use it for 3 years for a minor offense? There have been no other issues for 8 months, so this seems to me like an overreaction. Could you please lower the block time to make it reasonable? I promise that I will be more careful in following guidelines in the future. I don't see why there should be this severe of a punishment just because they were unrelated incidents by different people 2 years ago. This is not a consistent pattern of vandalism, it was one 3 month period. That was it.
Decline reason:
The block is long but given the history of vandalism and given the unblock requests (which are, at best, tiresome and at worst, outright trolling), I endorse the block. I took a look through the edits and couldn't find anything constructive. Admittedly, I didn't look at every single edit but of the ones I sampled, all were actively harmful. So, there's no perceivable benefit in lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2020 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I originally submitted an unblock request saying "I apologize for what I did on the Jeffery Tomblin talk page. I thought that wikipedia talk pages were supposed to act as forums to talk about and give opinions on the article subject. I now see that I violated policy by posting jokes and opinions instead of staying on topic, I promise that I won't do this again. I am very confused about why this minor offense is worthy of a 3 YEAR block? All I did was post some crap on a talk page because I misunderstood some rules. As long as I don't do it again and stay on topic in the future shouldn't this warrant a week block at most? Sorry, but I am baffled about why this offense means I and the other people on my range can't edit for 3 years. Hopefully y'all can clear this issue up!"
This request was declined for the reason of "Based on how much vandalism has come from this IP over the years, a 3-year block is justifiable. Everytime a block ends, new vandalism comes and more justifications of why bad edits should be allowed."
I replied saying "I checked the history of the range to see if it is true that there have consistently been vandalism over the years. Looking through the history, this is clearly not true. There was vandalism from November of 2018 to February of 2019, a period in which I never used Wikipedia. Between that February almost 2 years ago and now, there have been no vandalism or any issues on this range. According to the unblock history, this IP has been unblocked since February 2020. In summary, this IP only had issues during one 3 month period almost 2 years ago, and there have been no issues in the 8 month period it has been unblocked. Why should me and other people on this range be unable to use it for 3 years for a minor offense? There have been no other issues for 8 months, so this seems to me like an overreaction. Could you please lower the block time to make it reasonable? I promise that I will be more careful in following guidelines in the future. I don't see why there should be this severe of a punishment just because they were unrelated incidents by different people 2 years ago. This is not a consistent pattern of vandalism, it was one 3 month period. That was it."
This request was again declined because "The block is long but given the history of vandalism and given the unblock requests (which are, at best, tiresome and at worst, outright trolling), I endorse the block. I took a look through the edits and couldn't find anything constructive. Admittedly, I didn't look at every single edit but of the ones I sampled, all were actively harmful. So, there's no perceivable benefit in lifting the block."
Uh what?! The points I raised were not addressed here at all. My entire point was that "the history of vandalism and unblock requests" were all from a 3 month period almost 2 YEARS ago. There has not been one issue on this since then until my mistake. Since this point was entirely ignored by the previous admin who looked at the request, this should clearly be revisited so that my point can actually be addressed. To make myself clear so my point will not be ignored again: Why should me and every other potential editor on this range not be able to edit because of unrelated incidents by different people 2 years ago? That has nothing to do with the one mistake I made the other day which I already apologized for. The editor vandal(s) from then has not returned, and are likely on a different IP range anyways considering how much they change. There has been no recurring pattern of abuse on this range since February of 2019 outside of one mistake I made, so there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there will be further issues. 67.181.231.129 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on the history of disruption from this IP address, I am unable to unblock 67.181.231.129 at this time. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 21 October 2020 (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.
67.181.231.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reason I originally submitted an unblock request saying "I apologize for what I did on the Jeffery Tomblin talk page. I thought that wikipedia talk pages were supposed to act as forums to talk about and give opinions on the article subject. I now see that I violated policy by posting jokes and opinions instead of staying on topic, I promise that I won't do this again. I am very confused about why this minor offense is worthy of a 3 YEAR block? All I did was post some crap on a talk page because I misunderstood some rules. As long as I don't do it again and stay on topic in the future shouldn't this warrant a week block at most? Sorry, but I am baffled about why this offense means I and the other people on my range can't edit for 3 years. Hopefully y'all can clear this issue up!"
This request was declined for the reason of "Based on how much vandalism has come from this IP over the years, a 3-year block is justifiable. Everytime a block ends, new vandalism comes and more justifications of why bad edits should be allowed."
I replied saying "I checked the history of the range to see if it is true that there have consistently been vandalism over the years. Looking through the history, this is clearly not true. There was vandalism from November of 2018 to February of 2019, a period in which I never used Wikipedia. Between that February almost 2 years ago and now, there have been no vandalism or any issues on this range. According to the unblock history, this IP has been unblocked since February 2020. In summary, this IP only had issues during one 3 month period almost 2 years ago, and there have been no issues in the 8 month period it has been unblocked. Why should me and other people on this range be unable to use it for 3 years for a minor offense? There have been no other issues for 8 months, so this seems to me like an overreaction. Could you please lower the block time to make it reasonable? I promise that I will be more careful in following guidelines in the future. I don't see why there should be this severe of a punishment just because they were unrelated incidents by different people 2 years ago. This is not a consistent pattern of vandalism, it was one 3 month period. That was it."
This request was again declined because "The block is long but given the history of vandalism and given the unblock requests (which are, at best, tiresome and at worst, outright trolling), I endorse the block. I took a look through the edits and couldn't find anything constructive. Admittedly, I didn't look at every single edit but of the ones I sampled, all were actively harmful. So, there's no perceivable benefit in lifting the block."
I replied saying "Uh what?! The points I raised were not addressed here at all. My entire point was that "the history of vandalism and unblock requests" were all from a 3 month period almost 2 YEARS ago. There has not been one issue on this since then until my mistake. Since this point was entirely ignored by the previous admin who looked at the request, this should clearly be revisited so that my point can actually be addressed. To make myself clear so my point will not be ignored again: Why should me and every other potential editor on this range not be able to edit because of unrelated incidents by different people 2 years ago? That has nothing to do with the one mistake I made the other day which I already apologized for. The editor vandal(s) from then has not returned, and are likely on a different IP range anyways considering how much they change. There has been no recurring pattern of abuse on this range since February of 2019 outside of one mistake I made, so there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there will be further issues."
The response this time was "Based on the history of disruption from this IP address, I am unable to unblock 67.181.231.129 at this time."
WOW. I am pissed. I made an extremely reasonable arugment that the range has no "history of disruption". It was a 3 month period 2 years ago followed by no problems at all. Both of the peevious responses to my request have completely ignored this cruical point and pretended that I didnt say it. I want my point clearly addressed so you can explain why you would expect any further issues on a range that had no issues for 2 years outaide of my recent mistake. Note that I will keep making requests until my arguement is actually addressed. Not addressing my arguement is and lying to me about a "history of disruption on this range" is going against your administratice duties to fairly respond to unblock requests.67.181.231.129 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edits from October 19, 2020 are enough reason for this IP to be blocked. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 21 October 2020 (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 is going nowhere so I have revoked talk page access. Another admin will be along shortly to review the unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
UTRS 36231[edit]
UTRS appeal #36231 is now closed. See below.
Unblock requests which are blank, abusive, or nonsensical, are not serious, or contain threats of any sort (including legal threats against other editors) will not be considered. Because it fell into one or more of these categories, your appeal has been closed with no action.
--Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 | 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. |