User talk:69.156.38.113

Query about an edit

Regarding this edit here, if you object to the inclusion of that material in the lead, is there any way you might be able to replace it with something else that still "rounds off" the lead like that did? Even if inaccurate and undue weight as you say, it still lent some structure to the lead. Anyway, that's all from me, Cheerio and happy editing! 🙂 Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Australo-Melanesian. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gaels, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 23:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user who is vandalizing pages and partaking in trolling behaviour is reverting valid sourced edits. You should provide a warning to their page as well. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your understanding of BRD, please read it again. You were Bold, they Reverted so the next step is that you Discuss to reach a consensus. Do not reinstate your edits unless and until. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They reverted edits from valid sources. It is incumbent upon them to discuss as well. My edits at Shetland dialect were in place for a fair amount of time until "the Banner" decided to be bold and remove them. I reverted that edit. It is now incumbent upon them to properly discuss and explain themselves. Either give the warning to them as well, or you are showing evidence of bias and/or incompetence. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits appear to be unsourced and there is no place for unsourced material on Wikipedia, whether it has been there for "a fair amount of time" (if a few days can be termed so) or not. If you are claiming that your edits are reliant on existing sources, explain that at the talk page; it's not evident from your edits. And, per below, stop slinging out the insults as that's hardly going to make collaboration easier. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Scots language that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 08:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shetland dialect. 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. The Banner talk 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Irish Catholics, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 18:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that 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 Scots language. The Banner talk 18:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that 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 Shetland. The Banner talk 18:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Book of Numbers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 14:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 11 September 2022 (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.

Request for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am NOT "Sprayitchyo", and NEVER never have been. I did have another Wikipedia account, but that and those associated with it was not one of them. Look at the edits of that "Sprayitchyo" and all the claimed "socks" of it. Can you not see how different the edits and editors are? They are not one person, and some of them (like me) have no connection to that. None. I created new accounts a few times because you DO NOT ALLOW ME ANY WAY TO PROVE MY INNOCENCE and EXPLAIN WHY I WAS WRONGFULLY BLOCKED FROM THE START. I HAVE NO AFFILIATION TO "SPRAYITCHYO". I have admitted in the past already for mistakes I did make once or twice, years ago, about a 3RR violation. I apologized repeatedly. I have made the promise to follow Wikipedia policy and not edit war, but to resolve issues on talk pages and/or dispute resolution. I admit places where I made mistakes, but not me or any of the accounts I did create in the past were EVER connected to "Spraytichyo" and numerous other associated socks of that. How can I explain this to you directly? I have tried contacting Wikipedia in several ways over the past two or three years. I never hear anything back. You seem to not care about wrongfully blocking people, and so you are at odds with your original core mission that "anyone can edit Wikipedia". This is really not fair. I'm not sure if you care about justice, fairness and freedom of speech, but if you do, you would allow people like me to properly demonstrate why I have been wrongfully associated with sock accounts, instead of allowing me to be blocked by a small partisan mob of ideologically opposed editors who do not care at all about me being blocked based on false or inaccurate accusations. This has had a very negative impact on my life. All I ask is that you please help me and give me a chance to actually explain, for once, why I am innocent with regards to many of the sock accusations, and to show I can edit properly. How do I directly contact upper level Wikipedia administrators? I want to create a new account. I want a fresh start. All I ask is for a way to show and prove good behaviour while editing at some point, even if that means letting this block run for 1 month before I can come back and create a new account with a clean slate. I am deeply sorry for any disruptions my actions had caused previously, but I hope you understand why I was so frustrated when being falsely accused at the start. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your opportunity to "properly demonstrate why I have been wrongfully associated with sock accounts" is now, in an unblock request. Also feel free to demonstrate or describe a substantive edit you would make. If this will contain information that you don't wish to be public, you may use WP:UTRS(I, and others, check it most every day so if you do it right, we will see it, though it doesn't like more than one request in a 48 hour span.) If you have an account, you should request unblock while logged into it. See WP:FREESPEECH though- and note that "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can edit in any time in any manner without restriction or limitation". If you are unable to convince an administrator to unblock you, your last avenue of appeal is ArbCom. Based on what I've seen, I don't see grounds to remove the block at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2022 (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.

Are your other accounts blocked? If not, log in and you may edit Wikipedia. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. But you should know that I could foresee that you get blocked, given the way you behave I would say it was unavoidable. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the ticket request system. It never worked and no one ever got back to me. Editors have prevented me from ever properly resolving this issue to explain how this mess all started. There were one or two accounts blocked previously, because it all began with a false assertion that it was connected to "Sprayitchyo" and related socks. Thus, what should have been say 1 month or at most 3 month blocks for one time of, I admit, edit warring that violated 3RR, was turned into permanent blocking and shadow banning of any time I ever edit. To be honest, this has been extremely frustrating and, you must understand how hard it is when countless hours of work and discussion have been ruined because of this false accusation of guilt by association. I have tried all avenues I can to explain how it was all down to an inaccurate association with other socks and horrible accounts like "Spraytichyo" who I never had any association with. I also repeatedly made clear my apologies for any past behaviour or mistakes that I always had admitted to I was responsible for. But the constant "sock evasions" accusation all stems from this original false accusation. I am simply fed up because there are a lot of articles I was editing with extremely reputable, scholarly content that are now in the form of terrible, biased or outright inaccurate formats. I am not even referring to the articles that you and I disagreed upon. Those could have been fairly easily resolved. Unblock request didn't work. Ticket request system did not work (never received an email back despite numerous queries). I need a direct discussion with upper level administrators. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Sprayitchyo, you were heading towards a block anyway. Unless you can address such behavior, there is no point in unblocking your IP. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not heading toward a block. I did not violate 3RR. I only wish to follow the correct procedure via the talk pages and dispute resolution. I don't want to edit war or anything like that. I know the resolution process to edit conflicts. But I am hampered from doing so by not being able to correctly show my innocence in false accusations of connections to "Spraytichyo" and many socks of that person. The very few accounts I did create which were socks, years ago out of immense frustration at an inability to resolve this original problem, I always admitted to being responsible for and as being wrong to do. But again those were NOT and NEVER were connected to "Spraytichyo" and associated socks with that person. I merely want a chance for a clean start after being prevented from being able to properly edit and discuss on Wikipedia for the past 4 or 5 years because of this problem. I want to resolve it. The ticket request system for unblock does not return by e-mails. And I am needed at a lot of articles. For example, there are editors like User:Austronesier and User:Sirfurboy who are entering very inaccurate information and biased original research on several pages like, for example, Australo-Melanesian, that are incompatible with the scientific literature in their current formats. That article claims it is as an "obsolete term", along with numerous other false statements, despite the fact that both that term and similar terms referring to that human genetic subgroup, are repeatedly used in nearly all relevant genetic studies as of 2022. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

What sort of evidence or discussion do you require for me to be unblocked? Given that the unblock reason is a false assertion of being associated with the "Sprayitchyo" account and actual socks of it, I'm not sure what it is that you require. Please clarify. There were socks I wrongfully created in the past. I admit this. It was done three or four times over the past four or five years because I never heard back from the ticket request system or any other avenue. I had never heard of "ArbCom", and I am not sure how that works, but thank you for informing of this. I will never edit war again. I am aware fully now of BRD, and the process for requests for dispute resolution. My block right now is not due to any editing behaviour this IP account has done as far as I am aware since it began editing a few weeks prior. What I do seek here, is to clear my name of any association with "Spraytichyo", which was never demonstrated by any users. That is the reason given for the block. I admit to past wrongful behaviour though, which I did commit. I only ever plan to edit, going forward, by using the talk pages and dispute resolution process if an edit conflict arises. The articles I was editing at, will not be edited by me until there is resolution of any disputes that had arisen with other editors. And I will never again exceed one revert of another editor's edits until permitted to due so after an approved dispute resolution. Once I am cleared of the false accusation of being a sock of "Sprayitchyo", I intend on creating an account. I wish for a clean slate. You will have knowledge of what that account is. If I ever violate 3RR or edit war with that account, or if multiple accounts are used (that will never happen), you could then permanently block it. I merely want a clean slate, to clear my name and a chance to prove myself. I will also only ever use that account to edit. All of this mess began about 4 to 5 years ago or so, with wrongful edit behaviour and 3RR violation by me, and then a completely false accusation of being associated with "Sprayitchyo" that was never proven, which never had any solid evidence to begin with, but I nevertheless was blocked anyway. After this, I created 3 or 4 accounts over the past 4 years (as noted already), or occasionally edited with naturally changing IPs over time because I was extremely distressed at never having my appeals heard through the unblock requests or the ticket request system whenever I tried. My e-mails were never replied to either. This had a very damaging impact on me personally after putting in a large amount of effort and research into articles I had edited. I admit my behaviour in this timeframe was definitely wrong. I sincerely apologize for that. But again, I am only asking for aa second chance now and to finally have a clean slate, that can be monitored even. I'm not sure what else to put here, or how much more of a difference it makes to attempt to go through WP:UTRS. Essentially, I need to know what is required by you or other administrators for me to become unblocked and free myself of accusations of being a sock of "Sprayitchyo" that were always incorrect. Thank you. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First of all, I do have sympathy for you over your frustration with trying to get unblocked. Blocked editors frequently have a long wait for their appeals to be reviewed because there aren't enough administrators who review unblock requests, and unfortunately most of those administrators who do so tend to be unsympathetic to blocked editors, and in my opinion are often too unwilling to consider unblocking. However, ot isn't realistic to expect an administrator to unblock a blocked editor without knowing the reason for the block on your account and being able to check the relevant history. If you can still log in to your original account then do so, post an unblock request there, say what other accountsyou have used, and ping me. I will then consider your unblock request. If you can't log into your account then do it here including stating what accounts you have used, and explain why you aren't doing it via your original account. JBW (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you kindly for the clarification and your willingness to hear my request. I am unable to log in to the original account, but I will provide a list of accounts I can remember that I did create and use. I admit that the actions of these accounts for which I am responsible, I am deeply regretful about. I was extremely upset at the original false accusation with "Sprayitchyo" and the loss of so much of my time and work that I reacted very improperly. The lifestyle impact was large and negative. The main accounts I do remember creating, and which are at fault, are User:Human Taxonomist, User:Greumaich, User:CdnGael2018 and User:Epf2018. Even if it means I am still blocked for another 3 months or 6 months, that is fine with me. I just want a chance to create a new account and to be given a chance to clear my name and have a fresh start. I assure you there will be no 3RR violation and no edit warring, and no sockpuppetry. My original block was due to an initial false association of my original account with some account called "Sprayitchyo" which also had a lot of socks. I was never one of them. Again, thank you again for hearing my request. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 2:34 am, 20 September 2022, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Long term disruptive user. Blocking talkpage to prevent further timewasting. SilkTork (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2022 (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.

Thank you. I have made a few quick checks of editing history, looking for evidence one way or the other as to whether the accounts you list are likely to be the same person as other accounts identified as Sprayitchyo's sockpuppets. I've formed some preliminary impressions, but it will need much more thorough checking, especially since the block on Greumaich is a checkuser block. For several reasons it isn't possible for me to do the necessary work now, but I'll try to get onto it soon. JBW (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW. I hadn't realised you were looking into this, so I have already checked back on the accounts. They all have been engaged in disruptive editing despite several warnings, and all have been block evading. Regardless of any connections with Sprayitchyo, considering the long history of disruptive behaviour and persistent block evasion this is not an account I would consider unblocking. I was about to decline and was considering a one month talkpage block to stop admins time being further wasted, when I saw your above note. As you are already handling this I leave it to you to make the final decision. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork:@JBW:

I have already admitted to such wrongful behaviour as explained above. As has been explained, I was extremely upset due to false accusations of being accused as being a sock for 'Sprayitchyo', which resulted in the original block years ago. I was never given a fair hearing as to this accusation, which was extremely upsetting since it resulted in a great loss of my tireless research, editing and lack of access. It was extremely damaging to me personally and my quality of life. If you research the account history yourself, there was never any good evidence for me being a sock of 'Sprayitchyo', because I never was, but that was what I was originally blocked for. And despite repeated attempts through unblock requests, WP:UTRS and attempts to contact via e-mail, I was never heard. I never received an e-mail reply. I am not justifying my evasions after this initial false accusation, but imagine how upsetting it is for you to be blocked completely and indefinitely for a false claim of association with a known vandal like 'Sprayitchyo', and all appeals either unanswered or ignored without any proper consideration of the evidence. Check the IPs of 'Sprayitchyo' and actual known socks of it, then compare it to me and my admitted past accounts. Do you want my actual real identity and personal information to verify who I am, and as something to rest on to take my word? I can provide this to show my sincerity about this. I am merely asking for a way to be given a chance to start fresh and prove myself. Am I to be banned permanently with no chance ever to come back to Wikipedia?? Can I not be given one chance to prove myself, and if I commit any violation you mention here as the reasons for the block (i.e. sock puppetry or 3RR violation), I can then be blocked indefinitely? I am giving you assurance of my intention to create a new account and edit properly following BRD and all other Wikipedia policies. There is no need for a talk page block, as I am merely following the process to honestly have myself finally, properly heard, either through page unblock requests or UTRS. I do not wish to waste anyone's time at all, and I sincerely apologize for any disruption I may have caused in the past. I only want a fair hearing and a chance to prove myself. Please consider what I have stated here, and I just ask to at least be provided a timeline and opportunity to clear my name and demonstrate my intention for only good editing behaviour. Kind regards, 69.156.38.113 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (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.