User talk:86.28.234.94

February 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at The Sting.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not break the three revert rule. I had removed copyright violations and added reliable sources. But as you evidently have a problem with that and prefer the article to violate copyright and use unreliable sources, I had already put them all back. 86.28.234.94 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, 3RR is not the only way to get blocked for edit warring. Second, it is not limited to the same exact edit. It is about your total reverts of other editors within the 24 hours. Having done three of those about a day ago (almost, exactly, at this point), you seem to have thought you were in the clear. But then you went and did this a second time. That put you over the line, and even if you could argue it didn't to me that's enough to block you for edit warring regardless of 3RR. And lastly, WP:3RRNO is rather explicit that your opinion that sources are unreliable is (outside of a BLP) or that text is copyvio not enough to justify repeatedly reverting. I don't see anything in your edit history over the last day to show that you ever used the article talk page, which is what policy is meant to nudge you to do. Consensus, not tenacity, determines what we put in articles. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not break the three revert rule. That is what I have been accused of, and I did not. I did not "think I was in the clear" at any point. There were two separate incidents yesterday in which my edits were undone for no reason whatsoever. In the first, I removed text which was a) badly written; b) cited to an unreliable source; c) as it turned out, copied verbatim from that source. WP:3RRNO in fact specifically says that "Removal of clear copyright violations" is exempt from the edit warring policy. I cannot imagine why you would claim that it says the exact opposite of that.

A single-purpose "revert-and-warn" account restored the copyright violations and falsely accused me of vandalism, but after I had re-removed the violations twice, they went away to bother someone else. All well and good. I continued to fix issues in the article, other editors also made improvements, the article was looking quite a bit better than it had done. But then this second editor turned up, and again, reverted two of my edits for no reason whatsoever. Look at their edit summary: "Please be cautious of multiple reverts to avoid edit warring". What were they objecting to? Absolutely nothing. They reverted my edits purely for the sake of reverting.

Of course, I restored my clear improvements. They reverted again; I restored my clear improvements again; they made an edit warring report. In disgust at their conduct, I reverted the article back to before any of the improvements I had made. I put the copyright violations back in, took out the reliable sources that I had added, and undid the improvements to phrasing and content that I had made during the day. So at that point, there were effectively zero reverts by anyone. But a minute later, I was blocked.

Have I used the article talk page at any point? No. That is because there is no dispute. Had any of the good-faith editors working on the article yesterday disagreed with any of my changes, I'm sure we would have had a constructive discussion about it. But a drive-by bad-faith revert is not something one can discuss constructively.

In summary - I made two reverts exempt from the edit warring policy, and two reverts which were not. After being attacked for my efforts to improve the article, I re-reverted those anyway, for a total of zero reverts. I did not break the three-revert rule at any point, and I should not have been blocked. 86.28.234.94 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In review, I concur with Daniel Case's findings. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

You concur that copyright violations are not exempt from edit warring rules, even though the rules specifically exempt them? You concur that I should have been blocked for breaking a rule that I did not break? You concur that people who revert edits for no reason at all should be rewarded, and those they decide arbitrarily to attack should be blocked? Or, in fact, you didn't really consider anything that I had written and just decided that blocking people is good? 86.28.234.94 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even though I've reviewed another one of this user's request, a procedural decline due to the revocation of talk page access is necessary here. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2023 (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.

Because of your repetitive, disruptive unblock requests, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2023 (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.