User talk:180.28.59.165

What are You Doing? 32.220.255.230 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your vandalism. Stop it, or you WILL be blocked! 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He did nothing but revise an article. 2601:646:8003:6B20:249B:3C4B:3C0E:5089 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He vandalized, as did you. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized and made fraudulent actions. I have logged in Pankeyk (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above user has been blocked indefinitely as per WP:SOCK. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User contributions for 180.28.59.165. Thank you. 83.168.141.16 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2024 (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 is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I have raised my concerns here at ANI instead. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

All my edits were attempts to revert vandalism, but I've been dragged down into the mid by other editors with bad intent. Most notably Pankeyk has been goading me and is clearly WP:NOT HERE. They should be blocked instead of me so I can continue my work patrolling new edits. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2024 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) If you wish to be unblocked, and to be a productive force against vandalism, the first step is to understand that not every edit you disagree with, and not even every non-constructive edit, is vandalism. Assume good faith, and don't rush to label every edit you wish to revert as "vandalism". And, when people ask you why you reverted them, please explain. Communication is key, and saying "you're the vandal" at anyone looking for explanations is not helpful. Once your block ends, I invite you to take a look at the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to work on better understanding this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you wish to be unblocked, please do not frame people that they did vandalism. Also good thing. You will be unblocked in 48 hours. You can be grateful because you have an expiration. Avelina925 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 180.28.59.165,

It would have benefitted you if you had gone to ANI and explained your poor behavior but instead you mocked the discussion at the noticeboard. The consensus there is that you do not understand what "vandalism" is so you should not be reverting other editor's and telling them that they are about to be blocked. No one misunderstood the situation, they simply looked at your Contribution history and how you have been interacting with other editors. When your block ends, please be a more considerate and intelligent editor, don't try to boss other people around and become a constructive editor. You've barely been editing for one day and you already have been brought to ANI, that's a really bad start for a new editor. Try to be better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have benefitted you if you had gone to ANI and explained your poor behavior but instead you mocked the discussion at the noticeboard" - I guess that's fair enough Liz and I should not have risen to the bait. But to be fair to me, noone likes snitches. That IP should not have reported me to the noticeboard if they didn't want to be mocked and ridiculed. That said, I should have retained some dignity by not commenting further. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a pattern of behavior, especially towards other editors, that is disruptive. But if you want to know what specifically impelled me to block you, this edit was completely unacceptable. Take some time off and consider your deportment here. This is a collaborative project, and everybody has to act accordingly or it won't work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

180, you may not understand the gravity of the situation. When there is an ANI report about you, that means an editor believes you are doing something pretty seriously wrong. If other editors agree, you may face a block - which can be a set time or indefinite - or even a community ban. And if someone is blocked and makes another account to continue editing, that account is also blocked and the chances of them being able to return keep decreasing.

The best course of action is to hold back from any mockery, threats, or other uncivil behavior (I am not suggesting you threatened them, but it happens!) and to make your case in the ANI thread for why your conduct followed the Five Pillars that Wikipedia stands on. Ideally you then listen to what other people are saying and if it turns out you are in the wrong, apologize and do your best not to repeat the mistake. Funnily enough, we do like snitches here - because administrators can't see everything or fix everything, so the community relies on every editor to step in and discuss, revert, warn, and/or report behavior they see as damaging to Wikipedia. I hope that helps you understand what's going on a bit more - it can be a little incomprehensible when you start, but we love getting new editors who are keen to help out! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the troll Pankeyk's offensive comments from this talk page. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Those were reminders. (By different ip user) 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. I'll note you also removed another editor's comment at the same time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that why would he call Pankeyk's comments a troll? 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are a disgraceful troll who has been logging in and out of that account and using an IP range (2601:646:8003:6B20:0:0:0:0) to harass me here on my talk page. It's a disgrace that they haven't been banned. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note @ 180.28.59.165 Tread carefully. Your block will be expiring shortly. Calling people trolls is not a good look if you want people to believe you are planning to contribute in a constructive manner. I will ignore the fact that you also reverted my comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ANI thread for details, the user I was addressing is a confirmed sockpuppet and troll account. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I was editing the article 2020 Akron Zips football team to expand it, and I was trying to add the missing American football roster/Player templates, when my edits were reverted for no reason. Why were my edits reverted? 71.30.91.6 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details as this was a few days ago, but I suspect you were vandalizing and got warned for it. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That foolish "suspicion" contributed to my decision to block you, 180.28.59.165. You gave no reason in the edit summary for reverting 71.30.91.6, you warned them for vandalism (their contribution doesn't look like vandalism to me) and now you reply rudely to a perfectly civil question with an assumption of bad faith. It's disgraceful behavior from beginning to end. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

If you suspect it's vandalism, it isn't. Please read up on what WP:VANDALISM] is. Wow! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for continuing the pattern of bossing other editors around and falsely accusing theam of vandalism for which you were blocked before. You have completely ignored all the good advice you have received, so I'm going with another block.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 18 February 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal the latest 10 day block as I feel this was unfair. I was originally blocked for 48hrs for "persistently making disruptive edits", after my attempts to counter vandalism and warn other editors went a bit off track. I accept that this block was fair and my attitude was hostile to others involved, and thus with the exiry of the block it was not my intention to continue this pattern of editing. However, it became very apparent to me that another editor had not been punished and was acting in a manner that was also disrupive to this site. I therefore raised my concerns at ANI [1], which were ultimately well-founded: the account which had been taunting me (Pankeyk) was discovered to be a sockpuppet account (this was very evident) and thus blocked indefinitely. I had hoped this would be the end of the matter and that I could begin to edit again, this time more constructively. For some reason, although my suspicions were proven correct - I have received a block for a further 10 days! I'm not disputing that I didn't lose my cool previously, or that my edits were 100% non-disruptive (though I assure you my intentions were 100% good). But I was under the impression I had already served my time, so I'm not sure why the block got extended? In any case, I will not be engaging in any further drama or hostile encounters with other editors, and will be focussing on ensuring content quality in article space is up to scratch (mostly with a focus on spelling/grammar corrections, and with avoiding posting warning templates on user talk pages) That said, I would like to raise further concerns about yet another editor's concerning behaviour. This is not because I wish to be petty, but because I am concerned about further disruptions it may cause if it is not addressed. Chaotic_Enby also appears to be showing an unhealthy interest in my behaviour, and appears to have a biased view of the previous events (ignoring the behaviour of Pankeyk and ensuring I don't go unpunished). I am unable to respond to the ANI thread I created due to the block, so I would like to highlight the edits made below so that someone can review (either in addition to reviewing this unblock request, or separately as required): #Whilst being hostile to me, engaging in a friendly manner with the (extremely obvious) sockpuppet account Pankeyk [2] #Continuing to engage with Pankeyk in a taunting manner after I'd attempted to remove these comments so I could move on after the block expired [3] #Adding an (ironically) hostile warning template after I removed content from my own talk page and warned Pankeyk for their disruption [4] #Ignoring all the valid points in raised in the ANI thread in favour of further berating me [5] #Further attempting to derail the investigation into Pankeyk by directing the attention to me [6] #Disruptively reopening the thread after it had concluded for no valid reason, and further trying to defend Pankeyk (very suspicious imo) [7], [8] This is not acceptable, so please look into this, thankyou. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that complain about another user rather than address the requestor's own conduct always fail. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2024 (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 help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The formatting for the above request looks wrong, I'm not sure why. Please could someone assist? Thanks 180.28.59.165 (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending Pankeyk, just a bit suspicious of your accusations against them given your past behavior. If you're accusing me of being a sock of them, I'll gladly invite you to ask a CheckUser to verify I'm not. Also, I don't have an "unhealthy interest" in your case, I just happen to often look at ANI and comment in cases I've been previously involved with. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's easy enough to do then why not. Seems like it would make sense to run those checks on the Avelina account first though no? In any case, I wasn't necessarily accusing you of being a sock so much as pointing out that your behaviour has been equally as disgraceful, biased and disruptive as mine (see points raised in unblock request above). Some sort of acknowledgement of this (whether by you or an admin I don't really mind at this point) would help to put this matter behind us all. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not punishment. They are made to stop disruption. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block and what we would do different. Accusing other editors of sock puppetry is WP:INCIVIL and not going to convince anyone to unblock you. (Check users cannot disprove sock puppetry). Wow. You realy went on the attack there against another user. Please rewrite to deal with your behavior before another admin declines. Please read WP:NOTTHEM -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting you've continued the aggressive posture your were blocked for. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I mistakenly defended Pankeyk and that I was, at some point, in the wrong for doing so. For the record, it was because I didn't feel like a block should be based only on the accusations of someone who continually misrepresents any edits they disagree with as vandalism. Although I understand now that the blocking admin made an independent judgement and should be trusted on this — I admit, it was a bit foolish of me to doubt that to begin with. I think we can agree to put the matter behind us, although I wouldn't call the behavior close to equivalent. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]