User talk:217.91.19.176

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:217.91.19.176 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: ). Thank you. Notrealname1234 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruptive removal of material.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 28 July 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).

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

Request reason:

There was no disruptive removal of material. I made a clearly explained edit, which an account just three months old decided to revert four times in the space of seven minutes, for no reason that they cared to specify. And yet, in response to the most obvious 3RR violation you could ever hope to see, you blocked not the edit warrior but the person they were attacking. That is not what you should have done. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly engaged in edit warring, as well as clearly violating WP:3RR. Yamla (talk) 16:36, 28 July 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.

Comment from blocking admin - The IP address removed the content with the edit summary "this is not interesting to anyone" and reverted repeatedly with the edit summary "don't revert for no reason". EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, as anyone who looks at the article history can see. What is your point? 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question, but no response. You were evidently purely interested in blocking, regardless of the situation. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2023 (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).

217.91.19.176 (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 3RR. Why lie like that? Someone else did break it, with four reverts in seven minutes, but they have gone unpunished. Someone who repeatedly reverts edits for no reason whatsoever and breaks the 3RR should be blocked. The person whose edits they arbitrarily attacked should not be blocked. Why has the person who behaved so disruptively been allowed to do so, indeed encouraged to do so? 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 28 July 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).

217.91.19.176 (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 3RR; someone else did. I did not vandalise anything. I did not edit disruptively. I should not have been blocked. Exactly what is hard to understand about that? 217.91.19.176 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your conduct at Ostrava was edit-warring, bordering on vandalism. It's absurd to have removed content because "this is not interesting to anyone" and then gotten upset that you were rollbacked. If you'd given a descriptive edit summary the next time, things might be different, but you didn't, and you still seem to think that removing content you personally dislike is an entitlement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:44, 29 July 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 edit reverted this earlier edit. This was your second revert. This was your third. And then this was your fourth, all in the span of ten minutes. Even if you claim your first wasn't a clear revert (I think it was, but regardless), you were clearly violating WP:EW. --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An edit that was made in 2021 is totally irrelevant to the current situation. I obviously did not revert that specific edit. Many edits have been made to that section since it was added. And if edit warring upsets you so, why have you completely ignored the person who unambiguously broke the 3RR? 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question, but no response. You obviously believe that people should not edit anonymously and that any form of attack against an anonymous editor is legitimate. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by "anonymous" you mean IP users as unless people use their real names as usernames we are all anonymous. This isn't about anti-IP user bias, it is about your actions. If you have grievances about other users' behavior, you are free to raise them in the appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was extremely obviously about anti-IP bias. An IP which made a clearly explained edit was blocked; an account which made four reverts in a matter of minutes with absolutely no attempt to explain why they were reverting received no sanction whatsoever. Apparently, you are so prejudiced against anonymous edits that you can't actually comprehend that very simple fact. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A summary

I made an edit, and described why I made it in the edit summary.
An account three months old, with the vast majority of its edits being reverts, and no prior interest in the article, reverted my edit without bothering to explain why.
The user also repeatedly spammed my talk page with templates, despite being asked not to, in defiance of policies requiring civility and the assumption of good faith.
The user broke the 3RR as blatantly as it is possible to.
The user made a malicious false accusation of vandalism against me.
An administrator blocked me just minutes after the malicious report, clearly having not bothered to look at the situation but just taking the report at face value, despite my comment pointing out its dishonesty.
A second administrator falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR
The user who actually did break the 3RR, reverted repeatedly without any explanation and abused noticeboards, has been encouraged to do that again in the future, and they undoubtedly will.

If someone genuinely disagreed with my edit, they would have asked me why I made it. The user did not genuinely disagree with my edit. They simply wanted to revert edits and leave bossy templates. At no point have they even said why they were reverting. I bet they are overjoyed at how their edit warring was rewarded. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruptive removal of material.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 2 September 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 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.