User talk:67.149.160.101

Good evening and salutations fellow editor. I reverted your deletion of long-sourced material in an article regarding gender reveal parties.

you seem passionate about this topic, it could use more properly sourced unbiased material. so, great.

please discuss on the talk page removals of previous cited content.

thanks and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk)

recent edits on gender reveal parties

Good evening and salutations fellow editor. I reverted your deletion of long-sourced material in an article regarding gender reveal parties.

you seem passionate about this topic, it could use more properly sourced unbiased material. so, great.

please discuss on the talk page removals of previous cited content.

thanks and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Funcrunch (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm FenrisAureus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. If you have an issue with the inclusion of content you should bring it to the talk page of the article in question — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2023 (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.

It is clear you are not reading the edit summaries I am leaving please do so or stop.

The article even asks to prune out what is and is not a topic of controversy at the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.160.101 (talk)

I did in fact read your edit summaries. Please do not delete entire sections of well sourced content without consensus on the talk page of the article in question. If you continue to do so you risk being blocked from editing.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the content and following the dead links. The section is nonsense. Tt is like complaining about some countries having better clothes or food. It is no different to counties in rowing complaining of lighter blades or better rowing seats. Absolute and utter whole cloth absurd and a million miles away from a controversy. It is how sport works, it's called sports technology, without people would be running round barefoot chasing lumps of leather on football grass and bikes would weigh tonnes and have one brake. It's the modern world and the section reads of howling at the moon that some people have and some people have not. Gimme a break sport is never fair, what next we have a section on genetic advantages of fast runners?

Also threats are not welcome. You keep on adding back in stuff which does not belong that the article specifically asks to remove. I will remove it again unless you give me a reason why this should be included, simply 'well sourced content without consensus' is not a good enough reason. No consensus will exist ever again on that long dead talk page and the sources do not automatically make this a controversy.

Over to you on why this stuff should remain. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (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 are the one not leaving reasons, and just putting back in the stuff. You are doing what you are claiming I am doing when I am not doing what you are claiming. See above for the detailed reasons. I also cannot see any reasons from you. If you are trying to scare me with being blocked you should be equally scared as you are just putting back in and not giving any reasons. It feels very difficult it seems to get you to actually read all of the section and the things I am writing. It seems you just want to scold and revert. Please read the section and tell me if you honestly and genuinely believe it meets the template at the top of the page and if it should stay or go. Sod the sources they are mostly dead and are about nothingness.

Your recent editing history at Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics 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; read about 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. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rich irony of the warning you have placed here you fell right in to the bear trap to show you are an edit warrer. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there has to be 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, i only made 2 reverts. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No,it does not say that. That is only what you think it says. The actual warning says clearly the following "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."

The way how you gloatingly say " i only made 2 reverts." is clear evidence you have no intention of doing anything but counting up to the number reverts you think you are allowed to make. Which clearly violates the above quoted section from the very warning you placed on this talk page.

Also I looked up the policy you are relying on which states the following " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

You are on thin ice my pedigree chum with an attitude like yours, now would you like to read and comment on the substance of why I have removed the most irrelevant content in that article, or are you only going to engagne in edit warring? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does say that per WP:3RR

The three-revert rule

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked.

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Wikipedia, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming what I had read. This matter is about edit warring and it appears you seem to think the three revert rule and the edit warring policies are separate. They are both linked with the edit warring policy being a larger policy and the three revert rule being a child policy stemming from its existence. you seem to think you're immune from the edit-warring policy when you are not. You have made clear you were keeping tabs not to exceed three reverts while still edit-warring as you clearly were not prepared to engage in the substance and were simply waiting to just revert up to three times. This is called gaming a system and you have done it in a way you think you dan get away with it is clear whoever in the legal department wrote the policy was your tactics a mile away and wrote in language to stop your behaviour. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2023 (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.

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:67.149.160.101 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: ). Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irony is dead it seems. I am glad an uninvolved person saw your absurdity for what it actually is. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Maya Le Tissier—because it 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union match reports

If you think we need to display rugby union match reports in a different way than we have been for the last decade or more, please raise a discussion at WT:RU instead of acting in a disruptive manner. It's not helpful. – Pee Jay 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great you have been doing it wrong for a decade, I have no idea what the insider-only understanding means. Doing something wrong for a long time does not mean you keep doing it wrong...this is not a battleground, and changing things so people who are not insiders with implicit knowledge of Rugby Union can understand things is called progress. Stagnation because 'that's how it's been done for a decade' is the weakest and laziest reason to keep doing something confusing and not helpful to those not having an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the people who decided to include seemingly random letters in seemingly ugly places. Also, wikiprojects expressly do not OWN articles or subject matters, and I feel that I will simply come up against lazy arguments of 'too much don't bother, keep going with the wrong' This needs to be taken out of the insider only intimidate knowledge assumed sphere. how about the Village Pump or somewhere not filled with insiders who have assumed knowledge and a decade of entrenchment?

You really need to read WP:TECHNICAL as you are falling squarely into being a Rugby Union expert and expecting everyone else to be a Rugby Union expert. Also having the random letters without explanation fails WP:ACCESSIBILITY, particularly those using accessibility devices as the random letters are unexplained.

TL;DR - Doing something bad for a long time is no reason to keep on doing something.

@PeeJay:

As I said, please raise a discussion at WT:RU instead of continuing with disruptive editing. Have a good day. – Pee Jay 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not raise it with the insiders only, this needs wider input from those who are not the people who created the problem and will therefore resist the problem being fixed on the ridiculous grounds that - too much is already broken by us and we don't have the want to fix it, let's keep on braking things...This is the obvious outcome and the outcome I can almost guarantee you will raise by your initial comment here...the problem will not be fixed by those who created the problem...how about you give an actual reason for the use of the random letters other than...it is the way it's done...if there is a reason for this notation fo ahead what is it?

@PeeJay:

The editors at WT:RU are not unreasonable. If you explain your reasoning for needing to make a change, I'm sure they'll be receptive. It may well be that they simply never considered the issue before. But if you're not willing to engage with other editors, perhaps we should treat you as WP:NOTHERE. – Pee Jay 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bad faith is strong with your last comment, wish to reconsider that?

You know you could start the topic instead of demanding I do it. You are not being very constructive in looking at this, you are treating this as "other user do everything". Whereas you could be constructive and start that internal discussion yourself...I get the feeling you don't want to do that because you are coming across as having unconscious WP:battleground reasons, which is not helpful. instead of demanding I start the discussion, you could have done that in the first place. I also have started a wider discussion on the 2023 Rugby World Cup talk page, tagged the articles and informed the individual article talk pages. Remember wikiprojects do not 'own' articles, cannot impose their preferences on articles, or require their approval for changes. I suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject#Function. It is probably best you stop requiring a specific wikiproject be the conduit this goes through.

67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who thinks there's an issue with the way we do things right now, so the onus is definitely on you to initiate the discussion. I see you've done that at Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup, which I appreciate, but as I said there, it would be better to have it in a more centralised location due to the large number of articles it will affect. Thanks. – Pee Jay 16:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it feels you are having the battlegroud mentality...please come off the oppositional stance and lower the high horse. As you have said the discussion by me have been started. If you are so eager to include the wikiproject for their non-binding consultation, be my guest. I will though not be bullied into breaking up this discussion and being forced to seek the approval of a wikiproject. Perhaps a discussion on the template article itself then? I cannot find such a discussion on the template talk page having ever taken place. If one has please can you point it out as I see you are a user who does discuss things there.

@PeeJay: 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay:

September 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@67.149.160.101, you have been making inappropriate use of your talk page. The edits you are attempting to make were disallowed by an edit filter. To the blocking admin, @Ivanvector, please monitor if the IP continues to make inappropriate edits here. Eye snore 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case all I have been doing is attempting to post a block review. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this, or admins can review the filter log. The filter is working properly but these are false positives - I've removed some words from the request below which I think are causing it to trip; see page history for what was originally written. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 11 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 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).

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

Request reason:

This block is retaliatory and done so in bad faith. There is no evidence to support the claims of 'disruptive editing' which have been provided. The admin has behaved in a way which is over-the-top and has flexed their powers in a way which is an (Redacted). They need to provide some evidence of what they are blocking for, as this is simply a retaliation for them being called out for this and reported for it

here 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(note: this appeal was blocked by the edit filter, I pulled it out manually Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

This block is not retaliatory; the block was placed to end your disruption. If you can provide sufficient assurance that it will not resume(which probably means finally dropping the stick), we can consider unblocking you. If you persist once this block is over, more will likely follow. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 11 September 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.

At least one of the edit filters is tripping because the phrase "(Redacted)" appears on this page, or at least I think that's what's causing it. The filter doesn't seem to check where it's posted or who posted it. Someone else will review this, of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Filter

The filter keeps blocking posts of block reviews 67.149.160.101 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Of course the behaviour is not going to continue, the stick is dropped. I am more than happy to move on and get back to constructive things on this site. I have though not found this to be welcoming, and and I have felt to be someone who is like an insect to be squashed. I am quite upset by the actions here. I am though happy to listen and reflect and move on.

I apologise for behaving in a way which has caused the two administrators BlackKite and Ivanvector to use their powers as they have. I do not intend to take this any further I am just needing to get this off of my chest as I am frankly shaken by what has happened and by the suddenness by which it has happened. I thought you know following the rules and procedures, going to the correct forums placing the appropriate warnings as directed and engaging in the discussions was the right thing to do. Clearly, though that was not and I apologise for that.

I would like though more than simply nothing said relating to the behaviour of Black Kite when they made an aspersion that I was another user and I was 'continuing a pattern of disruptive behaviour'. Additionally, how can an admin type in giant print in the way Ivanvector did be anything but inflammatory? I would like their actions reviewed. I have made the actions I did in good faith. It would have been nice to be talked to on this talk page and asked to take a break and come back, but no it was, Block first, why?

I just want to move on and let this all be water under the bridge.

I also for a period was blocked by an automated filter from being able to post anything or from being able to post any replies on this page no matter what IP was used. This is why I posted on the AN/I page as I could not post any defence or comment on the matter. I am probably best taking some time away as I am upset and shaken and would just like to calm down and get back to editing around here and improving and adding to Wikipedia. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block has expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 13 September 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.

I'll give you my perspective on this, and also for whoever ends up reviewing this. I came across your report at ANEW, which was a duplicate of the report directly above it. I got there after SounderBruce's report was actioned, and after Black Kite closed your report ([1]), you reopened it ([2]), PeeJay re-closed it ([3]), and you re-opened it a second time ([4]). Since Black Kite's comment was rude and you seemed passionate about it, I checked the reported page, but I found there that there was no further action to take: Drew1830 had been hitting the article with unexplained reverts for 4 days, and had been reverted by four other editors besides PeeJay (just as a side note, those four editors have combined experience of 67 years and one month on Wikipedia, and over 570,000 edits) - Drew1830's reverts were akin to vandalism at that point, and reverting vandalism is an exemption to 3RR. Blocking only Drew1830 was the right call. Therefore, in my view, you were persistently reopening the discussion when no further action was necessary, seemingly because you wanted PeeJay to be blocked, and I used large print to drive home the point that it was not going to happen and further comments would only be disruptive at that point.

I was content to leave it at that, but then I saw you were also posting about Black Kite at ANI, in another thread you had started earlier about PeeJay's editing. I noted there that I re-closed the ANEW discussion, and when I referred to "asking the other parent" I was referring to our essay on the topic, and the impression you gave me by then that you were in an editorial dispute with PeeJay and were going to several other pages to try to draw sanctions in different ways, and kept restarting or starting new discussions when they didn't go the way you wanted. I was also referring to a few entirely unrelated incidents at RFD from the past few days which didn't involve you at all. But I was trying to take your concerns seriously; in the middle of everything you might not have noticed that I also warned PeeJay in fairly strong language. But while I was doing that you posted in the thrice-closed ANEW discussion again, and then I blocked you. I was entering block settings while you were posting a new section about me at ANI and so I didn't see it until after you were blocked, after which I started another new section asking for that action to be reviewed, and then there was everything with the edit filters and your other IP address, which I hope the reviewing admin will take as a series of unfortunate technical hiccups and not hold against you.

This probably doesn't help exactly, but you asked for an explanation and this is it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the response, I am grateful for the explanation.

I apologise for the actions I took but I was wound up by PeeJay who has a long history of incivility and edit warring stretching over 16 years. Who has blocks ranging from hours to months as long as the eye can see.

I also responded badly to the comments which were inflammatory from Black Kite. I saw their closing as something done out of line and I still do but I see why they closed it, as I believe they genuinely believed their comments about me being someone else. I also found your use of giant font to be over the top and that did not help the situation.

I think some civility from everyone you, me and black kite is all we needed, but I don’t think any of us handled this perfectly. For my part I apologise.

As for PeeJay I have no faith based on looking at their actions over the last 16 years that they are going to be more civil and less abrasive. I found it galling a user (not use of black kite) was willing to let it slide because they saw them as ‘a productive editor’. I fail to see how that excuses continued edit warring, abrasiveness and incivility over the last 16 years.

Anyway I am happy to move on and put this behind and I extend a handshake to you to move on.

@Ivanvector:

67.149.160.101 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna get ignored here it seems. While PeeJay on the other hand gets 16 years of bad behaviour and hollow words of 'ill be different' when 16 years of actions show they will never ever change....and they have said this nonsense of I'll be different tomorrow and it never occurs with no action taken against them...really all because they are supposedly constructive as ana editor? come on people this is really insulting that PeeJay gets away with what they do...abrasive because they are supposedly constructive, anyone else would be out on their ear...Let's get some standards here that apply to everyone, not different standards to the long-time uncivil edit warrer and everyone else. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring you is their choice, we are all volunteers here. I'm thinking you have the potential to be quite the asset to the project, and suggest that maybe take some of these hours and read and memorize the policy WP:CIVILITY. Its summary: "This page in a nutshell:

Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same."

So I'm encouraging you to leave personal attacks off of Wikipedia, that's how we roll here. If you don't like how someone treats you, assume at least some good faith, and some humor and banter are allowed. Other editors' shortcomings are theirs to bear, not for you to crusade against. I and most of us are far from perfect on all of this, but I do try sometimes (striking some of your comments helps, and don't just offer handshakes, give them freely even if they have to be Joe Biden invisible man handshakes. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I smell some disturbing political fetish with the weirdness in that last comment on invisible handshakes. I am not a fan of that kind of comment it’s creepy and unsettling.

For the record you offer a handshake, you never force or require one that is not how the etiquette works. You extend reconciliation never require it. You don’t seem to know basic manners in that respect.

I get people are volunteers, they were all quick to jump in when I was getting banned just seems to be like the Marie Celeste when trying to get unbanned. Yeah volunteers and all but come on it feels like ban fast unblock slow.

Also in relation to your points do they apply evenly to all users… I don’t see them being applied to PeeJay here. I just see PeeJay thumbing their nose at over the last 16 years. Care to explain how someone can be banned so many times for the same things and not be excluded? All to just then do more of the save and people just wave away the issues? Double standards much?

I strongly suggest you read the whole context. You make me sound like some fishwife screaming obscenities. Nothing is happening here of that sort. If you have examples. Go ahead show them otherwise you are making assumptions and casting aspersions.

In short apply the rules evenly and apply them fairly to all. Admins aren’t special they just have access to more buttons. PeeJay is also not special. Why is PeeJay treated like an untouchable?

There must be a way to say look when are you going to do something about an uncivil edit warring user?

If there is not then Wikipedia is fundamentally no different to other internet cesspits like Twitter and KiwiFarms. Yes I stand by those comparisons. Either Wikipedia enforces its policies especially on civility and editing or it’s not an encyclopaedia it’s just a trashy frat bot club with random panhandling for funds.

I await you examples to back up your claims and they better be good examples @Randy Kryn:. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I haven't had any interactions with PeeJay and don't know their history here. It's a pretty big place. My apologies for any kind of casting aspersions language, or making you feel more under attack. Certainly neither were my intent or purpose. Just was pointing out some of the culture here, which hopefully trends towards universal civility. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Ivanvector speculation

In response to this

IPv4 is used through a modem WiFi and IPv6 is used on a cellular network...so one is using a phone and one is using a computer. Very simple explanation. Could you please stop assuming bad faith? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I myself use a phone for editing at times and it does look like all your edits between two devices were spaced apart suggesting most of might indeed have been just normal innocent switching between devices (and at least in the thread I saw on Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup I didn't see any attempt to pretend to be different people). However any claims of innocence went out the window when you evaded your block in this way. If you're going to edit with an IP it means you have to be responsible for ensuring you abide by our policies and guidelines while doing so even when it creates more work. Although frankly, I just got blocked so can only edit my talk page isn't something hard to follow. And further, you clearly knew you were blocked since you said as much in your message, [5] and had just made an appeal [6]. Only editing ANI doesn't earn you any sympathy especially when it's such a pointless message. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please make abreast of the issues which were being encountered with the automated filter before you assume nefariousness. It was the only way to show that there was an issue with being able to appeal and that has now been resolved…not everything is out to cause the walls to con tumbling down. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 31 hours, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Horse beater. I must say I've really enjoyed this entire discussion, from ANI to here and there, and of the opinion that Wikipedia is very fortunate to have appealed to someone as articulate, full of themselves, and a genuinely good writer as IP67.149.160.101. And I haven't even gotten to the article talk page discussion yet, which I look forward to reading but not commenting on (there or here), just to enjoy the verbal interplay. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime…what are you on about…horse beater? A very odd and unfathomable turn of diction there.

I shall take your second section as genuine and I thank you.

67.149.160.101 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually I just realised I didn't read the discussion at the RWC page closely enough. I just saw [7] and [8] where you persistently refused to clarify that you were the same editor despite apparent confusion on this point. So my sympathy from you even from that discussion is basically zero. Your IP switching might have been innocent but your refusal to clarify the point wasn't. If you are going to edit with IPs it's your responsibility to ensure there's no such confusion since it does matter in assessing WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BADSOCK explicitly lists "Creating an illusion of support" as something forbidden. That's something you are doing when you persistently refuse to clarify the same editor when there is confusion. It was only in your third reply you finally although only implicitly clarified this point [9] by saying you would go with a WP:3O, meaning there were only two of you. This is definitely not a good thing when you are claiming your use of multiple IPs via multiple devices is perfectly innocent, so don't repeat it. While I don't think User:PeeJay helped here, it sounds to me like they suspected you were the same editor but rather than directly asking they sort of snarkily beated around the bush. Still they are responsible for their edits and you are responsible for yours. And since you are the one choosing to edit via IPs, there are as I said in my first reply, responsibilities which come from this and besides not evading a block that also include ensuring there is no confusion about you being someone else when in the same discussion (or related discussions where it matters). Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't cool. But if they get through this intact and learn to play nice with everyone without using creative insults (and maybe take a user name?) Wikipedia is in for some productive discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup to Remove Some Statistical Tables

You have been contacted as you have contributed similar edits that appear on the Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup article. There is currently a discussion on the Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup talk related to the removal of some statistical tables. The discusssion can be accessed here. Your input is most welcome and, of course, the consensus of the community will be abided by. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 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.