User talk:68.199.120.122

November 2020

Hello, I'm GreaterPonce665. An edit that you recently made to University of Pittsburgh seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at University of Pittsburgh 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. --Drevolt (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't agree with this block and would like to appeal. 1) I haven't broken 3RR 2) All contributions I made were accompanied by sources 3) The admin claims I made "Random postings at unrelated pages". None of my edits were "random" (as noted in #2) nor is editing on "unrelated pages" a violation of Wikipedia policy. 4) If the "random posting" is referring to an accidental posting I made on the "Women in Red" page, that was entirely unintentional – I meant to post that on a user's page, but before I could delete it and move to the appropriate page, I was blocked.

Decline reason:

1) you're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for WP:EDITWAR; 2) that's good, you're not blocked for failure to include sources. Agree to stop the edit warring and you shouldn't have any further problems. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:48, 30 November 2020 (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.

. 68.199.120.122 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note here, "didn't break 3RR" =/= "was not edit-warring". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: that "unrelated pages" also includes ElKevbo's talk page, where the same so-called "warning" as that at Women in Red was posted, despite this IP and ElKevbo not having edited any of the same pages until after the talk page message was left. Is the IP trying to claim they made the same mistake twice in quick succession, and gave no correction or response in the much longer period after both edits before they were blocked? The IP made one university-related edit in 2007, then no more until a few weeks ago. Since the edits are on the same topic, it's possibly the same person. The 13-year gap suggests that the person made an account and, given their behavior as this IP, that account may have been blocked so they're back to IP editing. The level of familiarity with Wikipedia and references to discussions and articles outside of those they've been editing, and giving warnings for edits that happened long ago on articles they haven't edited also suggests this. Do any editors in the area of universities know of any recent disruptive blocks that this IP might be socking for? Kingsif (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Based on the IP’s knowledge of Wikipedia policy, it looks like a pretty clear sock to me; but I haven’t been able to find a blocked editor whose behavior is a close match yet. Another possibility (although one that I hope isn’t the case) is that this could be an active editor who’s just logging out in order to make disruptive edits. Either way, definitely not a new user. —Drevolt (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2020 (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.