User talk:69.47.179.247

July 2022

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So an individual is permitted to delete a talk comment that disproves the racist misinformation posted by 46.97.170.225. Dimadick should have replied how the information presented was inaccurate. Instead he simply deleted the comment. How is deleting comments in the talk page permitted when they are plainly supporting misinformation. 69.47.179.247 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not troll a talk page. I provided factual information disproving a racist comment made by 46.97.170.225. Please stop being a fascist. 69.47.179.247 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do want to point out, disruptive edits says editing ARTICLES, this was a talk page. Clearly Acroterion needs retraining. 69.47.179.247 (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here 69.47.179.247 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly trolling talk pages. Yamla (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2022 (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.

Policy says

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

This is exactly what I did. Please provide an explanation why Acroterion is allowed to block people who are following policy. 69.47.179.247 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since when is doing something once trolling?

In a talk page, my valid comment to a racist was deleted. The person could have replied to it, it was in a talk page. Instead I get blocked because I don't agree with the views of a racist and of the mods. How exactly is wikipedia not biased? You're opening supporting a racist. You guys blocked me for following the rules. Also, it's quite reflecting that you say trolling pages when the entire interaction happened once and it was only on 1 page.

Decline reason:

Nope. "Wikipedia is far left biased and anyone who thinks these articles are even remotely truthful is lying to themselves." is purely trolling. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:02, 12 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The comment I replied to was literally titled "The edits are biased." So I was 100% on topic, hence can not possibly be trolling. I was replying to a racist who said 75% of perpetrators are white. Instead of dialog from the other person, he deleted my reply. When I reinstated it as it's a talk page to provide dialog, Acroterion deleted it. I literally followed the policy Acroterion posted of discussing it in a talk page. So I make a comment on topic. I get my comment deleted. I reinstate my comment. A abusive mod deletes my comment, which again was on topic and disagreeing with a racist comment that is still up. The policy says to discuss in talk page so I readd my comment. And I get blocked. AMAZING. So exactly how is wikipedia not biased? You're allowing a racist comment against white people but blocking comments that disprove the racism.

Decline reason:

I think you were lucky the block is only 72 hours, and as such I suggest that once it expires that you find a less charged area to edit in. The next block will certainly be longer. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bravo for threatening a person for stating something the founder of Wikipedia actually stated. You deserve a medal. Also, now 3 mods have seen my comment that was on topic and replying to a racist who clearly hates white people. No action against said person. Interesting. Is it because the 3 mods actually agree with racism against white people? Looks like it.

Decline reason:

Talk page access disabled for trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2022 (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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 15 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked for making a valid response to a comment and having a troll repeatedly delete it?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. If you continue deliberately wasting our time, expect your block to be substantially extended and your talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not provided a reason for why I was initially blocked. When I was able to readd my previous comment on a talk page disputing the racist assertion made by 46.97.170.225, I out of concern to not get abused once again by overzealous admins, edited my comment from "Wikipedia is far left biased and anyone who thinks these articles are even remotely truthful is lying to themselves" to "As mentioned by the founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is left biased so you should not be surprised that the edits will be biased." Both my comments were on topic as the topic is called "The edits are biased." and discusses how the edits are targeting whites. My current block says it's because I made the same comment as before, which is in fact a lie. The fact that I am being blocked for posting a counterpoint to a racist assertion made by 46.97.170.225 does nothing but reinforce the known fact that the site is biased. The rule for disruptive behavior discusses articles, I made 1 comment on a talk page, not an article. The site with instructions for mods says blocks will start at 24 hours, I was blocked for 72. You guys have done everything in your power to show bias. I have not engaged in any alterations to the main article until a discussion can be had that the article targets white people. Currently Dimadick has not been blocked for repeatedly removing my valid comment in a talk page. A comment that was on topic. Why are rules not being applied equally? I ask that the discrimination stop and that I am unblocked. I would also like the zealot admins who abuse their power to receive some sort of punishment.

Decline reason:

I've made the block 3 months, and am declining your request. Next step is to remove your access. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2022 (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.

The blocking policy is a guide, not a law, and circumstances can dictate block duration. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

So a response to a civil and valid request for unblock is to punish and say we don't have to follow the guidance. Keep in mind I only mentioned what the guidance shows because it demonstrates I am being treated unfairly and to hopefully make the reviewer take a moment to think before they act like a zealot and continue the poor annd unethical treatment. Sorta makes one wonder how many IP addresses show the bias of the admin community because the admin disagrees and unfairly blocks when no policy is violated. Currently the assertion has been that the articles are biased but they become less biased as dialog is allowed to take place. But now you admins are actively blocking dialog. How long before this site is nothing but propaganda as any view outside of what you admins believe will be instantly silenced. Anyways, 3 months, wow. I hope you reflect on how childish your behavior makes you appear when you abuse power to such an extent.

Decline reason:

No bye. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:29, 16 July 2022 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed access. I will leave your request open for someone else, they may restore access if they wish. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the UTRS, so I'll leave the one on the talk page alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #60961 is open. User seeks someone "sensible" to unblock them, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (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.