User talk:71.65.65.144

Attention:

This IP address, 71.65.65.144, is registered to Charter Communications, US. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact them to report abuse. Contact information may be available in the WHOIS report.

If you are editing from this IP address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it may be possible for the owner of the IP to determine who was making contributions from this address at any given time.

If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

Bias Enforcement: Part I

May 2021

Your edits to the Matthew Garrett article

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Matthew Garrett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I would like to remind you that everything written on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Roper Klacks (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me aware. I have added additional citations. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Matthew Garrett) for a period of 3 months 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 ~~~~}}. Fences&Windows 21:24, 31 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

The additions were cited in accordance with wikipedia policy, with accurate light as found in those cited publications. Simply blocking people to obscure scandals that the public has a right to know about and are accurate is not appropriate or conducive to the credibility of Wikipedia in general. This block is not in good faith and suppresses information. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were not properly sourced per WP:BLP. You also seem more interested in pushing a cause and not improving this encyclopedia. There are places where you can tell the world about what you deem to be a scandal, this isn't it. I am declining your request. Note that you are still free to edit other articles. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Social circles of the article subject should be excluded from disciplinary decisions due to unavoidable bias. The reason given in the ban review and initial ban were misleading; not only were the BLP rules followed but the response betrays a pro-subject bias that is resistant to public information being integrated into the article in a proper light. Your political views are not appropriate input to the decisions process here. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK. The block is appropriate. The material you are adding is entirely inappropriate. The sources are not in any way sufficient to declare in Wikipedia's voice that something is a "smear campaign". Go tell the world about the "scandal" somewhere else. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:48, 1 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is critically important to wikipedia's credibility that this be appealed until Wikipedia's policies are followed, regardless of who the subject is of the article or which editors they are socially linked with. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it really isn't. Yamla (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (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.

If you persist in pushing your cause, the block can be broadened to sitewide and your access to this page removed. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reviewed the sources you used, here and here. Neither are appropriate; you need to reread WP:RS and WP:BLP. I want to be clear, I'm taking no position on whether or not there's a smear campaign against Stallman, only that your sources are not appropriate to establish this. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the only person responding to provide anything resembling an argument about the content besides "no u".

I have read the RS and BLP pages and am not seeing a violation with those sources. Can you be more specific about the issue? If it is just that there is an issue with the sources, it's a well enough known set of events that other sources that do meet the criteria can be used if I were to know what the issue was with the ones in use.

To be clear, there are several issues at contest, and not just whether the Open Letter to remove Stallman was part of a larger "smear" campaign -- though that is being asserted as well. What is at issue is that the subject of the BLP participated in that, as part of a recurring pattern of public and documented smearing of many open source contributors over the years. This article highlights on the subject's accomplishments, like any vanity page would, but does not integrate the subject's quite well known and well documented serial participation in ritual defamation.

To mention, the responses up to this point with "block first, ask questions later" and calling cited contributions "vandalism" as a cover for bias enforcement has undermined the credibility or neutrality of wikipedia in my opinion. Some sort of adjustment is necessary here. I'm happy to discuss modifications but I could use some assistance integrating this content.

71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not remove the ISP template from this page or you will incur a total site block and lose the ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And stop badgering everyone you have come into contact with. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked for six months from editing 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) 03:33, 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.

I will remove talkpage access if you continue. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 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).

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

Request reason:

I could use some assistance navigating your arbitration process. I have been threatened and harassed repeatedly by the article subject's social network for trying to integrate materially accurate content, accused of vandalism and then was told I was "harassing users" when telling the people doing it to please stop (no person was contacted more than once, so "badgering" is also a distortion at best). At some point your editors are accountable for their own behaviour (to include misleading statements to justify premature use of administrative privileges without policy backing). If you review the reason stated in the block and the communication that actually took place, the events and the descriptions do not align. Threatening people without a reason, or a policy cited is detrimental (and toxic) behaviour. I request a review of this behaviour beyond just lifting the ban. I also request that the communications that he defaced be reverted so that people can discuss other problematic behaviours that have taken place here. 2022-07-11 Update: Acroterion has reverted the message I left on the page in question requesting that threatening warnings being left on my page and immediate bans without reference to policy to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATide_rolls&type=revision&diff=1097690563&oldid=1097689698 I won't make any conclusions here about why he did that but it certainly would obscure the verifiability of my position if the original text were buried in a pile of revisions instead of on the page to read. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see WP:GAB to understand how to write an appropriate unblock request. Frankly, there's zero chance you'll be unblocked to write about Matthew Garrett and very little chance you'll be unblocked at all unless you totally change your approach. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 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.

Your request

As you requested: WP:BLANKING. Tiderolls 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Retrospect

In retrospect I regret having not created an account before beginning my effort to integrate these events, as it means my IP address is published by Wikipedia and linked to by Garrett all over twitter.

At first glance, I wasn't too concerned about it, I mean, it's just an IP address, until I factor in that literally anyone can point a web browser at my IP address, and I have no idea what that would do to the internet.

Thank you for your time. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before next block

Please read WP:DEADNAME before posting on articles or talk pages again. Levine was clearly not notable prior to her transition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted your censorship of valid article criticism, because it is inconsistent with editorial integrity. Do with that what you will, and I don't care about your threat to ban me. In the future, you are expected to reply and argue your position if you have one (as will be expected in all other venues of adult life). I'll also say this would only be yet another instance of intellectual dishonesty that I've seen from Wikipedia administrators. You have too much access. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:36, 26 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Censorship is categorically not a valid method of argument in any context where intellectual integrity is valued. Also, this is the 3rd instance of editors forcing article inaccuracy.

Many of your editors have too much access and need a more developed process for issuing these types of bans.71.65.65.144 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:40, 26 January 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 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).

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

Request reason:

Previous unblock request was declined under the false pretense that it was "not an unblock request", when, clearly that is what is being requested. The method of the false assertion was one involving omitting the main statement in the unblock request to obfuscate the totality of what was being said. This would mark the 4th instance of intellectual dishonesty being used as an acceptable means of resolution for a disagreement by wikipedia admins involving this account. Not a good look, folks. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't about looks. None of what you were pulling here, what you tried to pull in article space, is funny; the verbosity you employ leads only to ridicule. Please don't write this way in English papers. I'm revoking talk page access since we're not a forum; that's what Discord and Reddit are for. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 26 January 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.

Please clarify, then, what in this message 1) identifies your conduct that led to your block and 2) what you would do differently, if you were to be unblocked. (Pro tip: at a minimum, you'll need to acknowledge your violation of MOS:GENDERID and agree to abide by it going forward.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking closer. I deny any misconduct, as misconduct implies intent.

I also dispute the appropriateness of MOS:GENDERID after looking at it again: The event regarding the block was a post on a talk page for an article to discuss article accuracy by including the birth name of the article subject due to 54 years of notable activity under the dead name before recently (relatively) changing names -- with the intent of checking for editor consensus prior to making any edits.

That article subject didn't establish their 40 year career under the new name because the new name was only like 10 years old, and the article subject is purely notable due to their prestigious 40 year career. It's fairly obvious how MOS:GENDERID in that context contravenes the spirit of maintaining article accuracy due to that, and it was a talk page and not the article, so, this was not vandalous or even inappropriate behaviour.

I currently understand that that we have codified intellectual dishonesty into convention by the omission of names, and, after reading the room a bit, I think a better approach would be to attempt to challenge that aspect of MOS:GENDERID for a correction to it for situations exemplified in the article, and come back to the article when the convention is corrected.

I will also add that the behaviour leading to the block was an appropriate response to (yet another instance of) bullish, threatening, and intellectually dishonest approaches by responding editors with too much access and who need behavioural oversight, with it not being the first time that has happened. That behaviour involved deleting the discussion point instead of arguing against it or linking to the reasons why they disagree (presumably, also MOS:GENDERID), or even moving it to a place they found more appropriate if that is an issue (I don't think it is here, but I can see how some might view it to be).

In an environment where admins seem to not be operating with any oversight, both intellectually and behaviourally, I made an appropriate response. But, if there is a bigger process to follow, where, as I mentioned -- trying to get MOS:GENDERID updated to account for that type of accuracy problem, I can follow that route if it's suggested, so long as it does not compromise the truth of any article being edited, or my dignity, both of which is worth fighting and losing over in all cases. I hope this addressed your concern. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am getting from reading this is that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing and that, if unblocked, you intend to continue to be disruptive, just on a different part of Wikipedia for the time being. That is absolutely no better. I'm not sure why you feel that your dignity is at stake. We only know you by your IP address but it is clear that you are not Rachel Levine, the person who's dignity is actually at stake here. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:BATTLEGROUND applies here? Being able to argue my case is hardly what's discussed there. From my perspective, it seems more like I just lack a certain type of ideological bias. Regarding the article subject's dignity, I think there's an argument there, but the more I think about this the more I think this should be discussed in the context of a challenge to MOS:GENDERID and not the context of this unblock request.

Challenging a guideline is not combative behaviour.

Also, I noticed that you reverted a change I made to the sections on this talk page. I would appreciate if you stopped doing that, as, I believe if I were doing that to you, it would actually justify my ban. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reinstated your extremely misguided changes to the section titles here. This is obviously just trolling and brings the seriousness of your unblock requests into question. Obviously, it will be up to the administrators to decide what to do, but please don't be surprised if they revoke your access to edit this page. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalidating the positions of people you disagree with doesn't do much more than feel good sometimes. "Appeal to the Stone" comes to mind. In any case, the points I've made here stand unchallenged. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2024 (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.