User talk:2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0

October 2023

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:37, 2 October 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.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:39, 2 October 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.

I simply want to properly show the true outcome of the move request.2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:40, 2 October 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.

Let the record show that Rreagan007 also edited the results of the move request 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should you alter them, and read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And when did they alter them? Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed that you tried to close a discussion prematurely. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You get that one for free, next revert and I report you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what are you reporting me for? I was trying to have a discussion about moving and article? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get a chance to report you, as to why (you were blocked as I was typing it). We have rules one of those is edit war, and another is you do not alter another user's posts. If you want that reopened you ask for it to be reopened, what you do not do is put words into peoples mouths. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to go into any wikipedia talk page a close any discussion without taking part in it? Because that is what happened. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to prevent me from having a conversation on a move request? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I'm just blocking you to prevent any further edit warring. That's all. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider suspending the other war editors. I was trying to be forced out of a conversation. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. You were engaging in disruptive behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized FormalDude's closure. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it to the correct format in good faith. That's very different from what you were doing. I also did not engage in an edit war the way you were doing. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone not involved in a conversation (not an admin) tried to close a discussion on a move request. They attempted to say the consensus was "not move" after one or two hours of discussion. Someone else edited the results and I in turn edited them to show that the result was a summary judgement by the person reqponsible for attempting to close the discussion 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you think your actions were appropriate, there are no grounds to remove this partial block. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 2 October 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.

"Summary Judgment" is not a valid closing. See: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YOU clearly changed the results from "No consensus" to "Not Moved", this was a violation of wikipedia rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1178287337 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was "No consensus to move". Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It me it sounds like "No Consensus" was the intended wording from the 3 choices. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" is not an appropriate closure for an early close such as this. A "no consensus" close is only really used when a RM discussion has gone the full distance and there is clearly no consensus either way. The only appropriate closure here was "not moved". I should probably have discussed it with the closer first, but "not moved" is the only appropriate close here since it was closed early. But had the original closer reverted me once, I would never have reverted him multiple times in an edit war the way you were doing. I would have either let it stand as is or taken it up with him on his talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to all parties involved, I would accept a resolution where the discussion on the move was reopened and my block was also removed. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not going to happen. If you acknowledge that you shouldn't have edit warred and promise not to do so again, you may be unblocked. Alternatively you can wait it out, it's only 24 hours.

When you return you can continue conversation about your concerns in a new thread, and if other editors agree with you, someone else will start a new RM. You seem to have a bit of a problem with WP:BLUDGEONING, please read that and understand that dominating a conversation does not help advance your argument. If nobody agrees with you, you'll have to accept that.

You do also have the option of challenging my closure through WP:Move review, but speaking as someone who has closed a number of RMs, I believe it is exceedingly unlikely to be overturned, so I'd recommend going the former route. If these outcomes are not suitable for you, there's nothing more to discuss here. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should take advice from the person that silenced me? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't silence you, you did that yourself by edit-warring to the point that a block was needed. You could've started a new thread continuing your discussion. My action was only on the RM that you opened prematurely. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll just go on and on, I open a move request, you close it without warning? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not close another RM from you, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe my co-editors and the admins of Wikipedia have made a mistake in blocking me and have treated my unfairly. This will only serve to allow disinformation about the COVID lab leak conspiracy to continue to thrive on the internet. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request 2

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).

2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As was clearly demonstrated above, The closure of the move request was inappropriate and I was singled out for punishment. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 3 October 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.

}} 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

let me help you, an appeal must address that you understand what You did wrong and that YOU agree to not do it again. Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop appealing a 24 hour partial block. This is not a good use of admin time. Just let it expire. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - King, Martin Luther Jr. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dr. King would turn in his grave to see his words used to defend an appeal of a 24 hour partial block on a website. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being allowed to engage in an edit war on Wikipedia unchecked is apparently the civil rights cause of our time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think his word were quite clear "*anywhere*". Should I just sit idle if I see an injustice? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that deep. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the internet is not serious business, why would you take the time to silence a perfectly valid discussion? You are the one taking it seriously. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or stop now before you also get a block on your talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stop what? I'm not allowed to appeal an unjust block? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal is open. I suggest you let it play out and not say any more about it unless requested. For the moment, you can edit the rest of the millions of articles here, I suggest you find another topic. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I will wrap up a few conversations and wait till tomorrow. 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot. I think the user overlooked that, the partial block, in their zeal. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 3 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.