User talk:2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D

January 2025

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as done at List of Squid Game characters.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (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).

2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False reports with malicious monopoly-reasons, such as demanding sources that were never needed as mentioned by a registered user. Said user then went to report me after he tried to vandalize (yes, vandalize, for he deleted a whole sentence claiming it needed sources when it was bought up in plot multiple times in the TV show) and kept arguing to why I needed to add sources, and when I sourced the episode's transcript and review links he said thhat was not good enough, implying he'll stalk and delete the page if "better source" is not added when the source is unrelevant and unneccessary. You can check the edit history yourself and see. I asked him to stop reverting it back to the deletionn/vandal versionnn on the article's talk page; on my talk page; and on his talk page. Yet I'm on the wrong here somehow? I told him he should've stopped trying to vandalize annd talk it out, and then he decided to go and spam "citation needed" everywhere on the article, including where it is not needed at all. 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't know who is correct in this dispute. But it doesn't matter, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct- that is why "I'm correct" is not a defense to edit warring. You also engaged in personal attacks by calling the other editor a "vandal" doing "vandalism". Edits that you disagree with, or that may even be incorrect, are not vandalism- vandalism is a deliberate effort to deface an article. This request does not indicate to me that you understand the reason for the block, meaning that the warring will continue, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (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 accepted the request.

2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I acknowledge that I did get hot-headed midst the chaos of the revert-war and was wrong in breaking the 3-reverts rule. I also admit that I misundertood what vandalism means - believing it was any act of deliberate attempts to delete/disrupt other editors, but now I know that the other user did not cause vandalism. I acknowledge that I did wrong in continuing to revert the edits even after trying to contact the other user in multiple talk pages - I should've waited for the replies instead of reverting. I acknowledge that the other user did not act with malice when demanding sources to be added, and that he merely did not know the rules about WP:PLOTCITE. I acknowledge that despite seeing the acts as vandalism I should've never used the words "vandal". I acknowledge that I should tried to reach consensus with the other user before re-adding removed content. I confirm that I will not engage in edit-wars again and will promptly report any user who tries to edit-war on article-pages that I'm editing. 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have converted this block to a partial block of only List of Squid Game characters. I suggest you use the talk page to discuss the list with other editors. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - what do you think about the unblock request? Would you consider converting the block to a partial block of List of Squid Game characters? PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I think it's a remarkable turnaround, but I have no objection to you converting the block to a partial one.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2025 (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.