User talk:46.208.152.81

Your messages on Transcendental36's talk

I suggest not biting the newcomers, as your message on Transcendental36's talk came of very close to a personal attack. The edits Transcendental36 has made seem to be (at least from a quick glance) purely constructive; there is nothing wrong with reverting vandalism. Please also do not make assumptions that someone is socking, it can come extremely rude in some people's eyes. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it. Firstly, it is blindingly obvious that the user is not a newcomer. Secondly, my message to them was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Thirdly, inquiring about previous accounts when someone so obviously not new to wikipedia is pretending to be a new user is clearly justifiable. If you find nothing suspicious in the activities of that six day old account which is devoted entirely to reverting people, then you are extremely gullible. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence (which if you have I request you put forward) you should assume good faith. It is not suprising for new users to be reverting vandalism, I did myself. Reverting vandalism is one of the easiest parts of Wikipedia, you don't need to be super exprienced to do it. I paid you no complement, Come off it, extremely gullible, not a very appropiate tone to be using in discussions, which is what I referenced by sounding like a WP:PA. If you want to do nothing at all except revert people, then you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Really? Many admins hardly contribute to the namespace, and many others owe most of their edits to vandalism. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising for a new user to be reverting vandalism. That is simply not what people do when first editing Wikipedia. And indeed, checking your contributions, you started editing in November 2018 (with some very poor quality edits such as this) but the first time you reverted any vandalism was not until nine months later.

The user you wish to defend is obviously not new. Their very first edit, with summary "Identified as test/vandalism using m:WikiLoop DoubleCheck version 4.1.0." shows that. An account just a few days old that goes about instructing people on how to edit, warning them, reverting them and threatening them with blocks, is at best someone who has completely the wrong idea about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Their pretense that they are in fact new indicates much more significant problems. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say that my first vandalism edits were almost 9 months later, and that was a memory lapse on my part (also, almost every editor has a made poor first edit, cherry-picking one of my literal first 10 edits is futile). WikiLoop DoubleCheck automatically puts that edit summary when reverting an edit. If you look at my first vandalism related edits, you'll notice I was using the same tool (the tool is often shown in site banners). All the edit summaries and warnings the user has placed on pages are automatic and prewritten, they haven't changed the default templates in any way. Many admin administrators almost only respond to vandalism, eg. Oshwah, and there are other users who are prominent solely to vandalism, such as CLCStudent, there are no problems with reverting vandalism. Please point me to any incorrect edits the aforementioned user has made, and I would be happy to leave a note on their talks. Also, please explain who has completely the wrong idea about how to contribute to Wikipedia, and what you mean by this. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, I find it simply absurd that some type of "explanation" is being demanded in the first place. I fight vandalism on Wikipedia because I find an enjoyment in it. Why is that not sufficient? This individual continues to add the same comments on my talk page insinuating that I am socking despite my efforts to remove them. Please, if you think that I should not be fighting vandalism/giving advice due to my lack of experience here on Wikipedia, show me edits where I have not followed the proper Wikipedia policy so that I may improve upon it. Thank you, Transcendental36 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting vandalism is one thing. Warning people, threatening them with blocks, instructing them on how to edit and quoting policies at them when your account is just days old is quite another. You've claimed to be a new user, and you have made no article edits other than reverts. So what on earth do you think entitles you to instruct other people in how to edit? 46.208.152.81 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting vandalism includes warning people and instructing them on the proper editing policies of Wikipedia. I haven't threatened anyone, only used the templates provided to us. This is stated here. I pursue my anti-vandalism because I feel comfortable enough with the policies here on Wikipedia. The age of someone's account should not be the sole determinate for their validity to fight vandalism. If that is some type of requirement that you can find, please show me. Transcendental36 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be new to wikipedia. Your account is just eight days old, and you have made zero edits to articles other than reverts. Unless you have previous editing history that you are not disclosing, you do not have the experience necessary to tell others how to edit. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things -- a) why do you care so much? If they are a sock, a CU will take a look at it. Socks generally don't last very long. And b) have they actually done anything wrong? There is no rule against being a new user and correctly reverting vandalism and using talk page templates -- unless I've completely misunderstood how WP:AGF works, I think you're at high risk of a WP:BOOMERANG if you keep this up. I would suggest finding something else to work on and letting the brass figure out if this user is a sock. MrAureliusR_Talk! 09:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not bothered by an apparent beginner passing themselves off as an expert, but you are bothered by someone raising concerns about that? What a bizarre attitude. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 4 October 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.

Well I was just writing an ANI thread, but I guess I'll see what happens. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:10, 4 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I questioned the conduct of an editor who registered their account just nine days ago, explicitly claims to be a new user, and yet simultaneously presents themselves as an expert on content, policies and guidelines (eg [1], [2]). I was astonished to find that I was criticised for this. And now, at the behest of that very user, someone has blocked me for raising my concerns. This is beyond troubling. User:Transcendental36 will, I guarantee, turn out to be a problem user. They have made zero actual contributions to articles and yet instruct others in how to edit! The very manner of their asking an administrator to block me is not consistent with their being a brand new user. Blocking me for raising concerns about them is ludicrous. They must be overjoyed at how easy it has been to manipulate an administrator. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What we have come to expect from WP:LTA/BKFIP. Talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 4 October 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.

Note that the nine-day-old account has been criticised at AN/I, falsely accused a user of vandalism, falsely accused me of adding unsourced content to an article, falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR, and no doubt caused many other problems already. You may expect many more! 46.208.152.81 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 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.