User talk:67.60.186.104

November 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 21 November 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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I was editing the 2022 Florida Governor Election page to give more complete and accurate information. I elaborated on how big Charlie Crist's defeat was and acknowledged DeSantis as "DeathSantis" to accurately reflect who he is and what the result of his policies were. I apologize that my edits did break some links, which I am assuming was the reason these edits were flagged as vandalism and I was banned. I ensure you that I did not mean to break the links, that was completely unintentional on my part and I was in the process of fixing that before my ban. I promise that if I get unbanned I will restore all of the edits I made as well as fix the links I accidentally broke. I promise that I will be more careful with future edits and not break any more links. Thank you 67.60.186.104 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were flagged as vandalism because they were vandalism. Outside of outright trolling, I don't understand how you think that the edits you made were constructive in any way, and if you do, than WP:CIR applies. Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 22 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My original unblock request said: (Seen above) The response was "Your edits were flagged as vandalism because they were vandalism. Outside of outright trolling, I don't understand how you think that the edits you made were constructive in any way, and if you do, than WP:CIR applies."

I explained why the edits I made were constructive. The magnitide and significance of Crist's defeat in the 2022 governor election was obviously directly relevant to the page about said election. Likewise, referring to Ron as "DeathSantis" was also important background information in establishing who he is and the results his policies had caused. All referring to him as "DeSantis" does is leave out crucial background information and bias the article in his favor. And as I previously said, I promise I will fix the link issue. Since I have explained thoroughly why these edits were productive in my view, could you please fairly explain why they were not in your view so I can understand why they were interpreted as vandalism? I honestly thought it was just due to the link issue, I did not think that the substance of the edits were the problem. Thank you.

67.60.186.104 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either you really believe that your edits were proper, or you are incapable of seeing how they were improper. Either way, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 22 November 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.

My original assessment is correct. You're either trolling or don't have the competence required to edit here productively.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, should we extend the block? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: There's no need at this point as the IP may be reassigned IPs by the time this block expires, though yanking talk page access might save some admin time and effort if these are the types of appeals we can expect.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I politely explained my reasoning for making those edits and asked to hear why they were interpreted as vandalism. You can't just say it was vandalism and obviously trolling while ignoring the reasons I gave for the edits. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Please explain why my edits were improper. I have recieved no explanation and have been accused of trolling, even though I gave my reasons.

331dot is now erasing my polite questions instead of answering them and helping me understand what I did wrong. I still have recieved absolutely no explanation on what the problems with my edits actually were.

You changed most references to Gov. DeSantis' name to say DeathSantis. Unless that is actually his name, this is improper. I haven't erased any questions. I initially removed your duplicate posting but restored it. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I already explained that the name "DeathSantis" is a more accurate representation of who he is and communicates more information on his background than the name "DeSantis" does. All using the "proper" name does is bias the article in his favor. Why do you disagree with that? Are you a supporter of DeathSantis? 67.60.186.104 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I support Gov. DeSantis or not is immaterial. What you did was improper, and since you seem to think it was okay, you won't be unblocked early. In fact, I'm going to extend the block. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block is now two weeks. It won't be removed early until you describe how your edits were improper, and the proper way to add information about Gov. DeSantis' covid policies and their effects(if it isn't already present). Specifically, see neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked due to continued trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hello, I was politely explaining the reasons I found my edits to be justified and were not improper. Instead of responding to my arguments and explaining why the edits were improper, I was accused of trolling and my block was extended for two weeks. If I get my block extended for politely asking questions so that I can understand what my mistake was, then what is the proper way for me to handle these situations beyond blindly agreeing? 67.60.186.104 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:

June 2023

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 1968 United States presidential election in Texas—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:36, 1 June 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.

December 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at John de Lancie. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:12, 7 December 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.

Disputes

I closed your ANI discussion. What you described was a minor content dispute. And a minor, trivial one at that. Issues like that do not belong on ANI.

When you find yourself in situations like that, please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the article talk page until you come to a WP:CONSENSUS on how to move forward. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I explained the edit issue mainly to give background, my complaint and main reason I filed the report was FlightTime's frivolous warning that they sent me. Reverting an edit twice and giving reasons both times is not "disrupting Wikipedia", and if it was then FlightTime also reverted an edit twice but they didn't even give reasons. So the warning they sent threatening to get me blocked from editing was an abuse of their power I felt was worth reporting. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were incorrect, that was not, in fact, worth reporting. This was way too minor to report. Things like "getting reverted twice" and "receiving a warning you don't agree with" are not the sort of thing you should be reporting to ANI. As one off events, they're not serious enough to warrant having any action taken beyond getting an admin to say something like "Hey don't forget to use edit summaries" or "when disputes arise, you need to follow BRD". Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I would like to clarify about the warning. I was under the impression that warnings were like blocks in that only admins could give them out. I see now that I was mistaken about that, so I just want to make sure that the warnings do not actually make a future block more likely or serve as a legitimate threat for a block. If it isn't, then I agree that this was not worth me reporting (although still bad behavior on FlightTime's part). But if this is something that makes it more likely for me to be blocked in the future, then I think it was an abuse of power on their part that does need to be penalized. Thank you. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends. If an admin perceives a warning as correct, and perceived a future action of yours to be similar, then yes, it could lead to a future block. If they saw it as incorrect, or if you never did something similar to what the warning alleges, then not so much.

My two cents: The truth is somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't call your edits itself disruptive - you were just rearranging already present information that doesn't appear to be disputed. However, it could be seen as disruptive in the way that you didn't follow WP:BRD and instead just argued through edit summaries.

So, if it would be, I wouldn't hold the warning against you as a disruptive editor, but I'd probably hold it against you if you continued to not use the talk page to solve disputes. FlightTime is largely guilty of lazy use of vague template (pre-written) warnings. They just caused confusion. It's why I rarely use them.

But, at the same time, editors often don't write out detailed warnings to anonymous, IP editors because they often never return to see the warning. Many make an editor or two and disappear forever. It's why I'd recommend making an account.

Also keep in mind - if there are warnings you disagree with, you're free to leave a comment explaining why you dispute them. Or delete them outright (though admin may look through your page history and see them anyways too.)

Anyways, I hope that answers your question. Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, all of that was very fair! I will add a minor point that FlightTime did not follow WP:BRD either (it clearly states to give specific reasons for reverting & they themselves reverted a 2nd time), so that is hypocritical on their part if that was the reason for the warning. I could just have easily given them a warning for the same thing. But since a warning doesn't mean what I thought it did, I agree that I shouldn't have sent the ANI report. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is just that, a warning that you're getting into deeper water. They are meant to get your attention that something appears to be amiss. They are not mini-blocks or anything of the sort, and are meant to interrupt behavior before it turns into a block or an ANI report. Many editors give our several a day for various reasons. They re necessarily general, and whether the specific word "disruptive" is featured or not, they are meant to communicate that a problem exists. Being convinced of the rightness of your edit does not mean that everybody will agree, or that those who disagree need the same treatment that the initiator receives. You tried to make a mountain out of a molehill, something that receives scant sympathy, and you shold not be surprised that your calls for some kind of sanction against your perceived opponent were discarded. Being convinced of the rightness of an edit you initiated is not justification for dudgeon when it's not met with universal approval, or for walls of text instead of simple, succinct discussion. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, and if I was not mistaken about what a warning is, I would not have sent the report. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an account

Hello, I am the user who has been ip editing on 67.60.186.104 recently, relating to the John de Lancie issue. I plan to travel soon and therefore be on dynamic ips that aren't this one, so to solve this issue I decided to make this account. EpicTiger87 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2024 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I made a ANI complaint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Boing!_said_Zebedee_is_making_personal_attacks_against_me.) about how User:Boing!_said_Zebedee had personally attacked me. This complaint was closed in 10 minutes without any consideration whatsoever due to the incident happening 5 years ago. This was a grossly unfair reason to close my complaint, as there is no statue of limitations on these type of wrongdoings. When my complaint was closed, they also decided to block this ip for "block envasion". I am very confused by this, because the account they are saying I'm envading a block from was blocked almost 5 years ago. That block clearly would have expired by now, the only reason I'm not using that account is because I lost it's password. So the claim that I am block evading is nonsense. So the closure of my complaint and my ip block were both done for dubious reasons and I am appealing both. Thank you.

Decline reason:

First, your argument about 'no statute of limitations' is vacuous. Administrators are expected to apply sanctions in order to stop ongoing disruption; you presented no evidence that the user in question was causing any ongoing disruption, and at least in my view, raking up disputes from five years ago is disruptive in and of itself. Second, you are being evasive about which accounts (past and present) were yours. If you make another unblock request, you need to be very clear about which accounts you have used in the past - you seem to think that indefinite blocks expire, but you are mistaken in that assumption. If any of your past accounts are still blocked, you are not permitted to edit here until those blocks have been successfully appealed. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:29, 7 February 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.

When you write That block clearly would have expired by now, you are incorrect. The block was indefinite and has not expired. Please see User talk:DefenderOfTheElderly for verification. You cannot edit Wikipedia from any IP address or any other account as long as that block stands. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're saying I'm still blocked for something from 5 years ago? How is that fair? I thought blocks expired after just a few weeks. Anyways, this still does not justify my complaint being bizarrely removed for the age of the incident, when the fact still remains that it is still something that happened, and something that the user was never punished for. Also, how can I appeal the account block when I lost the password for that account? 67.60.186.104 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we do block users indefinitely, we cannot expect sanctions to happen for conduct five years ago because it would simply be punitive to block on such evidence given that you have given no evidence that damage to Wikipedia would be prevented by sanctioning Boing! said Zebedee. As to your indef block, it is your responsibility to write an unblock request that will successfully convince administrators that you understand why the block occured, and what steps you will take to ensure it will not reoccur. You would need to clearly disclaim your alternate accounts, and cite the fact you lost the password for your original as the reason why you are appealing at this IP address; I would hesitate to make an new account at this time due to the high chance it will be mistaken as block evasion. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:41, 7 February 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.