User talk:75.121.31.179

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Unfair Block[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I was blocked is "persistent addition of unsourced material to a BLP" according @C.Fred:

"Umm, no. There were no sources in your last revert." —C.Fred

This was what you warned me about yet what exactly are these???? [1][2] Oh right, reliable sources. I am trying to keep the article updated to Chad Gable's current ring name (ala Shorty Gable). This is not vandalism, this is official per WWE. You say "take it to the talk page", which is exactly what I've been saying for the past couple days because I ALREADY DID. Nobody else dares go there. Ergo, the consensus on the talk page (and the reliable sources) is that Shorty Gable is his official ring-name 75.121.31.179 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The stated reason for the block is edit warring, which this request does not address. It does not matter if you are correct in your edits or not, as everyone in an edit war believes that they are correct. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2019 (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.

References

  1. ^ "King Corbin def. Shorty Gable". wwe.com. WWE. October 11, 2019. Following Shorty Gable's upset victory over King Corbin at WWE Hell in a Cell
  2. ^ "WWE Change's Superstars Name". ringsidenews.com. Ringside News. October 11, 2019.
Neither of those references were present here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're killin' me smalls @C.Fred: No offense but please learn to use Ctrl+F because those 2 references are LITERALLY in the link you just provided me. Please hurry up and double-check your link so we can see this is just some big misunderstanding and I was profiled because I'm an IP user and IP users are always wrong... 75.121.31.179 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, those two references are LITERALLY still in the article at this very moment because you just erased my "perceived vandalism" and didn't remove the corresponding references. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact that you were edit warring, though, which is really what your block is about. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, dude. 2 of my reverts were from you @C.Fred: erasing my additions, despite the fact that were just admitted to not having a clue what you were actually reverting. You baited me into edit warring by giving me faulty warnings, leading to me disregarding your warnings because they were nonsense. I feel like I should at least get an apology for you warning me multiple times that I was vandalizing because I did add reliable references, yet I did and mentioned so multiple times. You also warned me to go to the talk page which I had already done days ago.
And all I get in response is "Oh well" 75.121.31.179 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Just going to try to edit war on my talk page and not respond to the above message? 75.121.31.179 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined unblock requests cannot be removed from user talk pages while the block is in effect, as doing so interferes with a community process, namely reviewing blocks. This is an exception to the usual policy that permits users to remove posts to their own user talk pages. Once the block is lifted or expired, you may remove a declined request, but not before. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @331dot: I understand. However, I still feel like I was unfairly blocked. User:C.Fred, a fellow admin, was who I was edit warring with that lead to this block. He undid my revisions multiple times, despite just now fully admitting his reason for doing so was because I did not include references, yet, clear as day the references are still in the article and the link he provided. I'm being profiled because I'm an IP. I wasnt even the one that originally changed it to the proper name, I was just the one that added the sources and TRIED to get people to move to the talk page, to no avail. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to make another unblock request, but "IP profiling" won't work without direct evidence nor will discussing what the blocking administrator did. Your edit history clearly shows that you edit warred(the stated reason for the block). This is all you should address in any unblock request. The actual merits of your edits are not at issue in terms of this block. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure @C.Fred: violated 3RR has well, but that's none of my business. But it's true, you see an IP arguing with an account and you immediately assume the IP is vandalizing. Hence @C.Fred: blindly reverting my edits before admitting above that he didn't realize what he was actually reverting (i.e my reliably sourced name change). He didn't bother checking because I'm an anon. So it's just okay for admins to warrant false warnings @331dot:??? That being me adding stuff to BLP with no sources, which I did, falsely multiple times? That clearly shows bias. I was blamed multiple times for something I wasn't even guilty of, solely because I choose to edit anonymously. He just assumed I was being reverted, therefore 'I' must be the one vandalizing. Despite me adding back unexplained removal of source information. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring against you does not justify your edit warring. There are proper channels to report edit warring by others. There is zero evidence that you have been targeted because you are an IP or that it was assumed you must be a vandal because you are an IP.(which the easy solution to that even if true is to create an account.) This is about edit warring by you. That's it. Full stop. That's all any request you make should deal with. I don't have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I choose not to make an account because that's my preference... In other words "it doesn't matter if the admin was also edit warring, or that he baited you into it with false warnings, you're an IP so shut it." This is clear profiling and the fact that you can't see it is baffling. Multiple false warnings, ad admittance that said admin blindly reverted my edits and not a single apology to me? Thanks for nothing @331dot: Gotta protect your fellow admins I see. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this is partially why I don't make an account. Because of clear bias and favoritism, not to mention bully editors that seem to get away with whatever the heck they feel like just because they're friends with an admin. You know very well that's true. So much for unbiased journalism. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a journalism outlet, this is an encyclopedia. There are journalism outlets to participate in if that's what you want to do. You absolutely do not have to make an account, but if you fear "IP bias"(regardless of how baseless that is) I would think that the easy solution to that is to create an account. But again, that's your absolute choice. It offends me that you think I'm closing ranks with other administrators who I barely know. I'm not in a secret society and I have better things to do with my time than plot with other people on how to annoy and offend IP users. Do you really think we all do that? Come on, you appear to have more common sense than that. I'm here to work on this project and don't blindly support anyone. I just call them as I see them. Good day. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an encyclopedia... a supposed unbiased one that apparently doesn't care about facts. I wasn't necessarily meaning you on that last part @331dot:, more so just rambling my general frustrations. Then again, you can read clear as day that C-Fred admitted to giving me false warnings leading to my block (as well as he himself violating 3RR), yet nothing happens. I think it's a pretty common fact that there are some users on Wikipedia that I would classify as bullies that control and harass users that never seem to get any punishment whatsoever because they know the admins. I've seen it happen firsthand and it's BS. Wikipedia is very cult-like, at least certain sections of it *cough*pro wrestling*cough* Hence why I choose not to make an account and be bullied into deleting it... Yet editing as an IP itself leads to profiling like this, so idk. I just try to help but it seems like I can never win. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. First, the warnings are valid: you added material without adding a reference. Given that prior reverts by you had attempted to add a reference, it gave the appearance that the addition was unreferenced. (I checked the edit history of the page, including edit summaries, before warning.) You could've avoided a block had you gone to the talk page and mentioned your concerns and the sources there and waited for consensus before adding the material. (And if it was reverted after you tried to discuss, discuss again or appeal for help at a noticeboard.) So, the warnings were correct: you added material without adding a reference—and which did not check out the WWE main page for the subject—and you violated 3RR. (I did not, since I did not make a fourth revert.)
Had you discussed the matter instead of continuing to revert, there's a good chance you could have made a persuasive case for the change and gotten the article edited without your IP getting blocked. However, given what I saw, once you made that extra revert, the block was clearly called for. Even though your edit was good faith, it was edit warring.
That being said, I'm going to acknowledge that even though you crossed the 3RR brightline, you were editing in good faith, so I will unblock your account. Please make very sure that your sources are cited—or it's clear what sources your edits are based on—especially when editing biographies of living people and doubly when editing pro-wrestling articles. (It's a messy subject area at the best of times.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @C.Fred: And I mean sorry if I'm seeming rude here or anything, I'm just frustrated (and I'm still the only person on the Chad Gable talk page btw, so I'm really not sure me adding a second message would accomplish literally anything if nobody else cares to go look at it...). Yeah, anyways I'll try my best. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, like am I allowed to re-add my changes because I was just looking and even his WWE.com page lists him as Shorty Gable (https://www.wwe.com/superstars/chad-gable), just not the URL. I'll add this reference as well. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They literally updated that in the last 12 hours. It was still Chad last night. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, consider this endorsement of the change. Let me know if there's still opposition. At this point, I'll get into the discussion ring on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the Heck?[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Why did I even get blocked again? I served my sentence for the edit warring/misunderstanding on the Chad Gable deal. See above ^^^^ I have not received any warnings as to if I was doing something wrong a second time. In fact, I feel like I've tried harder to be more helpful. I don't really even know what I'm supposed to oppose because @Bbb23: didnt even bother to leave a message telling me what I did wrong. Please unblock me.75.121.31.179 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2019 (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.

@C.Fred:, I don't know if you can help me figure this out or not. I'm so confused right now. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to defer to Bbb23 on this. I know the log message is checkuserblock-account, but I don't want to speculate on what he saw. —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla: 1. I don't understand what I've been blocked for because the admin failed to give me that information, or even a warning on what I was doing wrong for that matter. If it was for the Edit Warring deal I already got blocked for that and I understand that was incorrect of me as you can see from the above request. I was blocked almost immediately afterward and I had barely made many edits in-between these two blocks. 2. I don't feel like I was causing harm to Wikipedia, and if I was doing something wrong then please inform me and I will try harder to improve. 3. I feel like I've already been making useful contributions, but I will continue making them in the future. I have now gone over all 3 reasons for the decline so I hope you will reconsider your offer because I would like to continue helping out, but this is really starting to get annoying. It has never been my intent to cause damage to Wikipedia, and everything I have done has been in Good Faith. At least I try to, which sometimes may seem disruptive (see above), but I was already informed by 2 admins and I came to an understanding and I don't believe I have done anything harmful after that. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an account and will need to file an unblock request there. This IP will not be unblocked and talk page access has been revoked. You used this IP and your account together on the same article which is IP socking and you used one to restore the edit of the other after you were reverted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (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.


Basically, you were blocked for violating WP:SOCK and/or WP:EVADE and there's technical evidence showing this. The specific block message is visible at Template:Checkuserblock-account. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: If I was blocked for making problematic edits as an IP, then I already served my block for that ^^^^^^ see above. I'm not a sockpuppet, I am just trying to help contribute to Wikipedia by making constructive edits. Barring the edit warring that I already served my block for, what exactly have I done that is problematic or destructive to Wikipedia? I don't feel like I've been problematic at all, again barring the thing I already served my block for and I understand why that was and will not do it again. I've made a lot of contrustive edits, I always try to add a reliable source, I use Grammaerly and go through and fix minor spelling errors, etc. If that's disruptive then sure, I have been disruptive. But I don't think it is. 75.121.31.179 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your current block is not related to edit warring. It is related to violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE and is a new block. You'll need to specifically address this. Do you, or have you ever, had an account here? If so, what account? Remember, blocks apply to people, not to accounts. So if you have an account and it is blocked, you are not permitted to edit here. Note as this is a checkuser block, only a very limited number of admins have the ability to review it. --Yamla (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking if I got my account blocked and then logged out and started editing to bypass a block, then no. The first time I was blocked was a couple days ago ^^^^^^^ As I mentioned above for the original block I choose to edit anonymously for specific reasons. I do not want to make an account. It's just my preference, I see something that needs to be fixed and I fix it. Sorry if I've been an issue, I'm just trying to be helpful :( 75.121.31.179 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad answer since you do have an account. You will need to log into it to make your unblock request there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.121.31.179&oldid=921618577"