86.28.234.5

Welcome!

Hi 86.28.234.5! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36h for hounding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You've been duped by an editor whose only intent seems to be disruption. I reported them days ago for repeatedly restoring problematic material to an article despite multiple editors removing it (WP:AN/I#User:UA0Volodymyr). But all you did was protect the article with the disruptive material in place. Despite this, you yourself have told them they are risking a block for their disruptive behaviour! [1] And yet, when this blatantly disruptive editor makes yet another blatantly bad faith post at a noticeboard, and makes yet more ridiculous reverts of my edits purely for the sake of disruption, you decide it's me that needs to be blocked? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are legitimate reasons to have additional accounts, it isn't necessarily sock puppetry. You have no idea if they are illegitimately using mulitple accounts or not, and shouldn't be making that accusation without some kind of evidence. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

• You repeatedly made reference to UA0Volodymyr as a sockpuppet in your edit summaries. Who do you believe that they are a sock of?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've got no idea who the sockmaster might be. But it's clear that this account, which was registered on 9 September and made its first edit on 22 September, is not new to Wikipedia. It looks like other people think that as well. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You can't revert blanket revert an editor claiming their a sock account on a hunch. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

But they can blanket revert my edits for no reason, evidently. It is not a hunch, it's clear as day that this is not a new user. Why would someone familiar with Wikipedia create a new account and immediately behave disruptively at multiple articles, including making repeated spurious requests for page protection (unsuccessfully) and demanding that other users be blocked (successfully)? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What you have said does not relate in any way to the situation. I have not been blocked for voicing suspicions of sockpuppetry; I have been blocked, at the behest of a user who was (and is) stalking my edits and reverting them all indiscriminately, for "hounding"! How the hell do you look at one editor reverting every edit another editor has made, and conclude that the second person is "hounding" the first? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You continue to impress, albeit dubiously, with your determination to miss the point so completely a reader might not realize one existed to miss. You are blocked for repeatedly accusing another editor of sockpuppetry without offering evidence anywhere or opening an SPI. That's failure to assume good faith and uncivil. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not blocked for voicing suspicions of sockpuppetry!!! I was blocked for "hounding"! But I was being hounded! The user decided to revert all of my edits indiscriminately, and made multiple spurious requests for page protection while doing so, because they objected to one particular edit I (and others) had made. How the hell do you look at one editor reverting every edit another editor has made, and conclude that the second person is "hounding" the first? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're BKFIP. You're banned. This discussion is closed and talk page access is revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Since the IP learned nothing and continued the same behavior, I blocked for a month. After a few more junk unblock requests, I would recommend revoking TPA.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To be precise, now they did not call the user a sockpuppet, they just rapidly reverted everything calling it "disruptive behavior".--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Let us recap, User:Ymblanter. The user who is attacking me created their account on 9 September but didn't use it until 22 September. At that point, with evident great familiarity with Wikipedia, they started editing disruptively at multiple articles. You yourself reverted their disruptive edits to Yunokomunarivsk, which included moving the article without any attempted to seek consensus. You yourself have twice told them that they are likely to be blocked for their disruptive editing ([2], [3]).

I noticed their behaviour at Kira Rudyk, where they restored a massive amount of biased text ([4]), which had initially been added in September 2022 by one User:Slovolyub ([5]). I found it very suspicious, naturally, that a new account had such evident familiarity with Wikipedia, and with that particular article's history, that they would restore old biased text added by a different user. And as a result of my revert to that article, they launched a sustained attack against me: they began reverting all of my other edits indiscriminately, made a number of spurious requests for page protection, and then finally posted at WP:AN ([6]).

Despite the fact that their post was obviously malicious and spurious, despite the fact that you yourself had already once warned them about disruptive editing, despite the fact that you had seen and responded to my post at AN/I reporting their disruptive behaviour, you decided to block me for "hounding". It's quite obvious that your mind instantly became absolutely closed to any other possibility than you being right and me deserving to be attacked. Even while you continued to warn the user about their disruptive editing, you have repeatedly attacked me in support of them.

You have now said on AN/I that "mass-reverting contribution of a registered user...was not ok" ([7]) and you've blocked this IP for a month. The user has made no "contributions" to any of the articles I have edited; they have only reverted my edits. Your use of the phrase "contribution of a registered user" to describe that user's indiscriminate reverts of my edits suggests that you are viewing this through a lens of extreme prejudice against IP addresses.

So I ask once again: how the hell do you look at one editor indiscriminately reverting every edit another editor has made, and conclude that the second person is "hounding" the first? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

May I please suggest an uninvolved administratoir to revoke TPA now. It is clear that this IP should not be editing. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Why, instead of responding in a civil manner to the points I've raised, would you demand that I be silenced? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ymblanter, judging from the history of Kira Rudyk, Orkney, and Neofetch, the IP editor is right. I think they should be unblocked--were it not for this. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You really despise IPs, don't you, drmies? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The other user has already received the last warning, and I am prepared to block them any moment. Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet you still seem entirely unable to comprehend that they were hounding me, not the other way around. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Orkney 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. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

User:Drmies, I see that you left this same warning for the user who has indiscriminately reverted all of my edits, but then removed it with an edit summary saying "i take that back: you were being hounded". How exactly do you look at one editor reverting another editor indiscriminately, and conclude that the editor doing the indiscriminate reverting is the one being hounded? How are you oblivious to the fact that the editor was attacking me as an act of revenge for my revert at Kira Rudyk, a revert which you also made?? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I said that because you had already been blocked by that time. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

So, when I ask "How exactly do you look at one editor reverting another editor indiscriminately, and conclude that the editor doing the indiscriminate reverting is the one being hounded?", your answer is "because you had already been blocked"? 86.28.234.5 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGF on my part, accepting the blocking administrator's good faith. Does it even matter? To you? You need to be right? Why are we having this conversation now, years and years and years after your actions ousted you from this community? I haven't changed my mind since then: your editing skills are excellent, but your behavior is not. You know our policies on socking, and you know there's a standard offer. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---