206.207.159.2

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tony Hawk has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Tony Hawk was changed by 206.207.159.2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864625 on 2017-01-24T04:22:20+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:NIFA (National Intercollegiate Flying Association)

Hello, 206.207.159.2. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "NIFA".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, I'm BytEfLUSh. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Water balloon— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BytEfLUSh _Talk 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abbas–Mustan has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abbas–Mustan was changed by 206.207.159.2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.939881 on 2018-02-14T06:44:49+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Recent edit to Battle Nations

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Battle Nations, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 04:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rotorcraft have been undone because they 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. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (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.

September 2021

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm Code Zero. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to M-84D—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 Help desk. Thanks. John^talk 19:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Cleve Moler—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. Materialscientist (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What's with the block?

Curious. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am shocked by the way I was treated when I sent an ANI report against the actions of 5 editors who lied to me (The archive of the said ANI report can be found here) when I was an ip editor and blocked me for downright fabricated reasoning. In response, a user said that I was simply blaming admins for doing their jobs. I was not aware that the job of admins are apparently to block ip editors for no reason and lie to them about it. They also claimed that I was socking since the ip was blocked. That block was long expired and I explicitly stated that I was the same user as that ip, so I did not sock in any way. My report was then closed because there was "no merit" to it. I do not know how there was no merit to my report, as it gave a thorough explanation of the specifics of how those editors treated me unfairly and cited the page where it happened on. I had clear arguments and evidence of wrongdoing. But no, all of that was apparently completely without merit and deserved no discussion at all. I was then blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely for no reason given beyond a template explanation. I am appalled that the response to my detailed and evidenced criticism of misbehavior was immediately shut down without any discussion of my case, and that my account was blocked for it. I am requesting that I be unblocked and that my criticisms I stated in the report be given a fair look at. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I read the ANI report. It is not clear what the complaint is; it took me a while to figure out that it's about a request placed on User talk:166.216.158.52, five years ago. You are now editing on a range that's blocked by an admin for continued vandalism, and the block seems fair to me. Whether you are the one writing stuff like this or not is irrelevant: a range block is for the range. I see no evidence of misbehavior on the part of any administrator, and this request is really just a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2024 (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.

@Drmies: How did my ANI report not show clear examples of those users lying to me and blocking me for false reasons? They clearly did not deal with me in good faith. What about my claims against the behavior were not convincing to you? 206.207.159.2 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• That's kind of a misleading question--"how"? It did not show clear examples of lies. Part of the problem, it seemed to me, was a linguistic and technical confusion--it started by the use of the word "ban" (IPs aren't banned), and you seemed to talk as if that block (a proxy block five years ago, right?) was aimed at you specifically. Plus, demanding that administrators are blocked for the same length of time they blocked an IP or a range that was the source of vandal edits, yeah that's never going to fly. This is probably not a great move, and, again, what were we talking about? This? Drmies (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Apologies on saying "ban", every time I said that I meant "block". Anyways, they blocked the 166.216.158.52 range the 2nd time for being a proxy, even though my range was not actually a proxy and they should have known that a false positive was possible there in the online checker they used. They only lengthened my block with that excuse after they had repeatably lied to me about the previous block on the ip. Since I wasn't letting the issue go of the unjust block they were denying, they fished for reasons to get me blocked for longer and they landed on using the proxy excuse. And I know they were lying when they said that there was no block beforehand, because on my end it said there was a block and that I couldn't edit any pages. So the actions of the admins there were extremely improper and were in bad faith. They lied about the original unwarranted block and then used dubious reasons to shut me up. And the block was specifically aimed at me, Berean Hunter specifically said that I was the disruptive editor. Maybe I shouldn't have demanded the 5 month blocks specifically, but all of these admins do clearly need to be penalized in some manner so that they treat ip editors better in the future. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: I would appreciate a response to what I wrote above this, thank you. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  OK--I disagree. No one needs to be punished here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Hello, I addressed all of the criticisms you raised at the unblock request and my inital response to you, so I would like to hear what parts of what I said that you disagree with and why you still aren't convinced by my arguments of wrongdoings. Thank you. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is really not of any interest to me at all, and I don't know why I should invest my time and energy when you cannot even say specifically what it is that you want. You want this rangeblock lifted? Place an unblock request and explain why it should. You're talking about unfair and lying and whatnot: I'm bored with it, and no admin is going to be interested in your rehashing of stuff from years ago. Please consider carefully how and if you respond. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Frankly, I just want to have a discussion about whether or not those admins lied to and unfairly blocked me or not. I had an ANI discussion for this purpose that was unfortunately closed for dubious reasons. Even though the incident happened a long time ago, leaving this type of abuse by admins unchecked will likely lead to more abuse in the future. It's behavior that needs to be penalized to avoid repeat offenses. So since the avenue of my ANI discussion was shut down and you are here with opinions on the issue, I want to continue that discussion with you to see if we could find agreement. You have expressed that you disagree with me and think they did not act improperly, so I would like you to elaborate on what you still disagree with me on after everything I have said. Thank you. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I don't want to have that discussion; I have other things to do. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Then who should I have this discussion with? It's important to make sure that admins don't abuse their privileges. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Who would you recommend I have the discussion with on this matter? 206.207.159.2 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Drmies has already said they do not want to have this discussion. If another admin thinks this block was a violation of the blocking policy then they can review it. Hounding Drmies isn't going to do anything here though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  And as Drmies said, it's not at all clear what you are requesting. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Philipnelson99: I am requesting to have a discussion about whether or not those admins lied to and unfairly blocked me or not in the incident I described in the ANI report. I had an ANI discussion for this purpose that was unfortunately closed for dubious reasons. Even though the incident happened a long time ago, leaving this type of abuse by admins unchecked will likely lead to more abuse in the future. It's behavior that needs to be penalized to avoid repeat offenses. So I want to have a discussion to see if we could come to an agreement on the issue. 206.207.159.2 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not "behavior that needs to be penalized", there was no offense (besides the vandalism on these ranges, including your disruption on this talk page), there was no admin abuse. No, there will be no more "discussion": this is getting ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: How was there no admin abuse, when I gave clear examples of them blocking the ip for no clear reason, lying about it, and then blocking it for longer (this time for very dubious reasons: claiming talk page abuse that was already a resolved issue, and a proxy checker that they knew produces false positives), and then refusing to acknowledge my lengthy and reasonable responses to their dubious reasoning? 206.207.159.2 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Refer to my previous unblock request above and my discussion with Drmies to see my reasoning for unblock. Drmies has no interest in having furthur discussion, which is why I am making another request. I do not think it was fair to block me for raising a legimate ANI complaint against misbehavior from admins. I have not heard any compelling arguments defending that admin behavior, let alone that my complaint was so unreasonable that it justified me being blocked for.

Decline reason:

The range is under a schoolblock, and you've provided no reason for the schoolblock to be lifted. I see no indication the schoolblock has anything to do with you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:46, 21 February 2024 (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.

206.207.159.2 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

---