User talk:180.28.59.165

Excuse Me?

What are You Doing? 32.220.255.230 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting your vandalism. Stop it, or you WILL be blocked! 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

He did nothing but revise an article. 2601:646:8003:6B20:249B:3C4B:3C0E:5089 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

He vandalized, as did you. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You vandalized and made fraudulent actions. I have logged in Pankeyk (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User contributions for 180.28.59.165. Thank you. 83.168.141.16 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Very funny. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Why have I been 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).

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

---

Request reason:

All my edits were attempts to revert vandalism, but I've been dragged down into the mid by other editors with bad intent. Most notably Pankeyk has been goading me and is clearly WP:NOT HERE. They should be blocked instead of me so I can continue my work patrolling new edits. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 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.

(Non-administrator comment) If you wish to be unblocked, and to be a productive force against vandalism, the first step is to understand that not every edit you disagree with, and not even every non-constructive edit, is vandalism. Assume good faith, and don't rush to label every edit you wish to revert as "vandalism". And, when people ask you why you reverted them, please explain. Communication is key, and saying "you're the vandal" at anyone looking for explanations is not helpful. Once your block ends, I invite you to take a look at the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to work on better understanding this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you wish to be unblocked, please do not frame people that they did vandalism. Also good thing. You will be unblocked in 48 hours. You can be grateful because you have an expiration. Avelina925 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 180.28.59.165,

It would have benefitted you if you had gone to ANI and explained your poor behavior but instead you mocked the discussion at the noticeboard. The consensus there is that you do not understand what "vandalism" is so you should not be reverting other editor's and telling them that they are about to be blocked. No one misunderstood the situation, they simply looked at your Contribution history and how you have been interacting with other editors. When your block ends, please be a more considerate and intelligent editor, don't try to boss other people around and become a constructive editor. You've barely been editing for one day and you already have been brought to ANI, that's a really bad start for a new editor. Try to be better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"It would have benefitted you if you had gone to ANI and explained your poor behavior but instead you mocked the discussion at the noticeboard" - I guess that's fair enough Liz and I should not have risen to the bait. But to be fair to me, noone likes snitches. That IP should not have reported me to the noticeboard if they didn't want to be mocked and ridiculed. That said, I should have retained some dignity by not commenting further. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a pattern of behavior, especially towards other editors, that is disruptive. But if you want to know what specifically impelled me to block you, this edit was completely unacceptable. Take some time off and consider your deportment here. This is a collaborative project, and everybody has to act accordingly or it won't work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting... 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

180, you may not understand the gravity of the situation. When there is an ANI report about you, that means an editor believes you are doing something pretty seriously wrong. If other editors agree, you may face a block - which can be a set time or indefinite - or even a community ban. And if someone is blocked and makes another account to continue editing, that account is also blocked and the chances of them being able to return keep decreasing.

The best course of action is to hold back from any mockery, threats, or other uncivil behavior (I am not suggesting you threatened them, but it happens!) and to make your case in the ANI thread for why your conduct followed the Five Pillars that Wikipedia stands on. Ideally you then listen to what other people are saying and if it turns out you are in the wrong, apologize and do your best not to repeat the mistake. Funnily enough, we do like snitches here - because administrators can't see everything or fix everything, so the community relies on every editor to step in and discuss, revert, warn, and/or report behavior they see as damaging to Wikipedia. I hope that helps you understand what's going on a bit more - it can be a little incomprehensible when you start, but we love getting new editors who are keen to help out! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the troll Pankeyk's offensive comments from this talk page. 180.28.59.165 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Those were reminders. (By different ip user) 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. I'll note you also removed another editor's comment at the same time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering that why would he call Pankeyk's comments a troll? 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

He restored comment 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Administrator note @ 180.28.59.165 Tread carefully. Your block will be expiring shortly. Calling people trolls is not a good look if you want people to believe you are planning to contribute in a constructive manner. I will ignore the fact that you also reverted my comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  What If this ip address continues to do the same thing? 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then it will likely be blocked again, probably for a longer time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ok thanks 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

You could have edited great, but you have done unconstructive edits to an article. Please make sure to also know what the meaning of vandalism is and please be more polite towards people and don't mark everyone you revert as "vandalism". We know that you want the word "destroyed" in the article you triggered at, but that's the same thing as "destruction". As a result, there was no need to revert that article. Please also be more careful of your actions and please do not beg to be unblocked without any specific reason. If you try to do the same thing after being unblocked, you may be blocked indefinitely. So, please think about every action you have edited on each page before going on to submit your revisions. Pankeyk (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Please Could we all just calm down. The block will expire shortly. IMO what needed to be said, has been. Let's all just go on about our business. I'm sure there is a page somewhere that could be improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

Hello there, I was editing the article 2020 Akron Zips football team to expand it, and I was trying to add the missing American football roster/Player templates, when my edits were reverted for no reason. Why were my edits reverted? 71.30.91.6 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

He supposedly marks every edit "vandalism". 2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly reverts random edits and calls them "vandalism"

Hi. In the last two days you have been reverting random people's edits and calling them vandalism. Please specify the real reason because Wikipedia is meant to be constructive!2601:646:8003:6B20:A12E:56C0:777D:E05F (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)