User talk:2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6

May 2019
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  17:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears I was reported for vandalism based on my reverting of 134.154.41.35. I understand how this mistake could have been made. Please see this section of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents forum for clarification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:AIV_policy_question 134.154.41.35 was used by the long term vandal Fangusu. I was only trying to undo the damage they caused. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of that "damage" was perfectly valid. Their edits to Secrets (novel) and Unikini, for example; you did more damage by reverting those. Please don't engage in witch hunts. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:Deny was to revert all edits from long term vandals. I was not attempting to do a WP:Witch Hunt. I am sorry if I misunderstood, I was only trying to help out. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One should always assume good faith unless the vandalism is obvious. That particular IP is a university; chances are the editing was done by a random student rather than a known vandal. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though some of the edits were the same as the Long Term Vandal? The one in question, Unikini, was reverted the last time they did it as well. If the edits were the same as previously reverted edits from the Long Term Vandal, is it not right to revert them? I do not understand. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Their edit to Unikini absolutely was not vandalism. They corrected a redirect to a section of an article (Bikini) that does not exist. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was only reverting because I thought that's what was supposed to be done and because it had been done before by another editor. I understand that you disagree, and I will take your words to heart moving forward. I would like to talk to a third party to review my actions to confirm or deny if I was vandalizing or not. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That other editor likely didn't bother clicking the link to see where it went. :-) I've become pretty good at spotting vandalism in my nearly 13 years of editing here, feel free to shoot me a question on my talk page. Sometimes I do need to ask the opinion of an admin, I can recommend one or two. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't because I'm blocked. I got warned then blocked with nothing in-between. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're only blocked for 24 hours. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So a short block that is unfair is okay because it is short? I would like to talk to someone who isn't the person who reported me without looking at why I edited the way I did and the person who blocked me without warning. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal. You basically got caught in a net intended to catch more egregious offenders; these things happen even though Admins try to keep it to a minimum. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You reported me. You got me warned and then blocked with nothing else in-between. And now you are saying that? Leave me alone. You are hounding me. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also my legitimate edits were removed, the exact same thing you said I was doing. If that is not hypocritical I do not know what is. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please explain the lack of edits between you giving the warning and blocking me. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of multiple IPs in a similar range who made fairly identical edits today on an admin’s talk page and at an admin board reporting vandalism were not constructive and were reverted. You were not blocked because of Skywatcher68 reporting you. You were blocked for disruption. You are welcome to make constructive edits when this fairly short block ends @ 2019-05-31T13:49:28. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please tell me how either edit was not constructive when I was reporting vandalism that I could not revert. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you but no one other than the person who reported me and the person who blocked me care enough to respond to me. IP editors aren't worth caring about. 2001:4898:80E8:F:5646:86A7:8C29:82A6 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice to know no one cares about IP editors. I'm going to re-post my post on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents forum because I have had no explanation for why it was removed in the first place beyond "vandalism". 2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)