User talk:71.198.247.231

Please log in for trolling ANI
You have been observed posting rampant assholery while logged out, presumably in order to avoid sanctions to your account. See the hungry Grizzly tipping up stones looking for woodlice? Better desist before she finds you. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Bishonen called me a troll for saying that another editor should be topic-banned from American politics for being incapable of collaborating with editors who have different political viewpoints. That editor now calls for witch-hunting "editors who get their information about the world from Breitbart but know better than to directly cite it on Wikipedia." This means editors who have different view points, the only evidence being that they have different viewpoints. This more than justifies my position. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2017 (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.

Hello
Looks like you should have read WP:NOTTHEM, confession and genuine remorse appears to be the way here. I'm sorry about all of this. The "ban" on Breitbart looks to have followed a semblance of protocol and is currently considered legitimate. If you would like to get them to be considered a reliable source directly, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard would be the place for it. I think I'm done with that for a while though, other users can continue my arguments on the issue if they find them persuasive. I have a lot to think about. Thank you for defending my actions. But, some of the things I said were definitely out of line. I have stuck some of my most disruptive comments, as I no longer stand by them. Endercase (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I didn't actually say Breitbart is a reliable source or not (I'm sure that their claim that Donald Trump was democratically elected President is believed by pretty much everyone); rather that implying it is a good source for political discussions in particular is likely to be controversial and throw up arguments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well no, but you did cite their use of an IP in place of a "your main account" as your sole reason for not removing the ban. That was not following policy as I currently understand it. Could you explain that to me? Endercase (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said this IP was an obvious sock, and since she has a track record of talking sense, I didn't see any reason to question it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, they said "observed posting rampant assholery" which would be a case of wp:civil not wp:sock but semantics, right? Additionally, you didn't check for yourself? And you didn't cite wp:sock, did you mean to do so? If you would like I can leave you alone, I am just trying to understand protocol. I am a relatively new user. Endercase (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I know this was very long ago but you seem to have missed most of the comment "You have been observed posting rampant assholery while logged out, presumably in order to avoid sanctions to your account." The later part which you didn't include is clearly an accusation of a WP:SOCK violation. New user or not, you should learn to read whole sentences, preferably whole paragraphs rather than just bits and pieces and coming to conclusions solely from those bits and pieces. If you don't understand why it's a WP:SOCK violation, I suggest you re-read the policy as it specifically notes "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" as problematic sockpuppetry in the summary. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disrupting ANI harassment, and personal attacks.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:43, 4 July 2017 (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.

The reviewing administrator should read this page closely, don't just skim it. You will see a completely unjustified accusation of trolling followed by administrators refusing to read appeals at all or upholding invalid blocks based on "that other admin is my friend" or "I personally don't like Breitbart" which are not policy and should be grounds for removal of their admin powers. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My behavior is no different from that of, specifically, Bbb23 and Bishonen. Five administrators have decided here on this page that considering such behavior to be disruptive is a blockable offense. To the reviewing administrator, please follow the consensus of these administrators and block Bbb23 for considering my behavior to be disruptive. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)