User talk:71.65.65.144

Your edits to the Matthew Garrett article
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Matthew Garrett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I would like to remind you that everything written on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Roper Klacks (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware. I have added additional citations. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Matthew Garrett) for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If you persist in pushing your cause, the block can be broadened to sitewide and your access to this page removed. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also reviewed the sources you used, here and here. Neither are appropriate; you need to reread WP:RS and WP:BLP. I want to be clear, I'm taking no position on whether or not there's a smear campaign against Stallman, only that your sources are not appropriate to establish this. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being the only person responding to provide anything resembling an argument about the content besides "no u".
 * I have read the RS and BLP pages and am not seeing a violation with those sources. Can you be more specific about the issue?  If it is just that there is an issue with the sources, it's a well enough known set of events that other sources that do meet the criteria can be used if I were to know what the issue was with the ones in use.
 * To be clear, there are several issues at contest, and not just whether the Open Letter to remove Stallman was part of a larger "smear" campaign -- though that is being asserted as well. What is at issue is that the subject of the BLP participated in that, as part of a recurring pattern of public and documented smearing of many open source contributors over the years.  This article highlights on the subject's accomplishments, like any vanity page would, but does not integrate the subject's quite well known and well documented serial participation in ritual defamation.
 * To mention, the responses up to this point with "block first, ask questions later" and calling cited contributions "vandalism" as a cover for bias enforcement has undermined the credibility or neutrality of wikipedia in my opinion. Some sort of adjustment is necessary here.  I'm happy to discuss modifications but I could use some assistance integrating this content.
 * 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning
Do not remove the ISP template from this page or you will incur a total site block and lose the ability to edit this page.  Tide  rolls  15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And stop badgering everyone you have come into contact with.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked for six months from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:33, 12 July 2022 (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.
 * I will remove talkpage access if you continue.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Your request
As you requested: WP:BLANKING.  Tide  rolls  11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

In Retrospect
In retrospect I regret having not created an account before beginning my effort to integrate these events, as it means my IP address is published by Wikipedia and linked to by Garrett all over twitter.

At first glance, I wasn't too concerned about it, I mean, it's just an IP address, until I factor in that literally anyone can point a web browser at my IP address, and I have no idea what that would do to the internet.

Thank you for your time. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Last warning before next block
Please read WP:DEADNAME before posting on articles or talk pages again. Levine was clearly not notable prior to her transition. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have reverted your censorship of valid article criticism, because it is inconsistent with editorial integrity.  Do with that what you will, and I don't care about your threat to ban me. In the future, you are expected to reply and argue your position if you have one (as will be expected in all other venues of adult life). I'll also say this would only be yet another instance of intellectual dishonesty that I've seen from Wikipedia administrators. You have too much access.  71.65.65.144 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)




 * Please clarify, then, what in this message 1) identifies your conduct that led to your block and 2) what you would do differently, if you were to be unblocked. (Pro tip: at a minimum, you'll need to acknowledge your violation of MOS:GENDERID and agree to abide by it going forward.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking closer. I deny any misconduct, as misconduct implies intent.


 * I also dispute the appropriateness of MOS:GENDERID after looking at it again: The event regarding the block was a post on a talk page for an article to discuss article accuracy by including the birth name of the article subject due to 54 years of notable activity under the dead name before recently (relatively) changing names -- with the intent of checking for editor consensus prior to making any edits.


 * That article subject didn't establish their 40 year career under the new name because the new name was only like 10 years old, and the article subject is purely notable due to their prestigious 40 year career. It's fairly obvious how MOS:GENDERID in that context contravenes the spirit of maintaining article accuracy due to that, and it was a talk page and not the article, so, this was not vandalous or even inappropriate behaviour.


 * I currently understand that that we have codified intellectual dishonesty into convention by the omission of names, and, after reading the room a bit, I think a better approach would be to attempt to challenge that aspect of MOS:GENDERID for a correction to it for situations exemplified in the article, and come back to the article when the convention is corrected.


 * I will also add that the behaviour leading to the block was an appropriate response to (yet another instance of) bullish, threatening, and intellectually dishonest approaches by responding editors with too much access and who need behavioural oversight, with it not being the first time that has happened. That behaviour involved deleting the discussion point instead of arguing against it or linking to the reasons why they disagree (presumably, also MOS:GENDERID), or even moving it to a place they found more appropriate if that is an issue (I don't think it is here, but I can see how some might view it to be).


 * In an environment where admins seem to not be operating with any oversight, both intellectually and behaviourally, I made an appropriate response. But, if there is a bigger process to follow, where, as I mentioned -- trying to get MOS:GENDERID updated to account for that type of accuracy problem, I can follow that route if it's suggested, so long as it does not compromise the truth of any article being edited, or my dignity, both of which is worth fighting and losing over in all cases.  I hope this addressed your concern. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What I am getting from reading this is that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing and that, if unblocked, you intend to continue to be disruptive, just on a different part of Wikipedia for the time being. That is absolutely no better. I'm not sure why you feel that your dignity is at stake. We only know you by your IP address but it is clear that you are not Rachel Levine, the person who's dignity is actually at stake here. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What part of WP:BATTLEGROUND applies here? Being able to argue my case is hardly what's discussed there.  From my perspective, it seems more like I just lack a certain type of ideological bias.  Regarding the article subject's dignity, I think there's an argument there, but the more I think about this the more I think this should be discussed in the context of a challenge to MOS:GENDERID and not the context of this unblock request.
 * Challenging a guideline is not combative behaviour.
 * Also, I noticed that you reverted a change I made to the sections on this talk page. I would appreciate if you stopped doing that, as, I believe if I were doing that to you, it would actually justify my ban.  71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I see that you have reinstated your extremely misguided changes to the section titles here. This is obviously just trolling and brings the seriousness of your unblock requests into question. Obviously, it will be up to the administrators to decide what to do, but please don't be surprised if they revoke your access to edit this page. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Invalidating the positions of people you disagree with doesn't do much more than feel good sometimes. "Appeal to the Stone" comes to mind. In any case, the points I've made here stand unchallenged. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)