User talk:90.209.122.154

Block appeal
Hi Huon. I didn't make a personal attack against User:Graham87. He said that he went ahead and blocked the entire USA for a single IP user. I thought that was pretty Anti-American, going along with his previous behaviour. You can look at his past blocks to see that he has blocked people for just annoying him (as he did in this case). I don't think that is good nor proper behaviour for an editor. I have, as an IP user raised his behaviour before, and he is consistently blocking people without notice nor recourse. He blocked this entire IP range for block evasion, which I still don't understand how that is ok, since I wasn't blocked. I made three edits this morning, and one was standing up for a different IP user who was blocked by this administrator. I brought it to his talk page and he immediately blocked me, simply for having a different opinion than him. That is not block evasion in my opinion. 90.209.122.154 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * He didn't block the entire US, and you didn't just consider that block anti-American. Accusations of misbehaviour without evidence are personal attacks. Thanks for confirming that the comment in question was yours, though. Huon (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have no problem taking credit for my edit saying he has often exhibited a strong Anti-American bias. This particular admin is often very heavy handed in his blocks, as you yourself commented on here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87/Archive_42#IP_block? .  This was also noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87/Archive_42#Please_allow_my_students_to_register_their_accounts  where he didn't want to allow an American University to be able to edit, as he was worried about vandals.  90.209.122.154 (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're one further personal attack away from getting talk page access revoked. None of your above diffs come close to showing anti-American bias. You're misrepresenting those threads just as you earlier misrepresented Graham87's actions. Huon (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone else will review this request; I will say that if you do not wish to have an account, that is your choice, but you will then encounter problems like this. (using an account also hides your IP from the general public, enhancing privacy) Administrators like myself have a duty to protect Wikipedia from disruption such as users evading blocks, and it is not always possible to communicate with every potential IP user beforehand. Action must sometimes be taken. It is not difficult for a user intent on disruption to appear to be using a different IP address from where they physically are. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why this is block evasion, when you hadn't blocked me previously? Also, please do not just delete this question and block me from editing my own talk page for asking a question. 90.209.122.154 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand that someone else will review this request. I'm simply pinging you so that you can see that I'm asking the admin who generated the block for his rationale. Also, to put it on record that I'm asking him, since looking through his edits (including my own contribution to his talk page) he has a history of deleting things off of talk pages. 90.209.122.154 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With a few exceptions, users are permitted to remove things from their own talk pages. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.
 * If you have raised my blocks before as an IP, then ... why hello there, 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:5046:AF5B:DCD3:605F! Not technically block evasion, then, just considering those IPs, but your behaviour alone thus far has been very much worthy of a block. Graham 87 12:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As this is the original talk page, I will continue to edit it in good faith, although, of course the IP range rotates and there's nothing I can do about that. Please don't take this as socking, not much I can do about DHCP.  I think that  is blocking in bad faith, and is a bit of a wikibully, with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_sanctions and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adminitis (yes, it's humour, yes, it fits here)

His latest retort on his own talk page shows that he's unwilling to unblock entire states in the USA (whois lookup shows he's now got users in PA, CO and CA blocked on one IP range). I would bring this to ANI, as he's continuously displayed this behaviour of blocking anyone who questions him. Admins do tend to take the word of admins first, but I do ask you look at his blocking history with an open mind. And Graham87, perhaps you should give more people the benefit of the doubt before immediately relying on using your admin privileges to block users from editing. 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:5D60:5B3B:BDD8:E445 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This contributions page tells quite a story, so I've blocked the IP's that it encompasses. You may not be able to help the way DHCP works, but you are quite capable of creating an account, and the fact that you haven't done so after all this time shows your disruptive intent. Graham 87 12:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I fully endorse that block. Huon (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)