@SarekOfVulcan: Oh, ha, I wasn’t really expecting a response — thanks for your apology! And of course on the substantive question you were 100% right, my original was not a great choice of closing summary. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dixiecrat/Archive 2, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WhoAteMyButter (🎄talk│☃️contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the recent close you made, you really should create an account before closing an article or leave it up to an experienced editor. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not every day I see an IP that is a quality contributor. I would suggest making an account, as it gives you many privileges and more anonymity, but you don't have to. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for a period of 1 month for closing discussions at administrative noticeboards after having been warned, the last of which included no edit summary and no reason for the close in the template.
I’m repairing (slowly, by hand) poor choices by an IP6 who did a whole bunch of them without any obvious logic or consideration: see Special:Contributions/2402:800:63A5:A99C:E41D:734C:54:2559. In my opinion, it is better if the archiving bot does not completely empty talk pages, since that obscures for future editors what issues have been raised and discussed before. (I am done for the morning fwiw.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 100.36.106.199, I had extended the block to a sitewide one for a year for a moment. I had also incorrectly described your actions as "low-quality meta contributions", but that description would only apply to the closures that led to Bbb23's block and perhaps the edit warring currently reported, but few (if any) other edits. I'm sorry for the inconvenience possibly created by this and have noted in the block log that it was my mistake. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: thanks for your comments here and at the noticeboard — I appreciate you making the effort to take a closer look. And I plead guilty as far as the particular edits you mention are concerned :/. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Today, this IP editor seems to have gone around systematically reverting my recent contributions without explanation. I've reverted them, but do you have any suggestions on what to do if it continues? (I can't report them to any noticeboards, obviously.) (This follows this astonishing edit yesterday in which Giacomo1968 reverted me in order to include a citation of the Weekly World News; what can one even say?) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did the right thing by messaging the editor on their (current IP's) talk page. If something needs to be escalated to ANI, I guess you can try adding a {{edit partially-blocked}} to WT:ANI, and requesting an unblock if that becomes a common necessity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're a troll who has seen the discussion at WP:ANEW and is now trying to make Evrik look like a sockpuppeteer, mimicking the edit summaries used in the dispute. Please keep me updated; if it continued, it's now clearly block evasion and may be freely reverted and – normally – reported at WP:SPI or in very simple cases WP:AIV with a quick list of diff links that make the connection obvious.
You’re welcome — not sure how one would find it. (In my case it was looking at your contributions, but that only worked because you’d already archived it.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks. JPxG, in the time you spent lecturing me you could have just looked through their edit history, fully half of it is obvious pro-Nazi whitewashing (not Nazi in the sense of things I don't like, but Nazi in the sense of the former German political party that conducted genocide) and the other half is obvious far-right POV pushing not specifically related to Nazism; it's not like they were subtle. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This block is not necessary to stop disruption; as is easily visible from the history of my edits, I stopped reverting as soon as a second editor (Czello) had objected to my changes. Moreover, I had already initiated discussions on both the talk page of the article and at WT:WPM. Unfortunately the filing editor is not competent to participate meaningfully in those discussions; why that is being held against me rather than against him is not at all clear. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
per discussion and with assurances that discussion will replace edit warring.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)
@Firefangledfeathers: thanks for this. Of course the real reason that I was blocked and AF was not (despite the fact that the first and last reverts at the time of filing were his) is that he is using an account. Indeed if it were actually about personal attacks, someone might have noticed that his comments towards me are equally full of them (calling my correct tagging vandalism, etc.). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot this block seems like an excessively blunt instrument for a problem that I expect can be solved through dialog. Both editors here seem in the wrong as far as tone/politeness go, but the content concerns per se easily land on the side of this IP editor in my opinion. The article was a mess of vague unsourced claims, nonstandard terminology, and possibly original research, about which concern is warranted.
Can someone undo the block, noting that now several other editors are paying attention to the page? Hopefully 100.36.106.199 can try to be a bit more polite and patient and we can talk the article through on the discussion page instead of having revert wars about it. In particular this IP editor should be encouraged to participate (politely) on the talk page, where I think their feedback will be valuable for building consensus. –jacobolus(t)23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the casting of aspersions and the personal attacks, I think the unblock request indicates a knowledge of what to do other than edit warring i a content dispute. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot is there another admin here? If not, can you please remove it? It's been ~12 hours and I don't anticipate this staying a problem from here forward; as I said there are now a number of experienced editors paying attention. If it becomes a problem again, someone can appeal to reinstate the block. The point of this kind of block is just to stop disruption, not to punish people. My impression is that the disruption per se is now solved; further content disputes can be worked out at the talk page, but the IP editor should be welcome to participate in that dialog. –jacobolus(t)01:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk20:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bolsheviks, you may be blocked from editing. This has been explained to you on talk.[2] I will restore the consensus version once more (see history [3],[4],[5]), three editors have reverted you.[6],[7],[8] You need to stop. If you want to continue this, post a message at WP:ANI.
Your edit summary reads: "Sometimes people put two links in one ref tag; then refill just deletes one." Then to avoid this you may add full references instead of adding bare urls. Egeymi (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw go by your recent edits at 18 (Number) (and I agree with them), and I just wanted to say, about your edit summaries, that they should make sense on their own, because often, for instance in Recent Changes, we only see edits individually, so if you say just "ditto" sometimes people won't know what you're talking about. Something like (in this case) "more WP:OR" would be more helpful. Cheers, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the editor as well, but can I suggest dialling down you comments a bit? The more heat in the discussion the more heat it generates. Feel free to tell me to find something else to worry about if you feel I've overstepped. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to disengage, admnins can see for themselves what is happening. You are (in many ways) also bludgeoning the process. Let the admins sort it out now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say Hi, as a fellow relative newbie [9] who also found it hard to step away from this!
I hate to see generally competent editors get so het up that they lose sight of what's happening & it ends up going downhill, with everyone worse off for it.
More experienced editors could see things coming & knew when to disengage, which is an incredibly valuable skill to learn.
I'll admit I wrote a second post, then rewrote it three or four times, then realised that it wouldn't have changed anything & deleted it.
I mean, I'm a complete stranger, so no matter what I wrote the blinkers were on and there was too much momentum; the hammer was inevitable.
I hope they calm down and we see them soon in a few months, but with a more collaborative mindset! Worst case, they either never return or come back with a vengeance, but I still live in hope that this is a success story...
Anyway, sorry for bothering you, hi again and I hope you have a lovely day!
^(I've been here a few years but was too nervous to edit much until recently, also been lurking around to see how different people edit different articles & came across this incident)Blue-Sonnet (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blue-Sonnet, thanks for your message. I thought your post on their talk page was well considered; it’s too bad they were just a troll, so your effort was fruitless. Good luck with your future editing! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which I did [10] which you then proceeded to whine about here [11] and damage [12], because you lack the basic competence to be policing these things. I accept your apology; don’t do it again; and now that your troll-feeding and tag-damaging has finally been handled correctly, leave me alone. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
