User talk:78.28.44.127

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 20:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main account disclosure

Hello. You are participating in "discussions internal to the project" (WP:PROJSOCK); please disclose your main account. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been blocked before I had a chance to read your message, but I'll respond anyway, just for the record.

As per WP:LOGOUT, "editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki." It is therefore inappropriate for you to seek to compel such disclosure, and I would suggest you refrain from doing that to other users going forward. Of course, at the same time, personally, I don't really mind, so we're good; if I still had my password, I would actually log in and respond to you using my long abandoned account but I suppose that just wasn't meant to be. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for Long-term evasion of scrutiny using IP addresses in project space.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 September 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.

Participation does not equal disruption. This perfectly innocuous edit didn't disrupt anything. In fact, it looks like it was helpful; the response that my question received gave us quite a bit of insight into the candidate, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, if my alleged "disruption" is confined to project space, as per the wording of the block rationale, how come the scope of the block isn't similarly limited? Was the blocking admin perhaps not familiar with the newly added feature, Wikipedia:Partial blocks? 78.28.44.127 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk namespaces for a period of 1 year for the same reason as the prior block, long-term evasion of scrutiny using IP addresses in project space. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really still a "registered user" if I irrecoverably lost my password many years ago and have since had no account to log into? Am I really "evading scrutiny" if I consistently use the same IP and edit constructively? Food for thought. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

@Bbb23: Consistent with WP:ADMINACCT, and to make a block appeal feasible, would you mind clarifying, if just for the record, what it is you meant by "sly circumvention of partial block" when you used that phrase to justify upgrading my partial block from project space to a "sitewide" block (relevant log entry for convenience)? I assume it had something to do with this recent edit of mine that you rolled back for a reason that I do not fully understand perhaps?

Keep in mind that my partial block wasn't some broadly construed tban; it was just a unilaterally imposed partial block from a specific namespace. I am as free to discuss admin conduct as the next guy, and I find your apparent attempt at preventing me from doing so, in the form of this rollback and this block modification, to be highly inappropriate. Explain why it's not, or, if you agree with my assessment, kindly undo the two admin actions in question. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 24 hours. The blocking admin continues happily editing while ignoring my query. I guess that leaves me little choice but to proceed with a block appeal without hearing their side of the story. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

78.28.44.127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Background/Purpose of the appeal:

On 23 November 2024, I was partially blocked from the Wikipedia namespace.

On 17 January 2025, that partial block was upgraded to a sitewide block.

This appeal addresses NOT the original partial block but only its sitewide extension.

This is because the result that I seek is for the sitewide block to be undone and for the partial block to be restored.

The actual appeal:

I'm appealing what I perceive to be a completely illegitimate block extension, imposed under patently false pretenses by a heavily WP:INVOLVED admin for no other reason than to shut down discussion of a specific incident. Yes, it's the kind of thing that could easily get one's admin tools taken away.

I call the block extension "completely illegitimate" because I did absolutely nothing to earn it. This can be very easily verified since I only made 12 edits outside my talk page in total between 23 November 2024, when the partial block was imposed, and 17 January 2025, when it was upgraded to sitewide. It will only take ~2 minutes to click through and analyze the edits, they're all lean, self-contained, and easy to understand even out of context (link for convenience).

I claim that the block extension was "imposed under patently false pretenses" because the reason entered into the block log, "sly circumvention of partial block[,]" makes no sense in the context of the 12 edits; see also the January 2025 section above (and note the complete lack of engagement from the blocking admin).

Finally, I call the blocking admin "heavily WP:INVOLVED" based on the timeline of events that led to the block extension, outlined in the Timeline section below. Their intention of "shutting down discussion" is plain to see from that timeline as well.

To summarize: since the sitewide block extension lacks any semblance of legitimacy, I request that it be undone and replaced with the original partial block that I have no intention of contesting at this time. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined and block extended. See below for details. Yamla (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Timeline

The sole purpose of this timeline is to supplement the block appeal that precedes it.

Knowing it is crucial to understanding why the block extension occurred.

Warning: It may contain my personal impressions.

Things that happened before I got involved

16 January 2025, 22:48 UTC A thread is posted to AN.
In less than an hour, the blocking admin, Bbb23, makes a large number of contributions to the thread (five messages in the span of less than an hour), including [[1]], completely dismissing the complaint (this is only relevant to show Bbb23's heavy involvement in the situation).[2][3][4][5][6]
16 January 2025, 23:56 UTC Bbb23 shuts down the thread to prevent any further discussion of the incident, proclaiming that they're doing the OP a favor; the closing statement is blatantly one-sided and fails to acknowledge that dissenting views were presented.
17 January 2025, 02:10 UTC An uninvolved admin decides that it would be a good idea to do the thing in the diff (I'm only mentioning this because that seems to be what had driven the OP of the AN thread over the edge).

The relevant part

17 January 2025, 17:08 UTC Clearly overloaded, the OP of the AN thread leaves a rather dramatic message on Bbb23's talk page that I occasionally visit. This is where I first became aware of the situation.
17 January 2025, 17:11 UTC Bbb23 responds to the message with callousness completely unbefitting the situation. This is where I decided to take action.
17 January 2025, 18:02 UTC I leave a message at the AN thread's OP's talk page to reassure them that there's definitely more than one way to look at the events that unfolded to hopefully prevent them from leaving Wikipedia or worse.
17 January 2025, 18:17 UTC Bbb23 uses the rollback tool to remove my message.
17 January 2025, 18:19 UTC Bbb23 changes my block from partial to sitewide "because of sly circumvention of partial block[.]"
I then inquired what Bbb23 meant by "sly circumvention of partial block" but no response was provided, see the January 2025 section above.

As you can see, many things went wrong here but, as already stated, the purpose of this timeline is only to supplement the block appeal that precedes it so this is where I'll stop. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source of your interest in Bbb23? ("talk page that I occasionally visit") 331dot (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I suppose it's a fair question to ask under the circumstances so I'll answer it. Note that the following answer is being provided solely to satisfy your curiosity and is not part of the appeal. In fact, had you not asked, it would be highly inappropriate for me to share these... old memories here right now. I'll try to keep this response to just the bare minimum of what absolutely needs to be said to adequately explain my interest in that particular talk page.

(content removed by admin)

I would have been happy with "I have a personal history with them that I don't wish to share"; if you want to remove the above, go ahead. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer, but the worst of it (having to recall the events) is already behind me and I think I'm okay keeping the response up for the duration of the appeal (as I said, the question was very reasonable; I'd be asking it myself if roles were reversed). 78.28.44.127 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you lost your password; have you(before this block) considered creating a new account? 331dot (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's an "anon. only" block so I could request one right now, but an account is only useful IMO if you want to watchlist pages, or if you believe your editing could benefit from/requires advanced permissions. Neither applies to me, mostly because I barely have any time to edit at all these days.

Also, I enjoy the frictionlessness of IP editing (I effectively stopped using my account long before I lost my password; in early 2016, it became just a tool to occasionally upload a file, create a redirect, or move a page), and, frankly, I'm not a big fan of getting strong-armed into creating and then consistently using an account in a world where the consensus is to allow IP editing.

Of course, if there's ever any actual problem with any of my edits, I'm always happy to address it/onboard feedback and even in the case of spurious blocks, I generally just let them be and take a vacation (example). I'm only appealing this latest block extension because of how egregiously abusive it is. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

So, I thought long and hard about this and consulted several other admins. You are self-admittedly a registered user who refuses to disclose your account. In my opinion, your edits have been disruptive, violating WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:PROJSOCK and veering close to violating WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE. It's time for it to end. I therefore replaced the prior block with a two year block. This block applies to you personally only to the extent that it prohibits you from logged-out editing. Note that you are not permitted to perform logged-out editing from any other IP address, either. You are free to sign in to your original account and edit using that. I have no technical data indicating what that is, but I have pretty strong suspicions. You say you've lost the password but if I'm correct, that account has an email address attached so you can just reset that password. If not, you are free to create a new account, but must disclose on that new account what your original account was (see WP:SOCK). Given the comments you've made here, I have also revoked talk page access. Again, I discussed this plan with several other admins and all expressed their support of my planned action. That doesn't dissipate my sole responsibility for this block, of course. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Yamla (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.