User talk:130.226.41.9

August 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Surprised to see myself blocked here. The reason given is "block evasion". What in my Wikipedia history leads to the conclusion? As far as I am aware, all my activity contributes to a good encyclopedia. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 2:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Edit history clearly overlaps with blocked user and its sock. only (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

only What overlap? Once again, look at my edit history Special:Contributions/130.226.41.9 - all good contributes. Which of my 250+ contributions over a decade do you feel is disruptive or abusive or otherwise harmful for Wikipedia? 130.226.41.9 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This IP certainly hasn't made 250+ contributions. Which user's block are you evading that has made 250+ contributions? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

jpgordon, request you to have a look at [this IP's contribution log] or [xtools]. Thank you! 130.226.41.9 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

only What overlap? Once again, look at my edit history [here (contrib log)] or [here (xtools)] - all good contribs. Which of my 250+ edits over a decade do you feel is disruptive or abusive or otherwise harmful for Wikipedia? 130.226.41.9 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits are not the issue. If you aren't the blocked user evading a block, you are a meatpuppet, which we must treat as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I thought the notion of Meatpuppet was for bringing in non-editors to Wikipedia simply to bolster an argument (for clarity, I have been an editor for over a decade, and both the inviter and I know that the decisions are made by consensus, not vote count). I do want to mention that I didn't support my friend's argument because they are my friend or because they invited me, but rather, they invited me to comment likely because they knew I hold a view that aligns with their position. Either way, having read WP:STEALTH I now realize that the invitation to me to comment was stealth canvassing, which is not permitted, whether intended maliciously or not. I'll discourage all canvassing outside of Talk pages and post Uw-canvass for users who do, friend or not. I apologize for responding to the stealth canvassing by joining in the discussion in question. Further, if I enter a discussion (of my own accord) in which people I know in real life are also participating, I'll declare that in the interest of transparency. --130.226.41.9 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Similar shenanigans here, meatpuppetry with elaborate excuses and rationales. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Only Viktorpp can solve this, IMO

On August 5, Viktorpp was blocked, and on August 6 this IP showed up to push the same POV concerning a fairly-obscure article Jennifer Rubin (columnist). Your other recent crusade was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jen_Perelman, putting much effort into the only !K vote besides the article's creator Stefania0, who was found by checkuser to be the same as blocked user Viktorpp.

The similar pleas of innocence from all "three" of you seem unlikely to produce any unblocks. Only Viktorpp can really address this situation. An honest willingness to be part of the Wikipedia community, where decisions made by consensus don't always end up where you want them, would go a long way. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange I have been contributing off and on since 2010. Viktorpp is a newbie, by comparison, at least on English language Wikipedia. I know him in real life and he requested me to have a look at Rubin redirect discussion. So I did. The offensive comment "Whatever the community consensus is, hopefully everyone will consider the issue coolly and with an open mind, rather than responding with knee-jerk actions based on preconceived notions or the actions of the submitter. "

But I did not vote in that discussion, because while I agree with most of rationales put forward by him, I thought the redirect was the wrong way to go about it. So I "borrowed" the points made by him, and started an RFC. After 10 years and 250+ edits, I am blocked for the crime of agreeing with someone and the terrible action of initiating an WP:RFC?

As for Perelman AfD, again, I know the author (wife of Viktorpp) in real life and was invited by her to comment. I made the comment which I thought was appropriate. Since I agreed with her, that's what I said in my comment. If I had disagreed with her, I would have voted against her. I do not take directions from either of the two - rather, since I have more experience than them, they occasionally ask for feedback on their contributions. Lastly, with respect to Perelman AfD, a single vote/comment can hardly be classified as a "crusade". This is unnecessarily trigger-happy. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Up until August this year that shared IP address made infrequent but mild-mannered encyclopedia-building contributions. Then all of a sudden on August 6, you make dozens of edits concerning Jennifer Rubin. Then silence for 3 weeks, until on August 26, at Perelman AfD, you add a 2300-byte Keep argument (three edits) --then 3 hours later you return to add a 1600 byte "point of order" (4 more edits.) To me that behavior was more of a "crusade" than "a single vote/comment." I am not an admin, my point in coming here was to offer what would have been (I thought) helpful advice if you were one person using 3 accounts. You say that's not the case. Wishing you good luck. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange I have explained the situation above. The dozens of Jennifer Rubin (columnist) edits are one comment in the redirect discussion, an RFC and a comment within the RFC. For Perelman AfD, I have a vote and a comment. The overcounting of edits is due to revising my comments. But I appreciate the intent to help.130.226.41.9 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but if you want to get unblocked, it would help if you showed understanding of and respect for the reasons Wikipedia blocks people who do what you did, i.e. WP:STEALTH and WP:MEAT. You didn't just respond to a ping, you dove enthusiastically into two contentious discussions on behalf of the POV of your friends, to the extent that others believed (and may still believe) you had simply lent your computer keyboard to them. See also Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, HouseOfChange. Having now read WP:STEALTH, it was stealth canvassing, whether intended with malice or not. Of course, I'll tell my friends not to do that anymore, and to post Uw-canvass if they do. Is there a badge or notice I can display on my userpage to discourage such stealth canvassing? --130.226.41.9 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel too badly, it is a natural behavior in real life to ask friends for help and to want to help friends who ask. Wikipedia really pushes back against this behavior, including giving it very unflattering names, because in the context of Wikipedia, even though discussions/debates are not supposed to be "votes," it is unfair to others when one person gets two !votes with no disclosure of having a friend behind the scenes. We don't have a badge for being alert to that problem. And I would be gentle in explaining to your friends, just point them to the policies in question and then you don't have to say much. Viktorpp is likely to stay blocked until he stops insisting he did nothing wrong by wasting people's time with a bunch of nonsense AfDs. You and Stefania0 are likely to be unblocked if you say you will disclose (any time you jump into the same discussion) that you know each other in RL -- and also of course that neither of you will make edits for Viktorpp. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

June 2021

Your edit to Arab Spring has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---