User talk:142.120.113.160

February 2021

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from André Marin without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ifnord (talk) 01:34, 26 February 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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at André Marin. 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. You have removed referenced material. Please discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. Ifnord (talk) 01:36, 26 February 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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on André Marin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ifnord (talk) 01:37, 26 February 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at André Marin, you may be blocked from editing. Dirkbb (talk) 01:48, 26 February 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at André Marin. Dirkbb (talk) 01:48, 26 February 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.

Hello, I'm MJL. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Danbury, Connecticut have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, if you believe this was an edit filter false positive, please report it here. Also, feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:40, 27 February 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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:142.120.113.160 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: ). Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to André Marin, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 21:20, 6 March 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.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at André Marin. 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. The sources support the information. Please stop reverting. If you do not agree with the information, please open a discussion on the talk page. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 21:24, 6 March 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.

Article has many BLP and Undue Weight violations plus unproven COI paid editing claim that in itself violates BLP policy

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at André Marin. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. KommanderChicken (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: Good faith attempt to uphold BLP policy

Decline reason:

First, you have some nerve asking that your edits be viewed as good faith efforts to comply with BLP when you showed no willingness whatsoever to assume good faith on others' part, throwing around accusations of paid editing and undisclosed conflicts in every revert summary like they were party favors.

Second, talking about those reverts ... in the space of five minutes earlier this evening you broke the three-revert rule, with three more to spare before it was all done. And not for the first time ... I don't know for the life of me how you managed to avoid a block for those February 25 edits. I am tempted to extend your block to make up for that but it's just been too long.

And third, yes, I know, you are allowed to violate 3RR while enforcing BLP ... but that exemption assumes that an editor has, or will, try to engage the other in discussion; it even suggests the issue be taken to WP:BLPN.

I see no attempt on your part to discuss: no talk page edits, no BLPN edits, no nothing. Your concerns may well be legitimate, but the way you went about addressing them definitely is not. It's as if you went down to your local bar to complain about how noisy it gets at night, and instead of trying to reason with them starting off by ranting and raving at the top of your lungs while kicking tables and chairs over and smashing liquor bottles. Well, here you are in the local lockup for that, complaining that your constitutional rights have been violated; you're the only one surprised by this.

By the way, a block cannot violate BLP; only an edit can.

Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2021 (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.

I have been making good-faith reverts of versions that violate WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE policies. This block also violates BLP policy. The Andre Marin is cherry-picked pilloying of a Canadian lawyer. See the talk page. There has been a lot of concern about the way this article is used to slam Marin, and one anonymous IP and several Wikipedia editors insist on making it an attack page. 142.120.113.160 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not the person who "thre around" allegations paid editing and conflicts of interest. I n fact, I was the first person to revert those unproven allegations, and the version that exists now still has them. WP:BLP doe not require me to engage about why I believe the violationms exists before I do the reversions, and I am working on an explanation for the talk page. The admin's answer above assumes a lot of bad faith on my part. It is shrill. It is inaccurate. It accuses me of breaking things that I was actually trying to fix. The admin has not seriously examined the talk page, where editors have discussed the problem of cherry picking embarassing facts and giving them undue weight. the administrator has not checked and found that the Toronto-based IP has actually dug up a problematic version of this page and continues to revert to it. Nor has the admin checked the history of the article, because they would have found it was my version that was page protected for five days last week. 142.120.113.160 (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request is now moot as the block has expired. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2021 (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.

I will leave it to another admin to review this request now that I properly formatted it for you, but since I have been personally attacked and criticized in it (really not a good idea to attack the admin who denied your unblock request in subsequent requests ... the more you go down that road, the more likely it is that you will be blocked for longer, perhaps indefinitely, and maybe have your access to this page revoked), I must respond with diffs as I had apparently misjudged you in assuming you would have the common decency to not deny or attempt to misrepresent what you had written and done:

• "I am not the person who 'thre[w] around' allegations [of] paid editing and conflicts of interest." I direct your attention to your own edit summaries: "Undue edits by IP of serious COI violator)"; "I suggest this page is being trolled by POV editor"; "Revert to last goog edit, before IP suspected of being defendant in case prosecuted by Marin began BLP violations"; "Inford and anonymous editor are tag-teaming to violate BLP policy"

• "WP:BLP doe not require me to engage about why I believe the violationms exists before I do the reversions". As a general statement, no, but as I pointed out it strongly suggests doing so. And even if it didn't, any Wikipedian or aspiring Wikipedia, indeed any rational human being, would probably assume that it was a good idea to raise the subject first before releasing the hounds.

  Indeed, in the present context, resorting to this letter-of-the-law argument comes across as wikilawyering, specifically gaming the system. It's not likely to impress or convince anyone, especially if you persist in doing it.

• "I am working on an explanation for the talk page" Well, it seems that rather belatedly you got the point of what "Inford" was telling you ... that when you come in and just up and remove reliably sourced material in the name of BLP, without any other explanation, and other editors disagree and revert, BLP alone is insufficient justification for that behavior ... you must discuss that on the talk page.

  If you'd thought to start with this explanation, well, then, maybe things would have been a lot different and neither of us would be here right now. (I would also suggest that your time might be better spent working on that explanation rather than making more unblock requests, at least until the former is ready).

• "The admin's answer above assumes a lot of bad faith on my part." Because you incontrovertibly demonstrated it, that's why.

• "It is shrill."" (hands on hips, jumping up and down) IT IS NOT SHRILL! IT IS NOT! STOP SAYING THAT!! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT!! YOU SAY SORRY FOR SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW!

• "It is inaccurate" No it isn't.

• "It accuses me of breaking things that I was actually trying to fix." OK, then, if that's how you want to play it ... well ... I presume that you were trying to fix WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and most of all, WP:DICK, because you were sure breaking them.

• "The admin has not seriously examined the talk page" Well, why should I, if you didn't feel it was worth your time and effort to open a discussion there? The issue behind the block is your conduct, not the underlying issues or whatever you perceive them to be. I'm not gonna look somewhere your edit history shows you didn't go for keys to understanding whether the block was justified or not. Besides, there have been no serious edits to the talk page in more than two years. What bearing could that then possibly have on your edit warring in the last few weeks?

• "the administrator has not checked and found that the Toronto-based IP has actually dug up a problematic version of this page and continues to revert to it." Because their edits aren't those at issue here. (And, actually, it looks like a lot of those Rogers Wireless IPs that were your edit-warring partners got blocked as well).

• "'Nor has the admin checked the history of the article, because they would have found it was my version that was page protected for five days last week." Oh, here the flag of the truly tendentious editor lofts itself! See, he says ... Because my version was the one that got protected, I'm right! Just like that really annoying, entitled kid in class we all wanted to punch in the face when we were eight.

  I commend your attention especially in this context to the tired and rejected complaint you are indirectly invoking by saying this: "The Wrong Version". Which version is protected is not in any way a judgement as to its rightness. The admin who closed that RFPP, in fact, explicitly made no judgement in that area in the hopes of spurring the discussion on the article talk page which nonetheless never happened, Whose fault might that have been, at least partially? Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

---