User talk:73.206.167.225

July 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Red Slapper. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Red Slapper (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did and why ToBeFree. Absolutely no basis in policy. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Very simple there is no basis in policy for the block, and clearly not in the policy for TWO WEEKS no less. ToBeFree is involved and is just covering for his friend. Red Slapper previously accused me of not being in the discussion in good faith and then made the "Instead of rolling your eyes, use them to read" crack. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:40, 12 July 2023 (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.

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.

Oh, I'd say WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are two policies, and your response to my warning (and even to the block) demonstrates a preventative need (WP:BLOCKP). Three policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I see that you're protecting your friend. "Perhaps you need to spend some time working on reading comprehension skills" after your friend insulted me multiple times is worth two weeks? Your response made it clear you're violating the policy. "Blocks should not be punitive", but clearly you put in two weeks just to be punishing.

Even more hilarious ToBeFree you post here "please join the discussion in the section above" knowing your illegal punitive block stops me from doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASound_of_Freedom_%28film%29&diff=1164928331&oldid=1164928303

Since ToBeFree won't be honest here I'll say what I see. ToBeFree saw his friend making multiple personal attacks against me and mislabeled the MILDEST response from me as a "personal attack" dishonestly. ToBeFree deliberately made the block two weeks just to be punitive, followed by doing the other things trying to make me angry, I'm guessing hoping to provoke something else he can misrepresent to justify further punitive action that has no support in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block would be indefinite, requiring you to demonstrate an understanding of the issue illustrated again by your message, if you had done this with a registered account. Two weeks are my default IP block length, which you can confirm by having a look at the list of my blocks. The alleged friendship does not exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Since JpGordon didn't bother to even read before using an insulting form-response I'm angry but I'll respond to the points listed. 1. Why am I blocked? I'm blocked because I said "Perhaps you need to spend some time working on reading comprehension skills" to someone who insulted me multiple times with cracks like "Instead of rolling your eyes, use them to read", who has not received so much as a warning. Clearly this is unfair and demonstrates that the block is outside of the policy, designed only to be punitive. If nothing else this senseless and punitive block has made it clear that wikipedia has TWO sets of rules, one for friends of people who have block power and a complete other set for those who are new here. 2. "will not continue to cause damage or disruption?" I didn't cause "damage" or "disruption" before so this is nonsensical. I won't cause "damage" or "disruption" in the future either. 3. "will make useful contributions instead." You can read my contributions in looking for news sources already. This point is silly but I have no intentions to make anything BUT useful contributions.

Also ToBeFree is

1. a regular editor at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film),https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=ToBeFree&page=Talk%3ASound_of_Freedom_%28film%29&max=500&server=enwiki 2. a friend of Red Snapper, and therefore 3. violates the "Involved" part of the policy. Clearly the block was created merely to be harsh towards someone ToBeFree decided on a personal dislike for. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't think you did anything wrong, and mostly talk about what others allegedly did, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (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.

My role on that article and its talk page is a moderating one without the alleged personal dislike(s). I had originally fully protected the article, explained this action on the talk page on request, enforced a topic ban, removed the protection caused by a topic-banned editor, created a neutral RfC when neither side of the dispute took the minute needed to create one, and invited all then-participants of the edit war to it. I lack an opinion on the RfC's topic. I haven't been involved in a content discussion with either you or my alleged friend, whom I have warned for edit warring after blocking you. Keeping the editing and discussions in this heated debate civil isn't easy even without mud-slinging allegations of administrative abuse.

The IP address your repeated attack came from has been used to submit comments such as Special:Diff/1164782431, Special:Diff/1164782490 (self-undone), Special:Diff/1164785383, Special:Diff/1164784704, Special:Diff/1164784327, Special:Diff/1164786328 (edit summary), Special:Diff/1164864740, Special:Diff/1164865038, Special:Diff/1164925200 and Special:Diff/1164926917. There are two suppressed revisions with content removed by PhilKnight at the beginning of this user talk page's history that led to a 48-hour block before. In a nutshell, there is a history of problems, two of which are incivility and attacks, and these didn't even stop when a specific attack was removed with a warning. There is nothing else to be expected in such a situation than a block. Your response to a personal-attack block so far has been throwing further attacks around. This isn't remotely likely to achieve what an unblock request normally asks for: an unblock. The block is about your behavior, not others'. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm perfectly capable of seeing when someone is merely being a bully. 331dot I read the policies. I responded to the points. I don't see where ANYTHING in the policy requires ToBeFree to get insulting and aggressive when I point out that my words were mild and not remotely uncivil especially when responding to turn the phrase that had already been used to be snide against me. Your response just confirms that there ARE two sets of rules, one set for those who are friends of administrators and another for new people that you bullies see as targets. This block still has no basis in the blocking policy and violates the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy I've been made aware of. It was CLEARLY intended only to be punitive by the bully ToBeFree and was placed in bad faith. ToBeFree has now LIED ABOVE, falsely claiming to have "warned" Red Slapper for his repeated insults directed at me and others. There is no such warning on Slapper's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Slapper or in its history. Your refusals to follow the policy just prove Wikipedia's bad faith double standards. To repeat since apparently the "three points" from bully jpgordon's form letter are required (this is still just total bully behavior bullshit by you administrators) 1. Why am I blocked? I'm blocked because I responded in the mildest way after being repeatedly insulted and a bully named ToBeFree saw an opportunity to flex his bully muscles. 2. I didn't cause "damage" or "disruption" before, and I won't cause "damage" or "disruption" in the future either. 3. "will make useful contributions instead." You can read my contributions in looking for news sources already. I've been trying to learn the criteria for what constitute a "RS" and I've already proposed one that I wasn't sure of and asked for it to be reviewed by people more experienced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#Source_for_review:_AIPT. It's ToBeFree's bad faith bullying block that's causing a disruption. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Be warned. Unblock requests like this are very likely to result in your block being substantially extended, not removed, and possibly with talk page access revoked. This is a completely inappropriate unblock request. It's unclear if you haven't bothered to read and understand WP:GAB or if you are deliberately doing the opposite of what it advises. Yamla (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2023 (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.

‎Fred Zepelin you should probably be aware, I'm betting you'll be ToBeFree's next bullying target since he assists Red Slapper. Also it looks like there's been more vandalism of the kind you were keeping away at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Caviezel&diff=1164947177&oldid=1164945912

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 post of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(What on Earth. I've never sent an e-mail and my domain has strict Sender Policy Framework and DMARC rules that should result in fakes being either automatically thrown away or at least being detectable as such from their source code.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Belated note: This is SkepticsAnonymous. They do this same schtick every time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Thanks, Tamzin. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2023 (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.