User talk:148.252.159.203

November 2023[edit]

Hi 148.252.159.203! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of User talk:Gill110951 ‎ several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at User talk:Gill110951, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 09:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s literally on a talk page and he is deleting my talk? How is that even allowed? 148.252.159.203 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits by banned users is allowed anywhere. You are not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is not subject to the 3 Revert Rule. See WP:3RRNO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — IF I WAS A BANNED EDITOR. I am not, and you know that, otherwise why would I be able to still be making edits on pages? You’ve decided that because I was notified to a page by a now banned sockpuppet that that means I am a banned user — no. You know full well that such deletions are not permitted unless I actually was banned/blocked. As I have said, I would frankly encourage you to go through the appropriate channels to see if I should be blocked 148.252.159.203 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:3RRNO:

Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Although it is perfectly clear you are the editor you claim "brought this to your attention", we can rely on your own admission there. You are socking. Please go find something else to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, you have some cheek coming here and declaring untrue things on me due to a paranoid mismatch you have made in your head. Regardless of your paranoid, inflamatory accusations -- which I can assume only have come as a result of the red mist behind your sockpuppet investigation not yet dissipating -- you know full well that I am not a blocked or banned editor, I am entitled to make edits and to not expect you to delete my talk page contributions on the grounds of your (incorrect) assumptions that I am a sockpuppet. If you recall, you already unsuccessfully reported me (the IP 148.252.159.66) to a sock puppet investigation page as a 'suspected sockpuppet': [1] but I was not blocked. The admins and editors on that page had the option of blocking me then if they thought it was warranted, and did not. Therefore, your claim that I am consequently "not allowed to edit on Wikipedia" is just plain wrong, I am not a blocked/banned sockpuppet or meatpuppet, you've just totally bizarrely decided of your own accord that I am one. Furthermore, you claim I've confessed to being a meatpuppet -- no. What I openly said was that I had originally been notified --just notified-- about the related Rfc discussion at Talk:Michael Stone (criminal) by what it has now materialised was a sock editor. I had no previous involvement and limited understanding of what had been going on, and I believed at that time that I was being asked to take a look in good faith by an editor who just wanted to give wider notification to uninvolved editors. Me getting notified as such does not make me a meatuppet, it actually makes me an innocent bystander in all of this that was dragged into it when I was unaware of the sockpuppettry, and now as a result I'm getting accussed of it myself. If you've decided that that is wrong and I am still a sockpuppet you need to use the appropriate channels to report me for this - and frankly, for the thousandth time, I would encourage you to do so. Yet curiously you haven't and prefer to go to random admins giving a very misleading part-summary in the hope that they will block me where others haven't (and surprise surprise they haven't agreed to do so). And additionally you are also just unjustifiably deleting my talk(!) and unilaterally declaring that I am a banned sock, without any mandate to make such a declaration, which really is not on.

Now -- having failed to get me blocked before -- you are instead just going round other pages making paranoid, untrue and accusatory summaries which are really making me quite angry for being totally assaulted for something I am not even guilty of, and haven't been found guilty of. I have never had any "vendetta against Richard Gill" -- in fact, until I followed your edits on his talk from the Michael Stone Rfc where you had argued with the now-blocked editor who had asked my for my views -- I literally did not know the guy. But as an editor I saw the himself-blocked Gill110951's misconduct and disagreed with your comments that I saw there, which were related to the now-blocked editor who had got me involved in this in the first place. So I obviously didn't "just arrive at this page as if by magic". Yet here you are making it sound like there was no reason for me to be on the Gill110951 talk page, when I -- and I've told you this like thousands of times now -- became involved in all of this because of the antics of the now-blocked editor. But what is really quite ridiculous here is that -- having failed to get others to block me -- you've been declaring that I am a sock without any mandate to do so. I've told you, go through the usual processes if you are so insistent that the decision of others to not block me is wrong, but rather curiously... you don't want to. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 4 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 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.