78.2.109.245

August 2024

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

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) 21:45, 25 August 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Forward this to 331dot. It's a response to him. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. stwalkerster (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked because of the reasons I have explained below. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have read the discussion below, but I don't see a good reason to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2024 (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.

331dot, there we go. I'm blocked. Thank you for your answers. At this point I'll continue my inquiery through the provided email. Goodbye. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

331dot. Just to be clear, I wouldn't contact you if I would have considered you to be one of those disruptive admins. But, you have seen the disruptive behavior and you did fail to react. For whichever reason. I'm not saying you knew the admin personally or anything similar, but what I'm saying is true. Maybe you didn't want to bother getting into dispute with another admin or something like that. I don't know. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

331dot, And, as you must be aware by now, no one here will listen to you while you evade a block. And who says that I'm evading block. Maybe those admins that I'm trying to report. Do you understand why I asked for internal control? Look there are a number of possiblities, I can ask someone else to write a report on my behalf. Let's call that person a lawer, etc. Do you understand my point? What I have to say, can in no way be invalidated with the statement "oh, hes evadina a block". Ok, we'll find a 3rd person to write those complaints so we can remove "counterattack" factor. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Violating policies to tell about others violating policies is never a good strategy- just as robbing banks to pay for a legal case against abusive police officers will not work. How about asking another person to complain about abusive police officers, because they have prevented you from complaining. Would this be a more valid explanation? I'm trying to tell you. Even blocked users should have a process to complain about abusive admins that isn't just re-routed back to them or their friends who are just waiting for the request to come to take and "resolve it". Do you think that's unreasonable thing to say? What you are telling me is there is no such way. And what I'm telling you that then this isn't a good way of working for Wikipedia. How would you feel if you make an unblock request, and the admin who blocked just revokes your talk page access and asks a friend to close your request? At that point there's no way of making another request. Maybe through the ticketing system. But imagine this. You request through the ticketing system, and you actually get an uninvolved and unbiased admin to start reviewing. But then in the middle of that review, the friend of the disruptive admin comes and tells the initial admin "wait I'll take it over" and just denies your request. Please, this is not hypotetical. I would like an answer. Do you think that's fair? 78.2.109.245 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that will get them blocked for sockpuppetry. I have no other comment. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• TPA revoked; I should have done it from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

---