User talk:37.152.231.22

Hey

Hey - I'm rather on your side (diff) in thinking the edits you made to Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles had some merit, and were done with the best of intentions. So thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. That said, you've really not helped yourself by getting into an 'edit war', which is horribly disruptive and helps no-one. Please could I ask you to stop doing that, and agree to discuss your concerns at the article talk page so that we can all reach a consensus? This switching back and forth between versions is quite unhelpful - even if one person (possibly you) is in the right. Whether right or wrong, you'll only end up blocked from editing, whereas finding the right way to engage/discuss/reach agreement leads to an overall improvement of the article. I value your input, so please don't throw the opportunity away. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours 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) 13:34, 9 May 2020 (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.

Nick Moyes, I saw your name here--if you have a moment, please look at the ANEW report/discussion and the article talk page for ongoing edit warring and personal attacks. If you disagree with me (basically I'm saying "enough already"), feel free to unblock. I appreciate your time and your advocacy. User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:EdJohnston, you also, feel free to weigh in. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I clearly felt there was some merit in what this editor was originally trying to achieve, and I was trying to support them. But I've not needed to look back at them, nor need to disagree with your tempory block, as the disruption caused by this person's tone and attitude towards everyone else has exceeded any benefits their contributions might have brought. Even when we completely disagree with one another, we do still need to follow our behavioural protocols. These haven't been observed by this editor, though hopefully they might in the future. Good block. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, thanks--I appreciate your advocacy and I certainly share your opinion on the merits of the edits. I hope Britishfinance will take those edits seriously. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, I have actually restored several of them, and the ones I have not, I have explained on the article talk page for future discussion. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Britishfinance. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oh. My. God. I cannot believe I've been blocked now! I have substantially improved the article over the last several days. I explained all of my edits. Nobody offered a single policy or guideline which my edits did not follow, they just repeatedly trashed all of my work without any explanation. If anybody is being disruptive it's them, obviously, and yet it's only me being punished here. There is no reason to block me; it is a punitive act and there is no disruption to Wikipedia that it will prevent. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NPA and WP:NOTTHEM. Since you don't concede that you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Blocks are, according to the policy, supposed to prevent disruption. They are not supposed to be punitive. A series of clearly-explained edits over the course of five days does not constitute disruption. Punishing me for my edits while not saying a word to those who trashed them repeatedly for no reason clearly illustrates the punitive nature of the block. I am not sure what you consider "personal attacks" but I think you're probably being hypersensitive. Diffs please? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Properly made disruption-preventing block, as the rest of this page makes obvious. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:12, 9 May 2020 (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.

You called a user's actions (and by extension, them) "childish"here and here; and called people liars on several occasions including here. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds to me as if this isn't your first go at this, as most new users aren't familiar with "diffs". Not saying it is illegitimate, just noting. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, you're being hypersensitive. Look, the user repeatedly claimed that they had done something which they hadn't, and that I had done something I hadn't. That was a lie. The diffs proved it. Repeatedly lying like that is childish. Seems to me that you regard calling someone a liar to be a far worse thing than actually lying, and that saying that someone is childish is worse than actually being childish.

And did I claim at any point to be a new user? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of demonstrates that your general attitude is disruptive, it's a battleground attitude. I'm leaving this for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you would consider any response from me in this situation to be disruptive. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, swallowed

User:Ohnoitsjamie propagates the lies of User:Britishfinance, and now having been blocked I cannot respond directly.

some of the edits were fine (and I noted that Britishfinance has reinstated some of them) - they didn't do any such thing! Try looking at the article history.
"the IP's approach hostile from the beginning - The user had trashed my work in its entirety without explaining why. That was a hostile act. Do you really believe that my question to them was hostile but their destruction was not? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Had they first gone to the talk page and said, "hey, can we discuss why my edits were removed" instead of aggressively edit-warring with multiple editors about it, we wouldn't be here" - apparently, though, it was hostile when I asked the user if they were familiar with the manual of style. Doubtless, you'd have considered anything I posted to be hostile. I have in fact asked repeatedly for relevant policies and guidelines to be identified, as I would appreciate knowing about any that I am not familiar with, but not a single one has been given. It's clear to me that you were aggressively keen to block me right from the start, regardless of the details of the case. Once you and others decided to trash my work without explaining why, there was no possible course of action available to me that you wouldn't have considered hostile. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

User:Swarm, you criticised User:Ohnoitsjamie directly and User:Britishfinance implicitly when you commented on this several days ago. User:Drmies for whatever reason ignored that, and has now blocked me. User:Ohnoitsjamie never responded to your criticism but has appeared at the noticeboard again to say that they approve of this block. So I wonder if you would like to comment on the developments. I assume you will receive a notification of this post. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and...

...User:Drmies, you claimed on the noticeboard that there were "ongoing personal attacks". Diffs please? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chatter about lies. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for diffs; you did not provide. What you seem to be saying is that you will construe anything negative that I may say about someone as a personal attack. That is spectacularly misguided, and the harmful results of your misapplication of this policy are clear. Recall that I significantly improved the article. Nobody posted any serious reasons why my changes should not have been made. And obviously there is no serious reason why incorrect grammar should not be fixed. The person who led the trashing lied, repeatedly, about what they had done and what I had done, as I documented carefully with diffs. And yet, you endorsed their lies and blocked me specifically for pointing them out. You helped to force basic grammatical errors into the article.

You are obviously not here to build an encyclopaedia. Maybe you think you are, but you are not. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try not saying anything negative about other editors, and just focus on the content instead. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed grammar errors. That was "focusing on content". The only time I am not able to focus on content is when editors like you pester me. So go focus on content yourself. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism

Well that is utterly disgusting. Yet another editor has just trashed all of my work for no reason. All the grammar errors, all the style errors that I fixed, all put back, for no reason. The repeated, aggressive and utterly pointless trashing of my work by multiple editors is truly shocking. But User:Drmies, you obviously approve. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued battleground attitude, ownership mentality and disruption, I am removing your ability to edit this page. Your request will remain open, but if it is declined, you will need to use WP:UTRS for further appeals while you are blocked. If this behavior continues after the block expires, you will likely be blocked for longer in the future. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such attitude or mentality. Major projection going on there. Fixing grammar errors is not disruption. Insulting and attacking me for fixing grammar errors is. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

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 ~~~~}}. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (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 user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

And the ludicrousness continues! Fixing grammar errors is not disruptive editing! Persistently making an article grammatically incorrect is disruptive editing! I am doing the former, and it is insane that people are aggressively trashing my work, again and again and again. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=And the ludicrousness continues! Fixing grammar errors is not disruptive editing! Persistently making an article grammatically incorrect ''is'' disruptive editing! I am doing the former, and it is ''insane'' that people are aggressively trashing my work, ''again'' and ''again'' and ''again''. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.22|37.152.231.22]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.22#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=And the ludicrousness continues! Fixing grammar errors is not disruptive editing! Persistently making an article grammatically incorrect ''is'' disruptive editing! I am doing the former, and it is ''insane'' that people are aggressively trashing my work, ''again'' and ''again'' and ''again''. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.22|37.152.231.22]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.22#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=And the ludicrousness continues! Fixing grammar errors is not disruptive editing! Persistently making an article grammatically incorrect ''is'' disruptive editing! I am doing the former, and it is ''insane'' that people are aggressively trashing my work, ''again'' and ''again'' and ''again''. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.22|37.152.231.22]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.22#top|talk]]) 12:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I really regret having to block you.

I wanted to expand on what I have put in my rationale for blocking you.

I am quite in sympathy with your wishes to improve the one article you have become passionately interested in (Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles). I think I see what you're trying to achieve - and it's a subject I am also interested in. But the disruption your approach to editing has, and is causing, is not, in my view, worth the benefits your edits are bringing. This disruptive and belligerent attitude, and constant reverting has continued after your short two day block expired in EXACTLY the same manner. I now don't care if you are right in what you are trying to achieve - you are wrong in the way you have failed to work constructively with other editors. If you want to return to constructive editing, or wish to be unblocked, we need to know that you understand why the manner in which you have edited has been disruptive. (WP:3RR gives some idea over this.) If you can't keep that approach in check yourself, then administrators will have to do it for you. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have yet another editor seeking to besmirch my editing record. When blocking me, User:Nick Moyes states:

I am in sympathy with this editors wishes to improve the one article they have become interested in.
- Why on earth would you state that I am interested in just one article? Just look at the already lengthy list of articles I improved, just from this IP address, one of thousands that I have edited from.
I think see what they're trying to achieve - and it's a subject I am also interested in.
- You only think? What is preventing you from fully understanding the benefits of the edits I made?
But the disruption they are causing is not worth the benefits their edits bring.
- So, improving an article is disruptive and therefore the improvements are not worth the improvements. OK.
And this disruption has continued after a short two day block in EXACTLY the same manner.
- The article remained grammatically incorrect. Obviously, obviously, I was going to fix that. Once again, fixing grammatical errors is not disruptive. Putting them right back into the article is disruptive.
I don't care if they are right in what they are trying to achieve
- Yep, that's quite clear. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2020 (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.