User talk:12.161.138.11

September 2025

Proxies

Why are you using proxies to make controversial statements at ANI? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, and I'm not.12.161.138.11 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

WP:DE states "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." with detailed qualifiers below. At no point did I make an edit at all to an article today - let alone one that was disruptive. I did engage in a couple of points of discussion on a user's talk page an the ANI page to illustrate flawed understanding and application of WP policies. Two other editors simply didn't agree with my points, or like the fact that I made them. In no way does their disagreement with my points qualify as DE. Additionally, their disagreement does not qualify ignoring any progression per WP:UWLEVELS and going straight to an extended block - without any previous warning at all, or even having the issue raised on any noticeboards. I look forward to a hasty resolution and reversal of this unfounded block without any historical grounds, and to resume contributing to the WP community and project. 12.161.138.11 (talk)

Disruptive editing is not limited to articles; any change to any page is an "edit". No policy requires a sequence of warnings if an admin deems immediate action necessary. American politics is a formally designated contentious topic(see below) where rules are enforced more strictly(that's for future reference). You were clearly trolling and not interested in civil discussion. I personally would only unblock if you agree to abandon edits about Kirk's death. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

WP:DE seems like itneeds to be updated to expand the focus from articles, and instead to more broadly encompass "edits". How did the admin deem immediate action was necessary to the point of going straight to an extended block rather the more traditional warning sequence? What specific qualifiers were there that met this criteria requiring "immediate action"? Yes, American politics is certainly a contentious topic, and rules should be enforced. That is why the civil discussion of those rules and enforcements, along with how proceed forward with the proper naming of the actual article was happening on the talk page and ANI page. I was not trolling at all - and instead was 110% interested in and engaged in civil discussions. You are going to need to cite specific examples of where I was trolling and not being civil in my discussion engagement(s). Just because one user doesn't like the point(s) I was making in those discussion(s) does not automagically qualify it as "uncivil". Since you have now taken it upon yourself, @331dot, to insist that I was "clearly trolling and not interested in civil discussion" - the burden of proof is on your to very clearly qualify that assertation with specific examples. I will however add the statement that you are not in a position to tell me what I am or am not "interested" in. Only one person on this planet gets to make those decisions - and it is not you. I also shall not succumb to your patently ridiculous demands of censorship to not discuss one topic or another which is actively being discussed in talk pages. It is a gross overreach of your authority to attempt to prohibit which topics an editor may engage in talk page discussions about. 12.161.138.11 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block is now expired. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]