User talk:188.65.190.67

December 2018

Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to County Kildare— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2019

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Traveler— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Deji have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2019

Hello, I'm DoebLoggs. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Grey alien have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. DoebLoggs (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grey alien. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kinetic37 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship was changed by 188.65.190.67 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.908443 on 2021-10-05T13:30:45+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, I'm Hey man im josh. I noticed that in this edit to Peter McVerry, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Temple menorah, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Temple menorah, you may be blocked from editing. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Temple menorah. Adakiko (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Trisandya have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Trisandya was changed by 188.65.190.67 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.919257 on 2023-06-17T22:20:20+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Nicola Peltz—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to ROSA (organisation), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The article for ROSA (organisation) unfortunately confused an international organisation with one of its national sections, and while doing so used a high-level of sources that were inappropriate (see WP:ABOUTSELF). The contents that were sources via reliable third party sources have been included in the appropriate section about ROSA on the article for International Socialist Alternative. Please do not revert the redirect again. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at ROSA (organisation), you may be blocked from editing. You look to be editing to accuse organisations of being fronts given your edit summaries. Please desist. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing them of being a front. There have been accusations of them being a front. Which are relevant given as you seem intent on deleting the page entirely, reducing it to essentially being front for ISA as you keep redirecting the page to. Which it is no longer even affiliated with. Your accusations of vandalism are projection. @Rambling Rambler 188.65.190.67 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to know what a redirect is. Redirection is not deletion. Given you are now introducing completely inaccurate content from inappropriate sources I'm assuming this is now willful attempts to damage the accuracy of the article for off-wiki reasons and will be Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a standalone organization to that of a separate organization, one that it is no longer affiliated is grossly negligent behavior and erased the independent identity of the organization. Citing the organization is not "inappropriate" as it prints its own newsletter. Self referential yes. Inappropriate? No. Please report yourself if you report anyone for attempting to delete an entire page. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their own social media shows ROSA is still affiliated to the ISA[1]. You seem to be wilfully intent on suggesting otherwise despite it being patently untrue while introducing material negative about the ISA while using inappropriate sources. Stop. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest social media post from your citation from 2024. Pre disaffiliation. Media literacy isn't your strongest suit. @Rambling Rambler 188.65.190.67 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit summary here[2] don't try and quote WP:ABOUTSELF if you're going to immediately break it, in particular how it mustn't "involve claims about third parties". Making allegations of abuse about someone else is certainly a claim about a third party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a former constituent of ISA, Socialist Party is qualified to address their own accusations. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi IP, please don't call other editors' edits "vandalism". That has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: please see WP:NOTVAND. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Please stop edit warring and discuss this at a talk page. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen They refuse to listen and only accuse me with different violations and threats of being blocked from editing. Please see August 2025. I've already requested page protection. Please tell them not me. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're right since you can't accuse someone (or an organization) of sexual assault without reliable, independent sources. I'm not sure about the rest. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing them. The source e.i the organisation is. Please read the cited source they keep deleting. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not independent, and even if it is, it isn't reliable. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even an accusation. It's in regards to allegations. Whether they are valid or not they are still relevant context for why the part left, as it's the only available source/reason as to why they left. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why we can't have it here. WP:BLP says you can't make accusations or allegations about living people (or in this case, groups of living people) unless it's covered by reliable, independent sources. Your source fails both. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then would it be appropriate to say "this party left in such date due to internal disagreement?" Factually true but not contextually true. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, yes, or you can just say "the party left in <date>" and end it at that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it BLP if it's factual and devoid of any context that may violate BLP? Might as well scrap all political pages involved in controversy as the same logic applies wouldn't it? Literally nonsense. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@188.65.190.67 You are technically allowed to remove other peoples' replies from your talk page, but it's not good practice. Creating an account would make this easier. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Rambling Rambler's page in regards to removing other people's replies. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, yes. Your message was removed because you accused them of vandalism, which is false because vandalism only applies for deliberately malicious actions. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE SEE AUGUST 2025 and cross check the times. They messaged me first with an official looking threat claiming Im engaging in vandalism and may be blocked from editing. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen it's not a good point. I first messaged with a very polite note explaining why I had undone their action and had in fact merged the article into another one[3]. They then refused to actively engage with it but instead repeated the reversion with a strange edit summary stating "Rambling Rambler please research what communist internationalism and Trotskyist Fronts. Stop deleting this page"[4] which was frankly odd and given the history of vandalism on Trotskyist pages over the last few months by IP users I thought best to flag it now in case it needed pursuing further. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the reverts, I just thought a better template would have been appropriate here, like {{uw-disrupt1}}. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen again, I did send them that exact template first with a long note attached to explain further why I did what I did. They then ignored it and reverted with the quoted confusing edit summary that made the claim about "deleting the page". They keep wanting to say how I immediately accused them of "vandalism with no discussion" when I did explicitly try to discuss it first. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Rambling Rambler, why is The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA not okay? It doesn't add a lot and it isn't sourced, but it certainly isn't a BLP violation. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen the faction name is still an inherent allegation (because it suggests that the other side are none of those things), so would still be a WP:BLP violation as a result. The article before they kept trying to re-add it documented that they were no longer affiliated, which is about as much as we're likely to get away with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That isn't a particularly obvious connection but I can see why that juxtaposition might be jarring to some. How about splitting the last sentence into a new line instead of outright removing it? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though that it's already on there, that the Socialist Party are no longer affiliated (Internationally, it was affiliated to the Trotskyist International Socialist Alternative (previously the Committee for a Workers International) until 2024).[5]

The problem with what they want to add is that everything new is inappropriate and strays into territory about making claims regarding third parties ("other branches of ISA") and that they're in a faction with an inflammatory name about safeguarding issues which implies an issue about safeguarding. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about adding it somewhere other than the lede? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that content would fly without a reliable source. We don't have any sources to say who these other people are (so can't give any useful information as to scope or amount) and we can't give a neutral view in terms of the internal dispute because there's no way to represent it fairly.

Given the absolute mess this is, the unsatisfactory "they have left the ISA" will have to remain as much as we can say at present. Rambling Rambler (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Within a collective organization the "leadership" composes all branches. There is no separate "leadership" only separate branches based on certain regions. Rambling Rambler has a very fundamental lack of understanding of even basic Socialist/Communist organizations and their structures yet feels entitled to redirect/attempt to mark for deletion, and revert updated edits for entire Socialist pages based on outdated information & sources. They seem to think ROSA International means that ROSA Ireland is just a branch of ROSA/ISA as it has International in its name. In a socialist sense International doesn't necessarily mean they are actually International, Internationalism is a socialist idea. They consistently fail to either grasp basic concepts on the topic or is engaging in weaponized incompetence so they don't seem as malicious as their actions actually are. 188.65.190.76 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend creating an account. It's very easy and doesn't require an email. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Your recent editing history at Socialist Party (Ireland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Why is there no effort made to warn Rambling Rambler of the same violations? They started it. Please see the other August 2025. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're trying to restore WP:BLP violations after you were told not to. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even review the citation from the primary source (ISA) themselves? 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked about this yesterday. You can't use primary sources since they are not independent of the subject. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to BLP primary sources are valid. Please review BLP and the talk under @Asilvering about ROSA. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about not putting it in the lede and rephrasing it to "the organization claimed that..."? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary source acknowledged the allegations as valid, please review the citations. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that doesn't justify it being told in wikivoice and being put in the lede. This is just an opinion of course, and as Asilvering said, you can go to the BLP noticeboard to get a broader consensus. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's an existing discussion there. You can contribute to it if you want. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the allegations being the source of the disaffiliation is valid and important information to include in the lede as the split is so recent. It's not an accusation against a named individual. It's addressing allegations and how they were handled that led to the split. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen noticed this page was active again and didn't want to be the one to resurrect it quite frankly given the insult left this morning. I've put a discussion on BLP noticeboard in an attempt to get an understanding of the BLP considerations but already the situation is once again one of split opinion on whether or not it's BLP violating, but beyond that also whether or not it's acceptable regardless of BLP given the lack of independent reliable sources.

Regardless at this point I think the greater fact is that inclusion has been disputed by several editors and therefore it shouldn't be re-added without gaining consensus for inclusion at the relevant article talk page per WP:ONUS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to say, I've suggested on the BLP noticeboard that it might be suitable to simply use web archive snapshots of the ISA's affiliates page to show that at some point in 2024 that the Socialist Party were no longer affiliated with them. It avoids any of the issues around detailing the allegations and suitability of sources thereof and would better fit ABOUTSELF requirements. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of an individual person is made in any sources. BLP doesn't even apply. To argue that it does is such a reach. This is a political party page. Not a biography of whoever was accused. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unrelated, but why are you editing using proxies? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. My IP is not static due to personal living conditions. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account would help with that. You also gain access to the watchlist and several other useful features. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather remain anonymous and deal with the bigotry against those without accounts. Thank you though. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited under other IP addresses? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is certainly theirs given the edits here and at the article (Special:Contributions/188.65.190.76). Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this relevant? It sounds like @Rambling Rambler brought it up with the intention of wanting my IP address blocked from editing. His own "contributions" have done nothing but erase relevant information to the topics I've contributed to. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if you're not using a proxy, you might want to double-check the security of your connected devices. Just saying. @ChildrenWillListen, if someone says their IP isn't static, that's already answered your question - they have likely edited under different IP addresses. @Rambling Rambler, that other IP you give is part of the same /28. It's very normal for someone's exact IP to move around inside an IPv4 /28, and there's nothing nefarious about it. For the purposes of determining who is who in any discussions, you can probably safely assume than any 188.65.190.* is the same person. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I wasn't suggesting it was nefarious, just highlighting it given the question was asked by CWL and thought they might be wondering about it posting here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Someone else reported you to ANI, I'm just notifying you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen Thank you for the notification! 188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2025 (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.

Unlock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Asilvering is not an impartial party to the discussion at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_on_Socialist_Party_(Ireland)_and_related_pages, requesting an impartial third party admin to review my position and decide whether this one-sided block was appropriate. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Contrary to your comment at ANI, you have no "rights" on Wikipedia - you have privileges. When you violate the policies and guidelines that grant you those privileges, they are revoked - as was appropriately done here. Drop the stick and move on. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 3 August 2025 (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.

August 2025

@Asilvering The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user.

You blocking of me an making no blocking attempt of Rambling Rambler for their conduct shows clear bias. Do not engage with my page again. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is also clearly in violation of " Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see § Requesting blocks).

Your abuse of the blocking policy will be reported.

188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Asilvering is not an impartial party to the discussion at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_on_Socialist_Party_(Ireland)_and_related_pages, requesting an impartial third party; which The Bushranger is not; to review my position and decide whether this one-sided block was appropriate. The block is punishment for my actions and therefore violation of blocking policy.188.65.190.67 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that it's clear that you're just going to continue to throw out accusations of WP:INVOLVED against any admin who declines your appeals, I've revoked your talk page access. If you want to convince editors that you are here to edit collaboratively and productively without disruption, you need to do the opposite of what you have done so far. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 3 August 2025 (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.

Please explain how I am not a impartial third party, aside from not seeing things your way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]