101.165.51.106

March 2020

Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chris Chibnall 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. KylieTastic (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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 Chris Chibnall. 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. KylieTastic (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

KylieTastic maliciously abusing pending changes privileges and blocking for people for stating a fact. My IP address is 101.165.51.106. User KylieTastic is improperly rolling back edits made to Chris Chibnall page which many people are attempting to correct the misleading information. Due to the low ratings and the number of views for the Doctor Who show, the statement cited is factual and supported by independent reliable sources and therefore KylieTastic's rollbacks are improper and suppressive. 101.165.51.106 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NPOV. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:32, 6 March 2020 (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.

Special:Contributions/KylieTastic|KylieTastic

• Look into revoking rollback privileges of user:KylieTastic for improper censorship and suppression of encyclopedic information supported by fact [Elevated] 101.165.51.106 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Look into revoking privileges of user:jpgordon for improper reason citing "See WP:NPOV. --jpgordon' [Elevated] ~ reason=jpgordon does not give a valid reason for declining unauthorized block. Neutral point of view is supported by third party factual information from sites such as Rotten Tomatoes which reported low audience scores.

• Look into revoking privileges of user:Yamla for threatening a wikipedia user, citation: "This IP address is not directly blocked. However, it certainly will be if you continue making blatantly inappropriate edits", using insults, citation: "you manifestly lack sufficient competence to edit here" and failing to provide sufficient reason to denying unblock request. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE all apply. Should there be continued false flags of "vandalism" by insubordinate admin/moderators in an attempt to stifle the truth on Chris Chibnall's wikipedia page, drastic measures may apply subject to certain terms and conditions.

101.165.51.106 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

admin.remedy

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).

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

---

Request reason:

user:jpgordon has failed to properly review my unblock request without giving a valid reason for ruling of request denied. The reason cited is: "See WP:NPOV" which does not in any way shape or form present an argument for an editor who is stating a factual truth backed by independent sources such as rotten tomatoes and other websites that monitor the metrics of Dr Who ratings. The neutral point of view argument basis is supported by the poor ratings of the show which is further supported by the majority of reviews by the audience which have all stated that the decline of Dr Who's ratings is a result of Chris Chibnall's influence within the show. I am formerly request that user:jpgordon and user:KylieTasatic admin and moderator privileges be revoked for improper use of said privileges and unfairly blocking my ability to present a factual truth. While unnecessary, should the matter be escalated, I would urge you to consider Arbitration Committee/Procedures ARCA enforcement process that is in place for when no actual violation occurred which in my case shows no actual violation occurring for writing Encyclopedic content that is factual and the truth backed by evidence. 101.165.51.106 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This IP address is not directly blocked. However, it certainly will be if you continue making blatantly inappropriate edits like this and this. If you think Wikipedia is the place for edits like that, you manifestly lack sufficient competence to edit here. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE all apply. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. If so, you'll likely need to account for your actions so far. Yamla (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2020 (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.

My answer: This is disgraceful. If you think the Wikipedia can be a place that omits, falsifies, suppresses or otherwise distort the truth especially when you have multiple, many, many people all making the same edits that should tell you something and that is, that you are alone. You and those who continue to abuse the privilege powers are alone. This will most likely continue, it starts with a dozen people, then hundreds of people, then thousands of people, tens of thousands of people all making the edits to show the facts presented. Will you try to block tens of thousands of people? You are alone. You can threaten me all you want with ["...directly blocked. However it certainly will be if you continue making blatantly inappropriate edits"] You and your petty admins 'likely need to account for your actions so far'. You lack sufficient competence to block the truth. 101.165.51.106 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

---