User talk:ToadGuy101

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 United Kingdom general election. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Belbury (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've undone your edit there for now. Please wait for consensus to form at the discussion before making such a change. John (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2024 United Kingdom general election 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. CR (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gay pornography, you may be blocked from editing. Engaging in vandalism less than 10 minutes after getting unblocked is, to say the least, a poor idea. CR (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I did nae know it was ten minutes after I was unblocked. I hae bad time comprehension and Donnae know the exact time when I was unblocked. Also I Donnae need a 7 day ban just for changing a single word. Other people usually undo these thingss on their own accord when they come across it. And usually after that the “vandalisrrs” rarely ever come back or even remember. ToadGuy101 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also I Donnae need a 7 day ban just for changing a single word. Other people usually undo these thingss on their own accord when they come across it Why did you do it in the first place? — Czello ^(music) 08:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Bored. Also that still doesnae explain the jump from 48.hours to 7 days. It also doesnae explain why I get banned despite having not participated in vandalism between 22:41 and 23:07 on the 8 January 2025. ToadGuy101 (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: ). Thank you. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2024 United Kingdom general election. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

J o k e. Ban people from articles, not the website. If ye really wish to root out k”vandalism”, then don’t agitate people by giving them bans for weeks for simple editing. It is unfair, unjust and well only lead to ban evading. ToadGuy101 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Threatening to sock may lead to an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What’s a sock? Also blocking fae things said on the discussions page is a violation of free speech and can be classified as censorship under United States Law, based on this being a public forum. (Discussion boards are, articles aren’t). Atop this I havnae threatened to do anything, and all I wish to do is nae hae to wait 150 hours tae upload a hob Kobe flag. ToadGuy101 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also blocking fae things said on the discussions page is a violation of free speech and can be classified as censorship under United States Law There is no United States law that forces free speech on non-governmental websites.

based on this being a public forum. This isn't a forum, see WP:FORUM. Even if it were, the US Government cannot compel absolute free speech here.

Also would suggest you read WP:NLT. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia.

What’s a sock? See WP:SOCK. — Czello ^(music) 11:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sections 230 of the communications decency act. The Wikipedia discussion boards are public forums, and thus are nae liable towards the things posted on them. It also states that there should be a “wide range of political discourse”. Atop that, the Wikipedia foundation does nae publish the replies or is responsible tae monitor discussions placed upon its website. ToadGuy101 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also I’m nae targeting anyone. But Wikipedia doesnae publish their discussion boards. ToadGuy101 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you have misread what Section 230 says, because at no point does it say that users have absolute free speech on an independent website. Furthermore, it's not your speech that has been restricted, unless you feel websites should not be allowed to ban disruptive users. — Czello ^(music) 12:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s exactly the point. Wikipedia discussion boards / the talk section is classified as a public forum fae it doesnae publish writings upon it, and is thus required nae to censor it, and allow fae a wide range of political discussion. However, its articles are published, so it does have a right tae remove things upon said articles, but only if they are factually incorrect. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

+ this is my accounts discussion board, so I can place what I wish to discuss upon it ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ToadGuy, I just reverted the latest response to your comments from the other user because this discussion is completely inappropriate. While you are blocked, you should not use this page for anything but to make an unblock request. This is not a platform for you to spout nonsensical legal theories or absurd interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will revoke your access to this page if you persist in doing those things.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not nonsensical or absurd, it was a conversation aboot whether people should be punished for things which they have posted on talk pages and whether the discussion boards count as public forums. It was a discussion, not me throwing around claims, both I and Czello’s replies were articulated arguments, of which both have valid points. Also, “what is threatening to sock” ToadGuy101 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ban appeal

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ToadGuy101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There were no instances of editing done between the period at which I received a vandalism warning at 22:41 8 january 2025 and the period from which I was blocked at 23:07, nor have there been any instances of vandalism before or since. The warning was received by a different administrator than Bob23 and thus said block should not be considered consistent as it should have been issued based on further offences by CR, however ithis should not be interpreted as a dispute of validity (in this argument) but merely a statement and request for a third party administration. ToadGuy101 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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=There were no instances of editing done between the period at which I received a vandalism warning at 22:41 8 january 2025 and the period from which I was blocked at 23:07, nor have there been any instances of vandalism before or since. The warning was received by a different administrator than [[User:Bbb23|Bob23]] and thus said block should not be considered consistent as it should have been issued based on further offences by [[User:CipherRephic|CR]], however ithis should not be interpreted as a dispute of validity (in this argument) but merely a statement and request for a third party administration. [[User:ToadGuy101|ToadGuy101]] ([[User talk:ToadGuy101#top|talk]]) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (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=There were no instances of editing done between the period at which I received a vandalism warning at 22:41 8 january 2025 and the period from which I was blocked at 23:07, nor have there been any instances of vandalism before or since. The warning was received by a different administrator than [[User:Bbb23|Bob23]] and thus said block should not be considered consistent as it should have been issued based on further offences by [[User:CipherRephic|CR]], however ithis should not be interpreted as a dispute of validity (in this argument) but merely a statement and request for a third party administration. [[User:ToadGuy101|ToadGuy101]] ([[User talk:ToadGuy101#top|talk]]) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (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=There were no instances of editing done between the period at which I received a vandalism warning at 22:41 8 january 2025 and the period from which I was blocked at 23:07, nor have there been any instances of vandalism before or since. The warning was received by a different administrator than [[User:Bbb23|Bob23]] and thus said block should not be considered consistent as it should have been issued based on further offences by [[User:CipherRephic|CR]], however ithis should not be interpreted as a dispute of validity (in this argument) but merely a statement and request for a third party administration. [[User:ToadGuy101|ToadGuy101]] ([[User talk:ToadGuy101#top|talk]]) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}