User talk:105.76.164.70

May 2025

Hello, I'm Kolventra. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Berber languages 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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Kolventra (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 8 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am reporting User:Skitash for a clear, repeated pattern of biased editing against Amazigh-related content. This user has a long history of removing references to Amazigh identity, deleting city names written in Tifinagh (the Amazigh script), and replacing the word “Amazigh” with “Berber” — even though it is well known that many Amazigh people reject that term as colonial and offensive. He is not doing this in good faith or based on reliable sourcing, but rather to provoke and mock contributors from the Amazigh community. This behavior goes far beyond content disputes and into harassment and cultural erasure. Here are a few examples: 1- Removing city names in Tifinagh without consensus, despite official recognition: [1] 2- Replacing the term “Amazigh” with “Berber” deliberately, with no basis in the sources, seemingly to provoke or mock: [2] 3- Another mass deletions of Amazigh-script names with a flimsy excuse tied to “original research: [3] [4] [5] This user’s editing history reflects little to no constructive contribution, and a consistent pattern of undermining, disrespecting, and even mocking the identity of an entire ethnic and linguistic group. It's damaging, toxic, and against the spirit of neutral, respectful collaboration. Many users have noticed this behavior, and several have already reported or complained about it, but nothing seems to change. People are losing faith in Wikipedia's neutrality and transparency as a result. I hope administrators will finally look into this seriously. 105.76.164.70 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please; you had two. None of this is relevant. Please read WP:GAB to understand what's appropriate in an unblock request. Continued abuse of the unblock template may lead to an extension of your block and/or revocation of your talk page access. Yamla (talk) 22:24, 8 May 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.

You're evading a block on 105.76.166.126 and continued your harassment, leading to a longer block than before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not evading any ban. I waited out the 24-hour ban like any decent person. This must be either another user or maybe my router reset itself during the night. I'm not a vandal. I've been using the internet for decades and have never had the mindset to vandalize anything or harass anyone. I was just trying to revert that page to its original state, and it said I had to do it manually. I admit I messed up the page by using search and replace on what that toxic editor had changed. But still, I’m not a vandal. I’ve never vandalized anything out of bad intent, and I’m not interested in editing anymore it’s clearly not for me. All I want is an end to this toxic, hateful behavior. 105.76.164.70 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm leaving this block in place; it will expire in a few days anyway. But you also haven't shown that you understand why you were blocked and that the behaviour won't resume. It is a personal attack to speculate on another editor's motives in the way you did. When this block is up, do not return to the same behaviour. Leave Skitash alone. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 21 May 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.

105.76.164.70 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are falsely claiming the block on 105.76.166.126 was 24 hours. It wasn't. It was 48 hours, as you can see at Special:Contributions/105.76.166.126. I'll also note if you don't immediately stop your personal attacks (which violate WP:NPA), your block will be extended and your talk page access will be revoked. --Yamla (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack exactly? I'm just describing a repetitive, disturbing behavior. This doesn’t count as a personal attack. 105.76.164.70 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was 48, and I now remember. However, my router rebooted on its own, which caused the IP to change. I didn’t evade any ban and genuinely thought my ban had ended. I’m not concerned about the ban itself; my main concern is that the admins investigate the actions of this other user. If something can be done, I would really appreciate it, as I have legitimate concerns. I assure you, you won’t have to deal with any issues from me again 105.76.164.70 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Let me give you some advice here. You're never going to get an administrator to rule that "a long history of removing references to Amazigh identity" is disruptive editing. This isn't because we don't think that's what Skitash is doing, or that we disagree that it's wrong to remove references to Amazigh identity, or that we don't know what you're talking about (though any of those things might be true of any particular administrator). It's because administrators deal with conduct issues, not content issues. If I or anyone else say "you're right, Skitash should not be doing that, the articles should have Amazigh references for [insert reasons]", we're no longer acting as administrators, but as regular editors. As regular editors, when it comes to a content dispute like this, we don't have any powers you don't have. But we do have two very strong advantages, that many editors (admins or otherwise) share but you don't: 1) we know how this place works, and 2) people know who we are and trust us, because we've spent a long time here working to improve the encyclopedia in good faith. If you want to move the needle here - if you want editors to recognize removing references to Amazigh identity as something that's inherently disruptive - you're going to have to get a consensus of editors to agree on that. Realistically, that means you have to become one of those editors. Please do. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (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.