User talk:KBitLogic

March 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Text (literary theory)) for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333, I don't mean to handwring but why isn't this an indef? Remsense ‥ 论 20:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're clearly a CCP bot farming edits and citing arbitrary rules. No one was fucking overlinking, you cuck. KBitLogic (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons:

1. The user has been around for over a decade, and although they haven't edited much, the edits seem to be good faith.

2. While I and you know that you don't link to common terms, not everyone knows how to do this. A bit of educating on this talk page would have gone a long way to stopping any disruption.

So yeah, they shouldn't have shot their mouth off when getting reverted, but the best thing to do in this situation is de-escalate things, not exacerbate them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's bewildering given you had to revdel their edits because they had fucking racial slurs in them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no slurs, mate :) Bots don't have human rights KBitLogic (talk) 20:42, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Literally reported by a CCP bot farming wiki edits for linking a single article lmao KBitLogic (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 14 March 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There is literally no fucking reason for the block. It's entirely irrational. The rule cited says nothing about what I did. How the fuck am I even supposed to understand an irrelevant rule twisted into something irrational? KBitLogic (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:44, 14 March 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 have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked your talk page access seeing as you are unwilling to be civil. You are blocked because you called another user a racist slur and then doubled down on it on top of accusing them of being a "bot" without human rights. You were told to stop edit warring and stop attacking other users, but you did not. So now you're blocked. Racism is anathema to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]