m Protected User talk:66.177.73.86: Abuse of process and resources ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC))) |
Replace shared template with non-shared whois, per WP:ANI#66.177.73.86 question; add Template:IPtalk |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{IPtalk}} |
|||
{{isp|Comcast Cable Communications Holdings Inc, Jacksonville FL Pool}} |
|||
{{repeatvandal}} |
{{repeatvandal}} |
||
{{whois|[[Comcast]]}} <!--IP is [[DHCP|assigned]], not shared --> |
|||
{{Old IP warnings top}} |
{{Old IP warnings top}} |
||
Revision as of 17:11, 13 December 2009
This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks. |
---|
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it. |
Lol, I sometimes wonder if they sleep, too... But at least most of the vandal fighters check what they did after reverting. Plenty of times you'll see them undoing their own edit. Not always, but mostly. And power has always corrupted... Gatemansgc (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Starting New AccountThere are many benefits to registering an account, and really no drawbacks. You can still use an anonymous username of your choosing. Please see WP:WHY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it was pretty awful. I was so unbelievably childish back then. I (more than) once posted a made-up rap song about Willy on Wheels and punching another user in the face, for example. And I had sockpuppets as well. I can't believe I actually expected people to believe the whole "it was a different person" schtick. It could not have been any more obvious. To be honest, I have vandalized under my anonymous IP addresses. Just for the hell of it, I guess. When you're anonymous, it can be kinda hard to resist at times. But, of course, I wouldn't do that if I had an account. And my age would probably get in the way of me becoming an admin.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC) November 2009This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User:Gatemansgc. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Andrea105 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI
AN/II saw the response at AN/I a little bit ago and wanted to stop in and offer my apologies for over reacting. It was not my intention to start trouble with you but more to follow the spirit of the guidelines regarding legal threats. I certainly should have read more into the context of what you were saying and not just the words. One of the harder parts of reverting vandalism is differentiating between good faith edits, deliberate vandalism and threatening or combative behavior. Now I am not so full of myself that I cannot admit when I am wrong. Indeed I spend quite a bit more time apologizing for mistakes and misunderstanding, than I do contributing to articles I enjoy working on. But I hope you can understand the position I was in and understand that it was not even remotely personal. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked againFor this comment on ANI about trolls vandals etc. We mean WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Blocked once moreBlocked 72 hours for Personal attacks ([1]). This is your final warning. NW (Talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That's quite enough from you. I'm revoking your access to edit your own talk page for the remainder of the block. MuZemike 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
December 2009
Please do not use talk pages such as WP:ANI for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Your additions to WP:ANI are not constructive. Don't just chime in with jokes, observations, etc. that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Blech. Template was not really what I was going for, but you get the idea. Don't just add unconstructive nonsense to WP:ANI. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- But... can I add unconstructive nonsense if the whole discussion is unconstructive nonsense?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, just because everyone else is jumping off a cliff doesn't mean you should too. Did your mother not inform you of this as a child? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- But... can I add unconstructive nonsense if the whole discussion is unconstructive nonsense?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Off-wiki activity leading to blocks
Re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "Well, users can be blocked for their behavior on other websites" - I think the only times this happens is when the off-wiki behavior intertwines with on-wiki behavior, such as harrassing a person by his wikipedia handle or making reference to his Wikipedia account, or when the Arbitration Committee is involved.
- Well, I distinctly remember reading about users being blocked for their behavior on other websites. In fact, there was an admin (an admin I HATED) who got blocked for something he did on another website.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You should consider registering. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked again
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below. MuZemike 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)You were warned and have been blocked several times about your conduct at WP:ANI. Furthermore, [2] and [3] are completely unacceptable. MuZemike 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Completely unacceptable"? You completely misunderstood my intentions. With [4], I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With [5], I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, I did that was "disruptive"?
Decline reason:
{{subst:In reviewing your posts for the last 48 hours it is apparent to me that you are an experienced editor. As such, you should obviously be aware of what constitutes good editing practices. Your recent edits have been nothing short of disruptive; goading others, and outright trolling. If you honestly wanted to contribute in a constructive manner, you would not be inserting your edits in threads in the provocative manner in which you have. I decline your request for unblock. Please take some time to rethink your approach to editing here, and return with a more positive and productive effort.}} — Ched : ? 03:02, 12 December 2009 (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.
66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see my response on the bottom of the page. You completely misunderstood my intentions. With [6], I was trying to comfort the editor by joking with him about how ridiculous his stalker was acting. With [7], I was simply asking a question that I felt had significant importance to the issue at hand.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2009 (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.
66.177.73.86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Alright, I understand how some of my comments could be misconstrued as insults. It was never my intent to be obnoxious or insulting, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm sorry for any disruption I may have caused, and will try to be extra-careful about what I say from now on.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 10:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
Considering your level of disruption and block log, I am surprised it's just 2 weeks. I would have unblocked if this wasn't a re-occuring issue with you. You can make another request after a week, as you continue to make requests over and over which wastes admin resources. NJA (t/c) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (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.