User talk:24.61.9.111: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:19, 4 March 2014

Shared dynamic IP address

This IP address, 24.61.9.111, is part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses and is likely a sticky dynamic IP attached to a school or public facility served by Comcast Cable in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Applying an indefinite block to this IP is not appropriate, unless it is a soft block, because the IP address will eventually be reallocated to a different, unrelated, and unsuspecting user, thereby impairing access to Wikipedia in an inappropriate fashion. However, long-term blocks may still be imposed.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. Sometimes, in response to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to create an account.

In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.

Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocking an IP for one year is punitive and way beyond what policy allows. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No it isn't. Granted, going from two weeks to a year is a big step, but that's within administrative discretion. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (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 blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

24.61.9.111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Punitive in every way. Are you sure you want to block a dynamically assigned IP address for a full year? Absurd. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As Daniel noted, you're very wrong. You've shown no indication that upon release of a block of any length that the disruption will cease, so one would argue that a longer block is far more effective - even longer than one year.

Given your ample opportunity to convince administrators that your disruption will not continue, but you have in no way done so, I am revoking talk page privileges for a while - especially since you keep repeating the same argument for your unblocking and continuing to waste administrators' time. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been prevented from editing this page for a period of time.

Please unblock me. I am sorry.

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).

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

Request reason:

This IP has been blocked for over eight months. I sincerely apologize for the previous bad acts and promise they shall not be repeated. I respectfully ask for this IP to be unblocked. Thank you. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The disruption appears to go back far longer, with little convincing track record here, either. --slakr^\ talk / 10:34, 26 February 2014 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am not the user you cited above. Please unblock this account so that I may productively contribute to Wikipedia. I promise there will be no instances of rules violations. Thank you. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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=I am not the user you cited above. Please unblock this account so that I may productively contribute to Wikipedia. I promise there will be no instances of rules violations. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/24.61.9.111|24.61.9.111]] ([[User talk:24.61.9.111#top|talk]]) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (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=I am not the user you cited above. Please unblock this account so that I may productively contribute to Wikipedia. I promise there will be no instances of rules violations. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/24.61.9.111|24.61.9.111]] ([[User talk:24.61.9.111#top|talk]]) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (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=I am not the user you cited above. Please unblock this account so that I may productively contribute to Wikipedia. I promise there will be no instances of rules violations. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/24.61.9.111|24.61.9.111]] ([[User talk:24.61.9.111#top|talk]]) 07:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Having spent some time examining various relevant evidence, I am unconvinced that you are not the person whose behaviour led to the block. Nevertheless, whether that is so or not, I am willing to consider the possibility of unblock if you can indicate what editing you are hoping to do if unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet sure which specific articles, but I was hoping to do some general editing for prose, grammar, and flow among random articles. Nothing special, just general low-level editing. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:57, 3 March 2014 edit JBW (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 195,223 edits →Please unblock me. I am sorry.: Request for further information relating to unblock request. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:19, 4 March 2014 edit undo 24.61.9.111 (talk) →Please unblock me. I am sorry. Next edit →
Line 55:		Line 55:

	:Having spent some time examining various relevant evidence, I am unconvinced that you are not the person whose behaviour led to the block. Nevertheless, whether that is so or not, I am willing to consider the possibility of unblock if you can indicate what editing you are hoping to do if unblocked. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson\|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top\|talk]]) 10:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)		:Having spent some time examining various relevant evidence, I am unconvinced that you are not the person whose behaviour led to the block. Nevertheless, whether that is so or not, I am willing to consider the possibility of unblock if you can indicate what editing you are hoping to do if unblocked. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson\|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top\|talk]]) 10:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
			::I'm not yet sure which specific articles, but I was hoping to do some general editing for prose, grammar, and flow among random articles. Nothing special, just general low-level editing. [[Special:Contributions/24.61.9.111\|24.61.9.111]] ([[User talk:24.61.9.111#top\|talk]]) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)