User talk:147.143.95.23

YOLO!

Blocked

• You may not advise people to block evade.
• Stop following around my edits and leaving unconstructive advice.

You are blocked for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. :]

Have you considered you might be burning out? Maybe you should consider taking a wikibreak? (seriously I am really puzzled and I noticed your talk page says your patience is short atm, am trying to be reasonable here!)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

not sure i fully understand what it is that is happening here. care to explain someone? - is this punitive? a punishment? to disparage me?147.143.95.23 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2014 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: This person is a an IP-hopper I've been dealing with for a week or so now. I initially blocked him for personal attacks and 3RR violations. After a day's worth of block evading, vandalism, and tantrums, he stopped for a week. But this past weekend, an editor asked me to look into their edits. After giving a warning to the IP, he started with the tantrums again. After saying I'm done arguing them, he's now going around leaving unconstructive comments on the talk pages where I discuss blocks, including a recommendation to block evade. Pretty certain this IP is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You've blown this all out of proportion Sergecross73, this is personal and you are abusing your position as admin. Don't worry, I'll reply to this properly later when I reopen the appeal and show everything you are twisting out of proportion.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive. So to be clear:

1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case.

2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened.

3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted?

Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably.

147.143.95.23 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (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=I am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive. So to be clear: 1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case. 2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. 3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably. [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 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 appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive. So to be clear: 1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case. 2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. 3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably. [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 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 appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive. So to be clear: 1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case. 2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. 3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably. [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Not the blocking admin, but comments such as this are problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It was an observation and I thought I was referring to something which is generally common knowledge, it was really not my intention to encourage someone to block avoid. This is the internet, so I would have been more direct if that was my intention. I guess I can see how it might be interpretable as that, but that requires going beyond what was actually said.

Thanks for the comment.

• Actually re-reading I see what you mean, but it wasn't supposed to be meant as actual advice! But I see how it can be seen as subversive.