User talk:172.250.31.151

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 18:02, 31 October 2013 for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Millennials. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  v/r - TP 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I'm going to leave some advice for you in addition to the block notice. Wikipedia is a community and collaborative project. Fairness is biased toward the good of the encyclopedia. When your actions become disruptive, even if it's unfair to you, you're liable for a block. In this case, you became disruptive for failing to adhere to the advice of other editors. You became combative with other editors who were acting appropriately because you did not understand neither the de facto nor the de jure rules. You were given direct links to the written rules and advised on the unwritten ones. Your question was "If it's not in writing how would anyone know that?" People know it because when they break the rule, others teach them. You refused to listen when others tried to teach you. That's how folks know.--v/r - TP 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

block[edit]

hi,

I hesitate to make a categorical comment not knowing the full story, as the block discussion seems to have been suppressed. But, to me it seems rather heavy handed. On your part you could have tried to tone down the rhetoric, and stayed away from personal engagements with other editors. However annoying they may seem, it never ends well to get into personal conflicts. However, I have seen far more disruptive behaviour, and you seemed to be acting in good faith, so IMO it was not justified. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The block discussion was not suppressed. Please see [1] --NeilN talk to me 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

{

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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.

172.250.31.151 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

your reason here: At 18:02 it's been 24 hours, please unblock this IP immediately because Wikipedia "blocking policy" says "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks" -- not week long blocks. This is a first time block. The blocking policy says that blocking can occur under "disruptive behavior" for "gross incivility". But as Peregrine981 wrote above, the incident is clearly not "gross incivility" and was "not justified". The blocker went over the alotted 24 hours for a first time block. Wikipedia Blocking Policy: Under "duration of blocks" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BP 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The key word there being "typically" as opposed to "absolutely mandated in all cases." The blocking admin deliberately set the block length to exclude you from the remainder of the discussion you were disrupting, which is a perfectly acceptable use of administrative discretion. As that is the only reason you have provided for desiring to be unblocked your request is denied. If you appeal again you might want to consider addressing your own behavior instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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.

172.250.31.151 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

your reason here: First of all, I created the move request discussion on the Millennials talk page, and there is absolutely no evidence provided that I was disruptive there. Seriously, can you provide it please? You cant just make stuff up. The "double-vote" issue was not a double vote. I immediately honored the admins request to change it to "comment" instead. And it always read "Support (again)" anyway. I never deleted anyone other editor's comments from anywhere on the Millennial Generations talk page -- ever. I did however, insert some new comments that expanded the discussion. The new comments were needed because as time goes by there is new information that fits into -- and underneath -- another discussion thread. There is nothing wrong with that. Again, please provide any evidence of disruptive editing on the Millennial Generation's talk page. If you dont, then it does not bode well for Wikipedia's reputation as a fair venue that "anyone can edit". And it appears that a group of editors are trying to exclude people from the discussion using their own loose interpretation of Wikipedia's policy. And btw, Wikipedia will lose me as a volunteer and customer who has provided free, top-college educated, valuable content to this site.

Decline reason:

Your request essentially boils down to "I did nothing wrong" despite many editors (via talk pages and the ANI report) noting that your edits were indeed disruptive. This certainly implies that you would continue the same disruption should you be unblocked, and that is why your unblock request is denied. You would be well served to read the Guide to Appealing Blocks which would help you better understand why it is your appeals have been declined. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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.

172.250.31.151 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

your reason here: The original reason for the block was "disruptive edits at the Millennial Generation" talk page. So far, no admin has provided any evidence of a disruptive edit there. The second unblock request admin is off-point by declining because he/she brings up unrelated issue(s) to the original sanction. So unblock my IP or provide evidence. It's really not that difficult. Even the original blocker just wrote on another page that "There has been a recent spike at the administrator's noticeboards to skip the whole 'evidence' phase and move straight into mob rule." See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977&diff=579099825&oldid=579064761 In addition, Peregrine981 wrote that I seemed to be "acting in good faith, so the block was not justified". 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This IP address is not currently blocked. I won't waste my time explaining all the errors and inaccuracies in your complaints on this page, but I will just mention that an administrator who reviews an unblock request is expected to take into account all relevant facts, whether or not they were included in the original reason given for blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

As I said, provide any example of a disruptive edit from this IP on the Millennials' talk page. It's not a waste of time. I believe it's your responsibility as an admin. of this site. If all of you have declined to find any then obviously it doesn't exist. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)