User talk:46.37.55.80

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for disruptive editing, including personal attacks and probable socking. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

December 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Larry Ellison.[1] Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Blitzkrieg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Hohum ^@) 01:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked for complaining when someone falsely accused me of vandalism.[2] An administrator deleted the complaint,[3] and accused me of "resumption of disruptive editing on the same subject". Presumably they are referring to Blitzkrieg, where I made an edit which I clearly described the reason for in edit summaries and on the talk page. I'd love to know how this is so disruptive as to require a six month block on an IP address. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for returning to the same dispute for which you were blocked for three months in August. If you pledge to avoid the subject and the editor with whom you appear to have a grudge, I am willing to lift the block. Not otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never previously edited Blitzkrieg. I was not involved in any dispute about it in August, let alone blocked. I do not have a grudge against any editor, though I am of course extremely angry to firstly be falsely accused of vandalism and then blocked for complaining about it. So please explain what the hell you're talking about. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I misread the history. The article has seen much disruption and sockpuppetry, with several disruptive editors making personal attacks. This IP has been the source of considerable disruption in the past year. However, given your productive editing elsewhere, I'll restore your DR post and remove the block, although I will note that you've been warned recently for personal attacks (or at least this IP has) and for edit-warring and are liable to be blocked if they recur. I offer my apologies, my caffeine has not yet had good effect. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. Where is the considerable disruption from this IP in the past year? If you're referring to edits I've made since yesterday, please explain which ones are disruptive. And obviously I'd love to know why I got warned for making two reverts while "Keith-264" is at liberty to revert three times and falsely accuse me of vandalism. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is allowed up to three reverts (though one should not count on it), and you haven't done a good job of making your case for your changes. The onus is on the proposer of the change to sustain it, and the benefit of the doubt is mainly given to the maintainer of the status quo. Blitzkreig has seen a great deal of disruption from a series of IPs over the past couple of years, people can be a little touchy. Please recognize that. An administrator was concerned that this IP was being used by a blocked user to avoid scrutiny back in August, so it's liable to get more attention. Registering an account makes it easier for us to keep track of who's done what. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a good job, by explaining in my edit summary and on the talk page what I did, and receiving no meaningful response? And that makes it OK for people to falsely accuse me of vandalism? You've referred several times now to August. There are no contributions for the whole of 2015 from this IP. So what are you talking about? Perhaps you are referring to the message at the top of the page that refers to August 2013. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am, and the style of edits from this IP approximates that of a community-banned editor who is known to use this IP. For now I'm willing to assume it's jot related, but it would be good to avoid some of their behaviors that have caused concern for other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 46.37.55.80. You have new messages at Wiae's talk page.
Message added 13:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

/wiae /tlk 13:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Blitzkrieg, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a cafe. Whoever was blocked is not here any more.

Decline reason:

Based on this IP's history, it's best it remains blocked. only (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

could you explain more why no-one who happens to be in this cafe should be able to edit an article? Looking at the history, no-one made any edits in all of 2015. So what is the history that you're referring to?

Decline reason:

We could hear the quacking from outside the cafe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:15, 2 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

when? 10 days ago?

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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2016 (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.

Hopefully Wikipedia can soldier on despite not accepting edits from anonymous users in a cafe in London, or Chile, or wherever they may roam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so you block locations where you think people you don't like might possibly go? whoever it was, is not here any more.

(1) One unblock at a time and (2) We block IPs that have been used abusively. Folks who have a genuine desire to edit constructively usually can find a way, whether it be via creating an account or logging in from places other than cafes and primary schools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I find it's best to ensure "account creation blocked" is not checked for these sort of blocks, as it makes appeals against innocent mistakes impossible. Indeed, I spotted one yesterday from the Royal Opera House that could be challenged by logging in and appealing. Given the unblock requests do not contain any of the usual phrases, such as "I've been blocked for no reason", the use of caps is different, and that the banned user does not go to any lengths to pretend to be someone else, I think this is collateral damage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:,@Ohnoitsjamie: The Whois information would tend to contradict the claim this is a Café, [4] Cerberus Networks supply cloud computing services. W C M_email 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie; I'm not as convinced as you are that this is collateral damage, but I'm not going to object to any modifications to the original block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I've turned off "block account creation" but left the block in place - that should give us the best balance. The BKFIP refuses to create an account on principle, so I think it's safe. If another user creates an account and screws around, we can just block that as and when. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a cafe; whoever you blocked is not 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).

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

Request reason:

this is a cafe; whoever you blocked is not here

Decline reason:

This cafe has frequently been used by a banned editor; as such, you'll need to create an account or edit from a different IP if you wish to contribute constructively. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 18 April 2016 (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:

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

Request reason:

would be nice if someone who has not made needless insults like "We could hear the quacking from outside the cafe" and "Hopefully Wikipedia can soldier on despite not accepting edits from anonymous users in a cafe" makes the decision here.

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=would be nice if someone who has not made needless insults like "We could hear the quacking from outside the cafe" and "Hopefully Wikipedia can soldier on despite not accepting edits from anonymous users in a cafe" makes the decision here. |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=would be nice if someone who has not made needless insults like "We could hear the quacking from outside the cafe" and "Hopefully Wikipedia can soldier on despite not accepting edits from anonymous users in a cafe" makes the decision here. |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=would be nice if someone who has not made needless insults like "We could hear the quacking from outside the cafe" and "Hopefully Wikipedia can soldier on despite not accepting edits from anonymous users in a cafe" makes the decision here. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.