User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may use this form to request a username. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of either form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

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

Request reason:

This IP address is used by all the public computers (more than 100 computers) at BAnQ. Users are limited to two hours per day. Many users use these computers because it is the only way they can access the Internet. Blocking this address will prevent many potential good-faith users from making useful edits; meanwhile the vandal may very well never use the BAnQ system at all for the next six years. I therefore respectfully request that this block be rescinded. Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter. (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the consensus of the admins reviewing the block below, as well as the follow-up information provided by the blocking admin, the unblock request is declined. Note that any editors on this IP are welcome to create an account at home, or request an account, if they would like to edit constructively. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:47, 29 October 2013 (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.

I've left a message for the blocking admin. Peridon (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I will leave the request up since you have asked the blocking admin to comment, but I would point out a few things. The sad fact is that schools and libraries are in fact the source of a large percentage of vandalism and other types of disruptive editing. And this particular address has in fact been and consistent source of disruptive editing for the several years, having been blocked numerous times between 2007 and now, so the logic doesn't really hold up. While it is true that the specific vandal who triggered this specific block may never return there is a very long history of vandalism and other disruptive edits from this IP. The block is set so that anyone with an account can still use this IP, so I would suggest that if you wish to contribute you register a account. It is free and totally confidential and offers many benefits that IP users cannot access. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I would normally have refused this unblock request without more ado, given that anyone who wishes to edit from BAnQ has only to create an account, which is a trivial usage of time and totally cost-free. But as the blocking admin has been asked to comment I will wait for any input he may choose to provide. Having said that, I recommend creating account if you really wish to edit here, as this IP has a long history of vandalism. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Long history, but sporadic. 24 hrs in 2007. A week a few months later. A month two years later, and then three months, for the same sockpuppeteer. Then, four years later, 31 hours and then -- six years? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to why my decline was reverted without any comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Very odd. I'm sure I just left a comment about contacting the blocking admin underneath an unanswered request. My apologies. I can't see how that happened. Peridon (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid making a nonsense of the preceding comments I have left the unblock request alone but am posting here the comment made by Reaper Eternal when he declined it.

  • "Almost all of the edits from this IP address have been outright vandalism or simply nonsensical for years. Given the unending disruption, this IP address is very unlikely to be unblocked in the foreseeable future. Anybody with an account can log in to edit, and those without accounts are welcome to create accounts at their houses. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)"
  • Agree with leave blocked, nearly all this IP's contribs are unproductive. Sorry this is just a case where, because of vandalism, the expectation of damage far outweighs the expectation of productive use, and any individual who intends to be productive can create an account. Zad68 16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Change the block period if there's a consensus, but leave the block for a significant time. Bad form, Peridon. JBW would've been free to modify their block in any way regardless of Reaper Eternal's action. Tiderolls 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a deliberate revert - I'm still trying to work out what happened. I wouldn't revert a decline on purpose - or an accept either. I must have cocked something up, but I can't see how or why. It was me what done it, though, even if I doesn't know how. <8-( Peridon (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please pardon me for misunderstanding your previous post; it appeared that your lack of comment was the source of your consternation. Thanks for your further explanation. Tiderolls 22:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer - 'comment' wasn't the best word to use. There's been something on VP Tech about people getting cached versions of pages - I'm wondering if that's what's happened here. I definitely don't remember seeing Reaper's decline until I looked back following his remark above. If I disagreed with a decline, I'd just encourage the blocked account to try again. I have reverted at least one acceptance, but that was because it was the user himself trying to unblock himself (and finding it wasn't quite that easy...) I had looked at the page before making my remark about contacting JBW, and in fact had already left him a query before my post here. Peridon (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)