User talk:87.189.65.193

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:
This IP address, 87.189.65.193, is registered to Deutsche Telekom. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact Deutsche Telekom to report abuse, which can be done here. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Deutsche Telekom, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to U-Drop Inn, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You didn't make any edits except to remove the bullet (inappropriately) and remove a needed spacer. So stop reverting. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to U-Drop Inn. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on U-Drop Inn. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stop messing up the format of this article. You didn't do any actual clean up, only mess up the proper formatting, so stop it already. Collectonian (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to U-Drop Inn, you will be blocked from editing. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Blocked
You have been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring and disruptive behavior. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This block has been extended to a full 24 hours for the use of another IP to make this edit to my talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it's 48. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this 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 request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Block was for personal reasons; edit warring as a reason is ruled out because the other editor remains unblocked."

Decline reason: "As you clearly keep using other IPs to avoid your block, I see no reason to unblock. — IrishGuy talk 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I have now rangeblocked 87.189.0.0/16 for 72 hours to prevent further sockpuppetry and abusive behavior. I am sorry to the Deutsche Telekom customers this may inconvenience, but this is the way it has to be.

To other reviewing admins: This starts with this user making this minor "cleanup" edit to U-Drop Inn. The removal of the bullet was inconsistent with WP:EL guidelines; the removal of the spacer resulted in what User:Collectonian considered undesirable changes in the formatting near the end of the article. While I, personally, think the whitespace it created is the greater of two evils, the IP refused to discuss this on the talk page, preferring to continue to revert. He claimed that other changes he made were being destroyed by the bulleting, presumably referring to the spacer, but refused to stop and discuss this with Collectonian, reverting again and again and again. Finally he made a talk page post — to Collectonian, implying a 3rr violation. He reverted again and complained Collectonian was being disruptive.

Since Collectonian had complained via edit summary about the IP's changes, the IP should have explained them on the talk page as Collectonian was clearly annoyed with them. A user who continues edits that another user has objected to without explaining them, fully aware of the other user's objections, is being disruptive. Therefore, contrary to this IP's assertion, Collectonian did not need to be blocked as he was reverting disruptive edits. The initial edits, on which the two users could have reached a compromise or understanding, were covered by AGF; the later ones were not.

This IP's attitude also presented in not only the use of dynamic IP to circumvent the block, but this comment, which suggests a disregard for the block and indeed Wikipedia policy as a whole. Responsible editors understand that they must appeal a block through proper channels, dynamic IP or not. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)