User talk:193.172.170.26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Artwork request 2 3RR on Talk:Main Page 3 Block? 4 KPN 5 Block until 1 September 2009 please

[edit] Artwork request

I just wanted to say that Talk:Main Page is probably not the right place to make such a request. Even the article talk page is probably too limited. Looking at the Wikipedia:Community portal, you might want to try the Wikipedia:Bounty board (if you want to give a monetary prize) or the Wikipedia:Reward board. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Talk:Main Page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Main Page. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Cunard (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please follow the instructions of Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) and discontinue posting notices that are unrelated to the main page. Also, please don't call good faith editors trolls as you did here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop spamming people's talk pages or you'll be blocked --Chris 09:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not spamming, just asking nicely! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're sending unsolicited messages to a large group of people, that is spam --Chris 09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is for a good cause, Chris, it really is! Do you perhaps know someone artistic who could help me, or could you yourself? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to pay someone try the WP:Reward board or WP:Bounty board but if you continue spamming I will block you --Chris 09:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I already tried both. Thanks anyway - I hope I'll get response soon! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block?

It looks to me like you were asked to stop, several times, and were even warned that continued postings might lead to your being blocked. That being the case, do you have anything to add to your unblock request? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I am sorry for what I. block me from editing if you want to - I can understand it. But please make it a shorter block - one month is just to long. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that going straight from 31 hours to 1 month is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Does seem like a rather long block, agreed. Tentatively favor reducing, absent some reason not to. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As one of the random users whose talk page was assaulted, and looking at the general history (including warnings and a previous ban), the ban seems justified. They admit "repeated disruptive editing" above, after all. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the spam in question, and having noted warnings given I feel that a one month block is wholly reasonable. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The posts were wholly inappropriate, but were not rude or offensive in any way. Would support reducing the block to one week if the user promises not to engage in spamming in the future. Martin 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked once and did not change his behavior. Why do you think he would now? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot ask for unblock - I can, however, ask for someone to shorten the block. I know now I've done some bad edits, but I have never been rude and always stayed polite. You could shorten the bann - a month is very long, what about making it a week? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Polite" disruption is still disruption. You could spend the next 30 days usefully, by studying all the wikipedia policies, so that you'll be thoroughly schooled in the right and wrong ways to work here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done that already. I know what to do and what not to. Just unblock me soon, let it be a week, a month really is to long. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone unblocks, please take Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi in consideration. It seems obvious from behaviour (editing pattern) that this IP is the same user. Fram (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is my editing pattern similar to theirs? Oh, and I admitted that my behaviour was inappropriate at times and asked not to be unblocked - I just asked for someone to shorten the block. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, editing Touch the Clouds, Shibboleth, Pier Gerlofs Donia, Talk:Main Page, creating improper redirects[1], ... All coincidences, probably...

Here is what I have to say: this IP adress is a shared one and is used on a Dutch school in Groningen. It is operated by KPN and shared with many computers. Many students aswell as teachers operate it. It is very well possible one of them is a vandal. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep the block length where it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. But when this IP adress is really used by disruptive vandals, then block those for a long period after this IP adress block expires - then closely monitor new editors using this IP-adress. Which users have used this IP-adress? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To demonstrate some good faith, you could propose some edits here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? What edits should I propose here? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're saying a month is too long, so you must have some edits in mind. Present some of your ideas for edits here, so we could see if there's any justification for shortening the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is one: I plan on writing an article on Frisian writer and author J.Kalma. How's that? And I am searching for pictures of William Gentles in old archives.193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You could post the article concept here. And you can search for anything you want. Blocking only stops editing, not reading. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But it does stop me from uploading files when I find them now does it? I guess I'd better join commons then. Oh, and a user called Fram is trying to link the IP adress to long term vandals. If one of those editors has been using this IP, then what? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KPN

{{help|This IP is operated by KPN. It is used by a school and has probably been used by several users. If wikipedia thinks banning the particular users that has caused trouble we can only agree. When wikipedia blocks this entire IP from editing however, that is something we cannot agree on. There have to be people who edit from this IP adress in good faith and blocking this IP adress would not be to their benefit nor would it be any good to wikipedia. Besides that, banning the IP adress would only mean the trolls would start editing from their home adress and thus continue vandalism. Why do you think this is a good way to solve vandalism? An eye for an eye? Let's kill the family because otherwise one of its members might do us some harm? This is not the middle ages, oh my science! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Legitimate editors should be able to create named user ID's. Then they could edit while the IP remains blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How does one do that? How do you mean? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot discern between good and bad editors coming from an IP that is shared. As Baseball Bugs points out, anyone willing to contribute can simply create (or request, see the message at the top of this page) an account and edit with it. This block affects only anonymous editors. Thank you for the information though, it means we can change the template above. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I hereby request an account. The thing is: can I still edit with the account I will create from this blocked IP-adress? Oh, and what does a soft-block mean precisely? I mean: blocking a IP for a month after the last block has been just 31 hours is harsh and not "soft" in any way, agreed? I want to have a account called "School admin2", could you make me such an account? 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can still edit from this blocked IP as long as you have an account. A soft block means that registered users are not affected by a block to their IP but anonymous users are blocked. You can create an account by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Request an account page. Thank You Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the most important question is: is this IP under soft block or under a normal block? I mean, if I would want to create a account right now could I do that? I mean, from my IP? I'll try right away then! 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this IP is normally blocked, which means account creation is prevented from it. You need to use the way described above, which is quite fast as well but does not allow vandals to easily evade blocks like it. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I'll take a look. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block until 1 September 2009 please

There have been no edits from this IP but edits by Jouke Bersma (or whatever the "real" identity is) for at four months. There is no evidence that this is a shared school IP at all, and even if it is a school IP, it is not used by anyone but our vandal sock. This is a desperate ploy to be able to continue the trolling, not a genuine school admin who suddenly pops up. I have changed the template back, since there is no evidence at all that this is really a school IP. This IP has less than 100 edits, and all edits between september and now are by the same user: the first edit after five months of inactivity was this[2], Pier Gerlofs Donia related. The last edit, December 10[3], was to the Donia article. The restof the edits inbetween match the same pattern. If this is a school IP, then it is a school IP dedicated to one person (like, a computer on a student's room where the internet access is provided by the school). Blocking it until early next september is probably the best solution. Fram (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be 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. [WHOIS · RBLs · Traceroute · Geolocate · Tor check · Rangeblock finder · Global Blocks] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]