User talk:1.144.108.193

Unblock request (June 2019)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Block of an excessively wide range of IP addresses (User:1.144.108.0/22) by User:Sasquatch with insufficient justification — actually, I cannot find any explicit justification specific to this block — causing a large amount of collateral damage. I also had a quick look through the recent contributions from in this blocked range, and I did not notice any that were obviously disruptive. Any action as drastic as a range block — which WP policy says should be a last resort, to be avoided if at all possible, in order to uphold the core principle that Wikipedia be editable by all, without account registration being required — requires substantial justification. A glib or knee-jerk response does not suffice. —DIV (1.144.108.193 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)) By the way, the block message on this user's page seemed to get 'lost' after I 'created' the talk page in order to add the {{shared IP}} template.

Decline reason:

There has indeed been a considerable amount of disruptive editing from this range, as explained by JamesBWatson below, and the range is appropriate given the distribution pattern of the IPs involved. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2019 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The best thing to do to avoid this sort of problem is to create an account(using WP:UAA if necessary) or wait it out but I am curious as to the reason for the block. Pinging Sasquatch. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If you "had a quick look through recent contributions from in this blocked range" and "did not notice any that were obviously disruptive" then you don't have much idea as to what is and what isn't considered disruptive. When I checked the editing history I immediately saw persistent edit-warring, and just a little more checking revealed significant violations of the policy on biographies of living persons, and also some other, more minor, problems, such as persistently adding unsourced content to articles. It is not an "excessively wide" range, as disruptive editing clearly from one person has occurred spread across the range. As for "a large amount of collateral damage", the substantial majority of recent edits from the range have been from disruptive editors, so the proportion of collateral damage is small. Of course any collateral damage, however small in quantity, is undesirable, but we have to weigh it against the benefits of a block. Having said all that, there is one aspect of the block that I am not so sure about, and that is its length. The edit-warring was restricted to a period of a couple of days, and other disruptive editing seems, as far as I can see, to be sporadic, interspersed amongst constructive edits, so I don't see any justification for a block of more than a few days. Since the block has now been in place for nine days, that means that I can't see any reason not to unblock, but I will allow more time to give Sasquatch, the blocking administrator, a chance to comment, in case she or he has justifications for such a long block that I haven't seen. I hope this can be settled one way or the other soon, and I hope you can be patient for a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: @JamesBWatson: There was an IP hopping disruptive editor that moved to this range after disruptive editing on Special:Contributions/1.129.108.0/22. In retrospect, I agree the block should have been made shorter. I will unblock the range. Sasquatch t|c 18:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jackie Mason. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CrazyBoy826 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jackie Mason, you may be blocked from editing. CrazyBoy826 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---