| Revision as of 20:54, 23 December 2024 editSkywatcher68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,238 edits →Oy: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:56, 23 December 2024 edit undoYamla (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,821 edits →OyNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| You might want to check out the unblock discussion at User talk:2A00:23C8:D30A:4600:1C01:84D9:FD1F:15FA. Remarkable, for what I'm not exactly sure. –] (]) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | You might want to check out the unblock discussion at User talk:2A00:23C8:D30A:4600:1C01:84D9:FD1F:15FA. Remarkable, for what I'm not exactly sure. –] (]) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :]. --] (]) 20:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:56, 23 December 2024
Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges
175.107.216.70 is exhibiting the same behavior. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: This is one of those really kind and helpful block-evading editors, who do their best to make what they are doing as blindingly obvious as they can, by various clever little tricks such as making every one of their edits on pages previously edited by the blocked editor (apart from one talk page edit back in July). If I were evading a block I don't think I would do that. JBW (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Expired rangeblock needs renewal
Our uncommunicative friend at Special:Contributions/2600:8801:7180:7B00:0:0:0:0/64 has begun his disruption again after a year-long block expired. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Binksternet. I've blocked again for three years. I've also included in the block rationale a link to a talk page where I've posted a fairly long message about the background to the block. As you no doubt know, it can be very difficult to be sure that an editor using IPv6 addresses sees talk page messages, and while it's certain that this editor has seen at least the block rationales, it is possible that they have seen few, or even none, of the talk page messages.
- I've already thanked you for alerting me to this, and told you that I have acted on what you said. Nevertheless, I should like to mention that I don't like the way that you posted a series of templated warning messages at escalating levels on the latest talk page, without any further edits between those messages. I don't know what your reason for doing that was, but it doesn't seem constructive. I also don't see it as at all necessary; for an editor with such an extensive history of warnings and blocks it seems pointless to do anything less than tell them right away that they are likely to be blocked again immediately. (In that case it's a good idea to briefly mention the history of range blocks, not for the benefit of the problematic editor, but for the benefit of any administrator reviewing the case. I don't know how many times I've seen a perfectly good report at AIV declined by an administrator who checked only the history of the single IPv6 address reported, not the range.) JBW (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the action and the advice. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Oy
You might want to check out the unblock discussion at User talk:2A00:23C8:D30A:4600:1C01:84D9:FD1F:15FA. Remarkable, for what I'm not exactly sure. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)