| Revision as of 16:51, 22 December 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,330 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:JBW/Archive 84) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:34, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JBW/Archive 84) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| {{archive box | auto=yes }} | {{archive box | auto=yes }} | ||
| == Second opinion requested == | |||
| –] (]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Yes, {{U|HJ Mitchell}} is perfectly right; I see no reason to doubt that the editor believes that what they have been doing is improving articles, so it is not vandalism. However, vandalism or not, the editing is unacceptable, so I have blocked the /64 range. I find cases like this frustrating, because what we are dealing with is an editor who would long ago have been blocked, very likely indefinitely, had they been using an account, but because they are using IP editing, and especially because they are using an IPv6 range, they get away with it for years on end. It happens all the time. (The first warnings to this IP range were in July 2021.) ] (]) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. –] (]) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Could be. ] (]) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I considered a disruptive editing block but I went back to September and couldn't find any evidence that anyone had actually explained what the problem is. That should always, always be the first step. And @Skywatcher68 no, MoS violations are not vandalism. I strongly suggest you read ] before you make any more AIV reports. You'll find experienced editors who don't lnow about MOS:DATE so why would an IP? ] | ] 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges == | == Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges == | ||
Revision as of 16:34, 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)