184.189.217.210

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Alicia Machado. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nika de Hitch (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Zigzig20s. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for evading a previous block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This claim of "policy evasion" is nonsense ... there were no edits from this address since the previous warning, and I have no idea how to do such "evading" or what it would consist of. But then, neither do I care about this block ... I had no intention of editing over the next week or the foreseeable future. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I got no response to that comment, and I'm curious, I'm going to request an unblock. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There is no previous block to evade. There was no block on this IP address, and no edits were made by this IP address between the time of the warning above and the block, nor by the user of this IP address under any other guise. And while it is conceivable that that some other person received a block as a logged in user while using this dynamic IP address and then the IP address was reallocated to me and then the above warning was issued, that doesn't seem plausible given the time frame. So there was never any basis for this block. At the very least, the evasion block should specify what block is being evaded. As it is, it's a charge based on secret evidence. 184.189.217.210 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you don't care about this block, and since you have no intention of editing over the next week or the foreseeable future, there is not reason to unblock you. By the way, the block that is being evaded is clearly noted in the block log. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2016 (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.

By the way, the block that is being evaded is clearly noted in the block log -- Ok, I found an entry that refers to a user called "BatteryIncluded". I read the sockpuppet "investigation". This is the worst sort of illogical nonsense I've ever seen. I am not BatteryIncluded and my style is nothing like that person. The only "evidence" produced is that we both edited the same talk page and both made comments about the same editor. I had always thought that sockpuppet identification at Wikipedia was based on sophisticated technology, like tracking what IP addresses and locations users log in from (I have no idea where BatteryIncluded is, but I'll bet it's nowhere near me; I do know that he's not a native speaker of English, whereas it's all I speak, and my English is excellent, quite unlike his). But now I find out that it's just guesses by people with poor reasoning skills. What a sad education I've received. I will now know never to believe a sockpuppet identification at Wikipedia. And if I wanted to cause people trouble, all I would have to do is look at the block log and emulate blocked users!

Also, my previous comment about not caring and so on is not a legitimate basis for not removing the block ... that comment is history that preceded the request and is no longer operative. That is a cheap and lazy reason not to remove the block.

This sort of placing a block for bogus reasons and failing to remove it for bogus reasons discourages new editors and reinforces the worst perceptions of Wikipedia administration. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting NPA block of IP user. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Tom Petty. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

---