User talk:64.150.0.1

warning

Please stop removing content from our site, blanking pages, and inserting obscenities and nonsense. These actions are all considered to be vandalism. If you continue making unconstructive edits, this IP address will be blocked from editing. --Nephele 12:24, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Apology

I am sorry for the trouble I caused earlier. I find it interesting that you seem to assume I am a spam bot, or that a machine is posting random long numbers. Once again, sorry.

If the shoe fits. 50 destructive edits in 10 minutes - either you're using a bot or you knew full well what you were doing. Either way, it's still vandalism. And don't think anyone is going to fall for this phony "apology". Your edits have been nothing but destructive, and that type of behavior is simply not acceptible. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 10:17, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Busted, i guess. this is a shared ip. don;t block everyone because of me.

I understanfd if it must be blocked, but just cause i n00b dont mean everyone else not 1337, so pl3as3 dont block because of the n00b.

Given the extent of the vandalism done by this IP address (without a single constructive edit ever being done) I think that this block is fully warranted. Any users of this IP address are still free to browse the UESP wiki. If there are other users of this IP who would like to make constructive edits to the wiki, I suggest that those users post any suggestions on this talk page, or email any of the admins on the site with any edits they would like to see made. If this leads to evidence that there are indeed users at this IP address who are interested in making constructive contributions to the wiki, then the possibility of other actions can be discussed. Until then, I see no need to undo this block. --Nephele 13:55, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Gotta say this guy is almost amusing... (LOL) Spamming the site with an "I am not spamming message." Pretty ridiculous! Then claiming a shared ip for an ip where reverse IP won't even resolve to an address, and posting a bogus "I'm not him!" message. Right. Pull the other one. --Wrye 14:20, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Aggreed. Look at the messages, it almost looks like he is trying to sound like a different person (first one is all perfect grammer, second one is entirely made up of numbers and lacks capatilization and proper spelling). Even if you are under a "shared ip" (and this seems like a lie, I really doubt it), I don't think you deserve an unblock, since other users can still full well read the wiki. If they are willing to make proper edits, have them create a username at their home/library/office (whereever they are currently not). They can edit if they log in, and they can be eaisly blocked if they (read you) make more edits like your first one. Lurlock might have been a bit harsh with his accusations (although he said what we all were thinking), but if you truely ment to apologise and didn't know where to post or something, you should have at least used your common sense and not posted nonsensicly on hundreds (well, about 50) pages. Someone might forgive you, if you say, blanked a single page and replaced it with the message, but no one will forgive these edits. I probably wrote too much, since you might be a bot and never read this (although odd choice of spamming for a bot). PS: Your IP server blocks pings, but as far as the traceroute goes, it looks like you live in Chicago, which means I might have seen you (then again, in a city of 3 million, maybe not) or even know you. -- Dylnuge(talk · edits) 20:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Block

Thanks for apologizing. However, you have to understand that we have rules on the wiki, some are written down and some are just common sense. Nephele warned you that blanking pages with obsenities and nonsense was against the rules, and that doing so was considered to be vandalism. Nevertheless, you vandalised the site again with your apology message, knowing full well that you would be blocked from editing.

I have therefore blocked your IP address for two weeks, effective today. Should you continue making unconstructive edits, we will indefinitely block your IP address and report your illegal activities to your internet service provider. --Aristeo | Talk 14:04, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Addendum: It looks like Daveh already beat me to the block, and he made it indefinite. If you can promise to make only good edits from now on, you can make a request for being unblocked on this talk page, which you can still edit while being blocked. --Aristeo | Talk 14:12, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Nice Tries, but I read The Comments

Sorry for everything I did, and the comments were harsh. Sorry again. Is there still a chance for redemption? 64.150.0.1 14:43, 4 December 2006 (EST)

I am truely sorry. I was trying to appologize, but did not know where to do this. Even now that I know of this page's existance, I still find it hard to find. Thanks. 64.150.0.1 15:32, 5 December 2006 (EST)

I initiated a topic on the Administrator Noticeboard about whether or not you should be able to apologize to the community and request parole. I am protecting this userpage until or unless the community decides to support your request. If or when they decide to support your request, I will unprotect your user page and explain to you the circumstances that you will be bound under. Should you accept these terms, I will unblock your account so that you can address the proceedings. Keep in mind that if you decide to vandalise the wiki or abuse the site in any way, shape, or form, your actions will likely be reported to your internet service provider. Information about you is currently being compiled at User:64.150.0.1/Info. --Aristeo | Talk 01:24, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Just got blocked out of IRC?

I can't get back into IRC. Aristeo was about to tell me something. Please post it here. 64.150.0.1 16:02, 18 December 2006 (EST)

"I highly recommend that you respect the community decision and the ban and refrain from editing all aspects of the site, even your talk page." Unprotecting this page is not an invitation for you to edit this talk page, it's to allow all the people who were affected by your block to request editing permissions. We unanimously agreed that this IP should not be unblocked due to the history of misuse with Wikipedia. --Aristeo | Talk 16:12, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Back on Wikipedia., and Not Happy

64.150.0.1 had his/her ban lifted a few weeks ago, and made a few edits today (I was looking in the edit history, just curious). Of course, since the block was listed, he has been back to editing again. However, what I found interesting, was particularily one edit, here. Also, the evidence here points to the fact that this user is not lying about being behind a shared IP. Note the edit dates. Tons of vandalism on weekdays, but next to none on weekends. Also, even though the user was unblocked in december, no vandalism until yesterday. Yesterday is also the day, here in Chicago (which is where the ip address traces to), when public schools re-opened from winter break. All of it seems to make sense (edits rarely occur after 4:00, CST, and don't start until around 9:00, and during that time, they are constant, and few people would have the patiance to constantly barrage wikipedia all day long.) However, even though it looks like it is a shared IP, I would still guess that the UESP vandel was a single person. Note that the page blanking, happened twice today, the second time with the UESP message above. However, most other vanadalism is adding nonsence, not page blanking. The school theory is also supported by the first part of the message ("Remember, No Wikipedia Use for School Articles").

I believe that based on this evidence, we should not unblock the user (the chances of reciving barrage from all of his/her friends is quite possible, and we can't handle that.) However, it is no lie that this user is behind a shared IP (but why is is masked). -- Dylnuge(talk · edits) 17:32, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Not to mention the personal attack on Aristeo (which could be construed as a death threat), who was the one that exposed his Wikipedia record here, which was largely responsible for us not lifting his ban in the first place. I still think we did the right thing on this one. It might even be worth reporting this incident to the Wikipedia admins as well, so that they're aware that this user isn't just attacking their site but others as well. It's possible that if there are enough complaints, an investigation might be called to prevent further such attacks. Anybody know the correct way to go about doing this? --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 18:19, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Concured. Although I would not go as far as to consider the attack on Aristeo a death threat. Either way, if it is a school, there is no way to complain (Could be over 1000 students here in Chicago). Kids running amok under anon addresses. Not a huge deal. We stopped it, Wikipedia can deal with it (and they never permanant ban), no huge issue. There are thousands of vandals, going out of the way to eliminate one is out of the question. 24.13.6.251 18:26, 9 January 2007 (EST)

My anonomus login was not intentional. Sorry, now logged in. -- Dylnuge(talk · edits) 18:27, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Go away, all of you. This is a shared IP. 64.150.0.1 10:50, 11 January 2007 (EST)

On wikipedia, there are no permenant bans!!!! Why do you do this? I will not stand down! At least unblock the ip in a few years, or a few months, or something. Please!!!!~!!!!!!!!!! WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED IN IRC????????????????????