User talk:12.111.29.12

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The accusation of block evasion is simply false; any checkuser will clearly show that there cannot be a match with Edward, because he's in Asia. And even a quick glance at my writing and Edward's makes it clear that we're different people; I couldn't write like him if I tried. As for meatpuppetry, I'm really not sure how that could apply, since users are banned for their actions, not their views, and I've only supported (some of) Edward's views, not his legal threats or insults. For that matter, "disruptive conduct" is not particularly clear, so I'm not sure what to say about it. What I do know is that the explanation for this block is either mistaken or incomplete, and that the duration of of the block -- THREE MONTHS for a first offense -- is extremely excessive. Even edit warriors and outright vandals get blocked for a day, not a week, or a month, much less a quarter of a year. Worse, the block affects hundreds of innocent people who share this IP, so it's overkill. Keep in mind that the block doesn't actually stop me at all, since I could simply choose to edit from home instead of the office. All it does is hurt my coworkers. I suggest that this block be removed, with "time served" being sufficient punishment for whatever unclearly explained diruptive conduct there might have been. I think there is more benefit in explaining the behavior is that is considered disruptive than in long-term punishments that serve only to alienate potential contributors due to collateral damage. - Bert 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Your attacks against other editors are unacceptable. That's the disruptive conduct, and that's why you're not getting unblocked. Blocks are not put in place for punishment, they are put in place to stop disruptive editors from continuing their activities. Therefore, you're not going to get off on "time served". — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The issue isn't whether my behavior is flawless, but whether the punishment fits the crime. A first-time blatant vandal could expect a 24-hour block. Can you honestly say that what I did deserves three months? If so, then explain 69.121.221.174, who edited the same article with a similar viewpoint but was much less gentle than I was. This person was not summarily banned for months, but was instead the subject of an RFC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/69.121.221.174) which seeks to place a one-week block. A week sort of makes sense, especially with due process, but three months for doing less is entirely out of line. Can you justify your harsh treatment of me as compared to 69.121.221.174? If not, I ask that you immediately remove the ban and file an RFC against me so that I have a forum in which to defend myself."

Decline reason: "Its not a question of defending yourself. You have left several comments which attack other editors in a way which is clearly indefensable. Additionally, you have clearly edit warred over the Ayn Rand article for a long time, and show no signs that you intend to stop. Indeed, you have made several indications, in your edit summaries, that you have no intention of stopping. At this point, your only recourse would have been to assure us that such behavior would not occur in the future. Since you show no sign of stopping your incivility or your tendentious editing, this IP address is to remain blocked in order to protect the encyclopedia and its editors from the sort of disruption you have heaped upon it. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This endless block is your error in judgement, but unlike you, I do care if innocent people are affected by my actions. Therefore, I'm not going to edit any part of Wikipedia from this IP ever again, which removes pretense that your block in any way protects Wikipedia."

Decline reason: "OK. When someone who isn't incivil, tendentious, and abusive acts for this IP to unblocked, we'll consider it. Meanwhile, bye. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "One admin said that my "only recourse would have been to assure us that such behavior would not occur in the future". I have made this assurance, and then some. Unblock this IP and I will never edit from it again. You made an offer and I accepted it. If you see further edits to Ayn Rand, feel free to assume it's me and block it. But unblock it now so that nobody else is punished."

Decline reason: "If there are other users using this IP address, they can request an account. No more unblock requests, please, or this page will be protected from editing. You will not be unblocked. — Rjd0060 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Yeah, that's a pretty empty threat, so go ahead and block all you like. It doesn't matter. The reality is that this IP belongs to a workplace, so the block in no way affects my ability to just go home and change whatever I like. For the most part, the edit history is full of other people fixing typos while reading articles over lunch. Such casual editing means that nobody is going to log in to their Wikipedia accounts, even if they had them. In short, the block utterly fails to affect the intended target and succeeds only in harming innocent people, likely turning them off to Wikipedia by showing them how harsh and arbitrary the admins are. Good going. Now you can pat each other on your collective neo-fascist shoulders and passive-aggressively block this page. If you want to be real dicks, you can blank it first, so that people have to go into the history to see how unjust you are. The choice is yours; you've already made laughing stocks out of the notion of Wikipedia impartiality. Whatever you do, your own history feature will enshrine it forever."

Decline reason: "First, similar edits from your home account will just get it blocked as well. Second, although we probably won't, we can remove it from the history as well. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.