User talk:71.3.234.41

Blocked

This IP has been blocked, as it appears to be in use by a banned user to evade his block. You may contest this block by following the instructions here. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 12 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Someone will have to explain how one can be blocked from participation in arbitration of a controversy created by other editors. Is that really the policy? Also, there is no explanation as to why the un-named user (who allegedly is evading a ban) was banned and no links to the alleged ban itself. Such a swift block and such a lack of evidence that a block is even approrpriate. What is the basis for any of this? How is participating in discussions on talk pages tendentious editing, when the information discussed in the talk pages is all based on pointing out compliance and violations of wikipedia policies and on reliable sources? The article is not even being edited. How is this edit anything but an attempt to ensure that there is a quality article that is in accord with wikipedia policies?

Decline reason:

A block is just that - a total block of editing except one page - the user's own talk page (which is the only page that a blocked user can access, mainly to ask for unblock or sometimes to ask others to copy text to arbitration pages). Editing as an IP while blocked is pure and simply block evasion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Who is blocked? Where is the evidence? How is that tied to me? This IP was not blocked when I made the edits today that supposedly violate something. Please explain. The admninistrator has cited no connection to any block that has been violated.

Decline reason:

This is a request for further information, not a request for an unblock, so of course it is declined. However, before declining it, I spent a significant amount of time checking the relevant history, and I have confirmed that you are clearly a banned user. We are under no obligation to publicise the evidence, and sometimes there are very good reasons for not doing so, such as denying the ban-evading person information which would help them to hide the nature of their activity in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2011 (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.

Is there an AN/I?DMSBel (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is one editor, the initial block was for opening a few new talk page sections in a row. It was a minor annoyance to a few editors. It was either 24 or 48 hours. The editor did not realise a subsequent block applied to a talk page too. The block was not as wide as a total block as far as I recall. There seems to be some confusion here about blocks/bans. What a block is, what a ban is, what each covers, whether there is a ban or a block on the IP? It strikes me as understandable that the IP would not be sure what he can edit and that has more to do with poorly enacted sanctions in the first place lacking sufficient explanation. The source of the problem (as far leaving things open to misunderstanding is concerned) therefore seems to be administrative in origin. Frankly, although there was minor breach in talk page etiquette, things have become blown way out of proportion in terms of sanctions. I would ask the IP to be patient till the matter is resolved, and not edit outside scope of the block once that is made clearer, and for its duration. In my experience with this IP they have been civil and responsive to polite appeals on those occasions when they breached etiquette. It might be circumspect in this instance to tidy the matter up and let the IP return to the discussion, with the proviso that they also be mindful of etiquette. Also that they would let editors know in the future if they edit on a different IP. The amount of disruption caused by this editor was really quite minimal when compared to other past incidents on wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When will you understand that an uninvolved administrator has forbidden you to edit Talk:Abortion? Disagree with it if you want, but the ban will be enforced until it is overturned. NW (Talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• The block has been restored, as you have continued with the same abuse as before. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...and now includes the talk-page, as it has merely been used as a continuation of disruptive behavior. DMacks (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again

Since this IP apparently continues to be used by the same banned editor to beat the same dead horse, it has been re-blocked. Please see the guide to appealing blocks should you wish to appeal this block. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Its really funny to observe you deleting information that exposes your POV disruptive editing. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since you have used talk page access to post extended material to promote your opinions about abortion, which is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page, talk page access has been removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I will never ever stop. I will do all I can to ensure that the abortion page is accurate and fair. I will never stop trying to edit that page or influence its content. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)