47.16.99.72

March 2020

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

47.16.99.72 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

Since there is no global CheckUser, how were they able to find that I would be connected to User: Gale5050? Also, if I did global lock evade, wouldn't the IP be eligible for a global block?47.16.99.72 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request denied. However, other wish granted: global block applied. Operator873^talkconnect 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Because of this diff where you edited a comment from Gale5050 and you also edited multiple pages that Gale5050 edited. So a CheckUser would not even be needed IMO. --Examknow^talk 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I completely forgot. 47.16.99.72 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC) So honestly should I just take it down @Examknow:? 47.16.99.72 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop editing. Don't use any more IPs. Don't create another account. Go play a video game, go outside, anything that isn't editing Wikipedia, because you have a globally locked account, multiple blocked IPs, and you're causing a lot of disruption. Vermont (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: ok first of all, if you want to decline, just decline. Second of all, how was adding trivial changes disruptive? Maybe not helpful, but I did fix up some articles, notably I-95. Third of all, if I did global lock evade, then wouldn’t the IP be eligible for a GLOBAL block? Just saying.

Warmest regards,

47.16.99.72 (talk)

15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are globally blocked now. Appeal is well moot now.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)