91.96.24.241

I have not edited pages related to the conflict. I made a comment that a community banned user is socking at ITN. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi 91.96.24.241,

I was personally asked to deal with this at the Administrators' Noticeboard ([1]). Special:Diff/1115372414 is covered by the sanctions:

non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (WP:GS/RUSUKR)

You have contributed to an internal project discussion related to the topic area; please don't continue doing so. If you are concerned about sockpuppetry, instructions for filing a request (even if this would normally require creating a page) can be found at WP:SPI (click the "Show" link next to "How to open an investigation", then next to "If you are not autoconfirmed"). Alternatively, as the comment you had replied to was equally prohibited, you may like to make a request similar to 213.233.110.47's at WP:AN next time.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA at ITN/C

I absolutely do think it's LaserLegs, but these drive-by editors show up all the time, post under one IP address, and then vanish. I'm not sure if there's much we can do, as I don't know if the evidence is palpable enough to warrant reaching out to a checkuser. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh i know. It would just be shame if they ever were to seek an unblock, as unlikely as it is with the way they acted, and the obvious socking wouldn't even be logged somewhere. Cheers for the input anyway. I asked Thryduulf just before your msg about it as well, just as an fyi. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Even more so as their initial trip to ANI was only about their stubborn and blind following of rules, not the callous racist stuff they got cbanned for. So i do believe we should oblige them and take our rules very seriouly when it come to them in regards to LaserLegs. It is what they would have wanted haha ;). 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of the /64 I agree this is LaserLegs, but I'm not confident with IP range blocking so I'm not going to take action myself, but I agree that the block evasion should be dealt with. I don't have time to look further unfortunately, maybe worth asking at WP:AN. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. No worries if you don't have the time, it is so minor in the scheme of things anyway. Just is nice to know i am not insane in thinking it was so obviosuly them when reading the text, then the geo-location just guaranteed it pretty much. Walt made a comment regarding them at AN. Not a seperate section, but may get the ball rolling. As i said, should an unblock ever be sought, no matter how unlikely, it should include everything. Following hte rules to the letter is what they would have wanted us to do :) 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

---