User talk:1.129.106.91

January 2019

Hello, I'm LM2000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to WWE Raw Women's Championship have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Unblock request from DIV (2)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Further to User talk:1.129.105.24#Unblock request from DIV​: Thank-you 331dot. That is actually the most on-point response I've had so far to an unblock request. (Probably I have submitted four or five over the course of the last few years.) So I appreciate your effort.

---

You say: "You don't have to create an account. But you have to accept the consequences of not doing so, which include sometimes being affected by range blocks. Being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not mean "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time in any manner without restriction or limitation"." I say: I agree! But the critical point is that the "sometimes" being affected shouldn't be for half the year (e.g. two 3-month range blocks), as a consequence of (I guess) a couple of delinquents causing an 'intermediate' amount of mischief.

---

You say: "Some vandalism from this range includes this last of edit warring, this, and this, so the block seems justified." I say: The logic doesn't follow. Yes, vandalism did occur. No, that does not necessarily mean that the block is "justified".
On these points the WP policy says the following * Prior warnings are desirable, although not always mandatory WP:BEFOREBLOCK. So this aspect was probably more open to individual judgement than I'd realized. * Duration of block: **"incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations" Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks Not three months for the first implementation! Why not try blocking for a week and see if that solves the problem?? ** "Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address." The block does not seem to satisfy this official WP policy. ** Range blocks "Use careful judgement and make them [IP-range blocks] as brief as possible." Three months is not "as brief as possible". The block clearly goes against this official(ish) WP guidance. * "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked." WP:EXPLAINBLOCK I am not convinced that a one-word entry such as "Vandalism" satisfies this. It may be clear, but it doesn't seem "specific" ...because it would be difficult to imagine anything less specific — other than, say, "Infringement". * Type of block: "Block editing partial" could have been considered as an alternative, if vandalism was limited to a few pages; likewise, (semi)protecting the specific articles would have been another alternative. Each of these options, as well as the range block with the (default??) "Block editing sitewide" option, are 'effective' in reducing the vandalism, but ... * ... "A block of a range of IP addresses may unintentionally affect other users in that range." WP:COLLATERAL. So a "Block editing sitewide" IP-range block is the most likely to cause collateral damage. * "These [IP-range blocks] should be reserved as an absolute last resort" The block again clearly goes against this official(ish) WP guidance. On the specific instances of "vandalism" you mentioned: * I have to admit I didn't recognize the alleged "edit war" from the last relevant edit at [1]. Having now had a closer look, I'm not convinced that it constitutes "vandalism". It doesn't even look like a typical edit war. The conflict involve removal and reinstatement of numerous tags. As you may know, peppering every second sentence or so with these is against WP style — "many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag" — so the IP editor was arguably acting in good faith by removing most of these. If it was indeed an "edit war", then of course we might expect all of the 'warring' parties to be penalized. But actually, as the IP editor was arguably acting in good faith, it is surely User:Nyook who contravened official WP policy — the "three-revert rule" — by repeatedly reverting something that was not "obvious" vandalism ("obvious" is emphasized in the original policy text) and furthermore did so without justifying the reverts anywhere — neither in the edit history nor on the article's talk page. Was User:Nyook also blocked for 3 months for participating in the edit war?! I'm guessing not. If not, then why not? Perhaps because that user has a registered account (with roll-back rights), so the common bias says that they 'must' be in the right and the IP editor 'must' always be in the wrong. Anyway, the other interesting piece of the puzzle is that someone locked down that page. That's right, the Home video article was protected [2]. That means the actions by the IP editor on that page — whether right or wrong — are not (necessarily) a basis for blocking the IP range. Why? Because of another official WP policy that requires that "Blocks should not be punitive". It is not legitimate use of a block to "punish" a user: blocks can only be used to prevent vandalism. If the IP editor had a fixation on the use of tags on that one specific article, then protecting the page prevents repetition of that alleged vandalism, making any further block for the same purpose a clear infringement of WP policy. * The other two instances cited look to me like juvenile actions by schoolchildren, similar to the vandalism of Kiama High School that I cited myself. Is it vandalism? Yes. Widespread and serious and malicious and hard to detect ...? Maybe not. This goes to my point about proportionality. It is unfortunate that WP has not yet instituted quantitative guidelines about this, to remove some of the subjectivity in judging it, but I still don't see that the average person would interpret those as being so severe that the "last resort" of an IP-range block should be adopted, and not only that but it should be for months instead of the "days" explicitly recommended in WP's own official policy.

---

You say: "As your request seems to be more of an argument against range blocks instead of an unblock request, and there has been vandalism from this range, I am declining the request. Once you create an account, or wait for the block to expire, you are free to argue against range blocks all you wish." I say: Although I do perceive numerous inherent problems with IP range blocks, and indeed I would like WP practice in this area to improve, yet my unblock request was not doing anything much more than indicating why the present block fails to satisfy the currently prevailing official WP policies & guidance. OK, it did contain some peripheral complaints too. But the central message was summed up as "In conclusion: not much vandalism; easily dealt with by proportionate responses; disproportionate response by Blocking Editor has caused excessive collateral damage, and proper weight was possibly not given to prior unblock requests (by others)."
By the way, can you provide recommendations on the best place to actually achieve such changes? I have tried contributing at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses, but it may not have been the best place to actually get anything done. It certainly didn't get a warm reception. I also put some thoughts down at Template_talk:Rangeblock#Edit_suggestion (and see links therein).

---

Yes, I could create an account. (I don't want to.) I can also use another (existing) ISP account to edit from a different dynamic IP from a different range, and I can also VPN to work and use a static IP from yet another different range. (I shouldn't have to. At least, not on such a regular/prolonged basis) But the fact that I could do any of those things doesn't mean that the block is justified, nor does it mean that the block is consistent with WP policies & guidelines. Showing that a block fails to satisfy WP's own policies & guidelines should be enough to get it lifted (or amended).
—DIV P.S. Unfortunately I can't respond back at User talk:1.129.105.24#Unblock request from DIV​ directly ...due to the block. Yet another flaw with IP-range blocks.

Decline reason:

Posting tedious walls of text pompously wikilawyering about your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy and how you can find ways of reading it so as to say that this block is unjustified is not going to get you unblocked. Furthermore, repeatedly doing so after your previous screeds have been declined is disruptive, and takes up administrators' time which could be more constructively be employed on other work. It also runs the risk that, to avoid such disruption and waste of time, talk page access may be removed, which would be extremely unfortunate, as it is just conceivable that some other editor might be prevented from making a constructive unblock request, so please don't take action which may lead to that happening. JBW (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2020 (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.

---