User talk:216.200.240.180

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to trigger the edit filter, you may be blocked from editing. CLCStudent (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

IP range is indiscriminately large.

The block appears to have been triggered by vandalism from 216.200.228.212 and is marked as a school block. Looking up 216.200.228.212 at https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup gives NET-216-200-228-128-1 (addresses 216.200.228.128 - 216.200.228.255) assigned to Frederick County Public School District. That seems to be the appropriate target for the block.

In contrast, this IP address 216.200.240.180 has a history of constructive edits but not vandalism warranting a 5-year block. There were some edits that triggered warnings/reverts (not done by the author of this unblock request; shared IP) but I looked and saw what seem to be good faith edits. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%93Tajikistan_clashes&oldid=1054628809 the edit comment seems correct: The removed statements are clearly biased without a citation but the citations (I don't read Kyrgyz but used https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/kyrgyz/kyrgyzstan-56956928?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) do not actually say what the article claims.

I request that the block be narrowed to 216.200.228.128/25 - the actual school that was the source of vandalism. If other IPs outside that range were unintentionally causing minor disruption, I think the two years already elapsed of the block should be sufficient. 216.200.240.180 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing as stale; I'll leave it to Yamla who knows more about this than I to reblock as they indicate, if necessary. You are welcome to request an account via WP:ACC and engage in discussion about IP blocks, their merits, and what is necessary on WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2024 (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 should perhaps be reblocked as a confirmed proxy, with anon-only removed (i.e. blocking editors using accounts). It's currently running the LUMINATI_PROXY, according to bullseye, and owned by Zayo. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're suggesting, but could you explain your reasoning please?

AFAIK this address is not an open proxy. (Please correct me if you see evidence to the contrary.)

It was also not the source of the vandalism that triggered the original block. That was a much narrower IP range.

So what's the justification for any block for the wider range, or for this IP address specifically? Please help me understand. 216.200.240.180 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the current block is for a moderately large IP range: 216.200.192.0/18. My request is to narrow that to 216.200.228.128/25 which is the school that was generating a high volume of reverted edits that triggered the original block. 216.200.240.180 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

---