1.129.104.227

Block of Oct/Nov 2020: three points of commentary by DIV

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, User:Widr. Unfortunately I can't put this on your own Talk page, but I wanted to write to you to make three points.
1. Kudos to you for specifying a reasonable duration (namely one week) for your block. Too many other Admins seem to ignore WP policy and jump straight to a 3-month block.
2. Besides just indicating the category of issue that has motivated the block, I believe it would be helpful if you were to list a couple of examples (not exhaustive) of edits that the categery is describing. For example, under Special:Contributions/1.129.96.0/20 I found some inane vandalism [1] (which is undesirable, but isn't necessarily what WP:DE refers to), and what were possibly some good-faith edits to Template:Eons_graphical_timeline that were reverted, and then also what appears to be a small contribution to an ongoing edit war at Mawlid. Which one(s) of these did you look at? BTW, this is not to mean that we should overlook the multiple beneficial edits that were also made from this IP range, such as at List_of_James_Bond_Jr._episodes.
3. Bigger picture: this is a shared IP address, and apparently has some dickhead on it who enjoys stuffing around. Rather than hard block of all posts, what WP should be implementing (as a second step, after warning, before hard block) is something akin to a "semi-protect" block, where users from nominated IP ranges can be blocked (by Admins) from directly editing articles, but can still contribute on Talk pages. I am fairly confident that most vandals are not interested in screwing up Talk pages, but such functionality would still allow me to post that e.g. the phrasing of "but was prevented to due to" at Happy_Birthday_to_You#Public_performances should be fixed. Yeah, yeah, I know this template isn't designed for people to question the way things are done at WP. But, frankly, there's no clear alternative pathway I know of to bring about this kind of change. I'd appreciate it if you take this idea forward, or otherwise offer constructive advice on how I can take the proposal forward.
—DIV
(1.129.104.227 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC))
P.S. Further to point 3, maybe also it would be good for WP to introduce the optional functionality for Admins to selectively block only edits made from Mobile telephones, which seem more frequently to be linked to vandalism in my experience.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, not an unblock request. You are free to discuss changes to Wikipedia policies or practices once the block is removed, or if you create an account elsewhere(or request one at WP:ACC). 331dot (talk) 14:17, 29 October 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.

---