120.17.85.26

Block appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Block is without proper justification! There is no practical way to find out what the evidence is for blocking. It is CLAIMED that there was vandalism from within a range of IP addresses. Which IP addresses specifically? What was the vandalism — which pages, and what type of 'vandalism'? Why should the block persist for multiple MONTHS?? What other remedies were attempted before this drastic step??? NATURAL JUSTICE IS LACKING IF THE 'CHARGES' ARE SO VAGUE THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DETAIL TO BE REBUTTED!! What is the penalty for the BLOCKER for recklessly blocking a range of IP addresses? I can see that they have a lot of power, but are there proper checks on that power, including commensurate 'penalty' for misuse & abuse???

Decline reason:

I see no block on this IP address. Please make a new request and tell us exactly what the message says when you try to edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

MORE INFORMATION ADDED:
The message that came up was that user 'Oshwah' had blocked an IP address range. I did not record what the range was, but I personally experienced blocked ability to edit and viewed the same "block" message on this IP address (120.17.85.26) and also 120.17.208.228 and also 120.17.205.172 and 120.17.104.133.

User 'NinjaRobotPirate' claims that there is no 'right' to edit Wikipedia without a user-account, but I say that is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, which anyone should be able to edit in good faith, regardless of whether (or not) they have a user-account.

User 'Yamla' claimed that: (i) the appeal did not sufficiently address the "reasons" for the blocking of me, and (ii) the vandal was "evading" the block.
I dispute those statements.
(i) While it is true the the justification to remove the block lacked detail, that corresponded to the lack of detail provided to me — it is no possible to rebut a reason if the basis for that reason is hiddden! Furthermore, there was logically no intention to block 'me', it was a crude scattergun-style block of an entire range of IP addresses; there was no need for me to discuss my actions, as I am not a vandal.
(ii) I doubt very much that the vandal was actively "evading" the block. These are shared IP addresses that change everytime somebody reconnects to the ISP via 'mobile broadband'. There may well be a vandal who is one of the ISP's customers, but the correct approach would be to contact the ISP's abuse centre with the relevant IP details and get the ISP to take action. Only if the ISP doesn't act in good faith should the action of banning the IP address range be considered. As I mentioned in one of my other appeals, that kind of crude, broad-brush action is akin to blacklisting an entire university, or company, or country, just because there are a smattering of vandals among the users of the corresponding IP addresses.

I realise that the block by now has probably either been lifted or expired, but my points above go to the PROCESS of blocking and appealing, which seems to me to be badly flawed. —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Decline reason:

This IP is not blocked. The rest of this has nothing to do with an unblock request; please do not abuse this process. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:48, 20 September 2018 (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.

To avoid anyone else wasting there time, I don't see any block for this IP, or the complaining editor on the same /16 either. Probably some troll (who may get the block in the future, thus saving the space-time continuum). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 'power~enwiki'.

I'm not sure what to make of that comment. Is there a history of blocks? (There should be!!) At the other three IP addresses listed above, the Editors rejected the appeals, and presumably those Editors noticed that a block was indeed in place at the time.

Also, practically the only reason I would see (and hence respond) to a block notice was if I attempted to edit a WP page and was unable to do so, with a message on the screen saying it was because the IP address had been blocked. So I don't think it could have been a 'spoof' template that I saw, if that's what you meant?

It is theoretically possible, I suppose, that I saw the block message 'here', tried to respond, temporarily had a poor signal to my ISP, lost my ISP connection, reconnected to a different IP address, and then therefore accidentally put my appeal in the wrong place. But I think that's really unlikely.

My points about problems with the process still stand.

—DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

I have just realised I may have misread your message. I naturally originally interpreted your reference to a "troll" as meaning that the person who implemented the spurious block was a "troll".

If you were intending to refer to me, then it was rather rude of you, and also extremely foolish, because I have made thousands of good-faith edits — including all of these. As I have made abundantly clear, even if there was somehow an inadvertent error on my part in accidentally including one IP address outside the blocked range (even though I still say that is unlikely), I have provided three other IP addresses in the same pattern of "120.17.***.***", which the various Editors' responses clearly indicate were indeed blocked as part of a range of IP addresses.

—DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

In response to user 'Jpgordon':

You may notice that I was instructed to: "Please make a new request" by user 'Boing! said Zebedee'. One would think that responding to an Editor's instruction would be viewed favourably.

The entirety of my argument is indeed inherently part of appealing a block. If you disagree with that, please itemise which elements of my statement you consider to be 'off-topic'.

It is rude and unnecessary to refer to "abuse" of the process.

—DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

120.17.192.0/19 is the blocked range; there are multiple other (bad) unblock requests and a lot of egregious blanking of sections without explanations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns raised.

Discussion raised now also at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#Problems_with_the_process_of_blocking_a_range_of_IP_addresses. —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

IP Editors

For the benefit of all readers, see this text from WP:SPOTVAN:

"IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are great contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the edit summary."

—DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

---