User talk:2804:F14:80A6:D301:A87F:DCFA:9F20:147

.

Hi, @AP 499D25, I'm posting here since your talk is protected - about your suggestion involving ranges in the now archived post, I'd like to show you this:

1. Go to this page and copy it in its entirety (CTRL+A/select all works just fine);
2. use a reply or edit a page and paste the contents into the following: {{blockcalc|1=paste here}};
3. preview the page, if needed - and observe the results (compare with #Examples if needed);
4. (optional) you can also add the contents of other pages, perhaps replacing the paste here text with the preview each time and adding the new page text after.

I haven't bothered to keep track of it all, to be fair, but it does seem, if the pattern holds true to most of them, that the range idea even at massive ranges like /16 would just be almost(if not truly) entirely collateral. – 2804:F14:80A6:D301:A87F:DCFA:9F20:147 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that's how the IP range calc template could be used, thanks for showing that! Such a neat and cool tool.

I have definitely seen extremely large IPv4 rangeblocks (at bigger than /16, e.g. /13 or /12) before, most of them being proxy blocks (even global ones) or partial blocks, so it's definitely possible to do. My idea is that a carefully written/worded block reason would get the message nicely across to the users who are affected. Check out for example Template:TMOblock, a block template entirely dedicated to T-Mobile IP range blocks which do potentially affect a massive quantity of good-faith editors. That block template describes in clear wording why editing is prohibited from the IP range and what to do instead.

I think there does come a point when the disruption coming from an IP range is so catastrophic that it shall be blocked "at all costs" – not blocking an IP range at all 'no matter what' just because there will be collateral damage would be like like not closing down a mall when there's a theft spree going on, just because it would hurt businesses from the loss of sales from not closing down, or not locking down a city during a virus pandemic because it would hurt economical activity. The LTA is causing vital noticeboards and request pages like AN and RPP/E to be locked down, which I think in the grand scheme of things, hurts editors much more in the long term than some moderately timed rangeblocks with a well-worded block reason. I note that the vast majority of these IP addresses are from non-English speaking countries like Russia or South Korea, so all in all the number of good editors on them editing the English Wikipedia probably isn't as much as you'd think. Editing blocks on a certain wiki do not affect your ability to edit other language wikis.

By the way, two notes regarding semi-protection on my talk page - 1. it just expired less than an hour ago; 2. if you read the small note on the top of my talk page, there will be a link which brings you to an unprotected subpage of my talk page should the protection on the main page prevent you from editing it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I totally missed that message at the top, sorry.

Turns out I wasn't using the template to its full potential either, if you do {{blockcalc|1=paste here|results=all}}; it shows ranges smaller than /16.

Not sure why it's organized the way it is, kind of hard to read, but it does give an overview of how far apart most of these IPs are... it just feels like rangeblocks might just be a different flavour of playing whack-a-mole. – 2804:F14:80A6:D301:A87F:DCFA:9F20:147 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

---