User talk:1.145.19.122

May 2021

Your edits on Zac Cini were reverted because it doesn't need that many links. GameEnd (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zac Cini. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

April 2023: unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Have a look at Fraction of inspired oxygen and tell me if you think it's worth blocking me so that I can't fix the obvious problems in that article that've been there since September 2022?

I say again, you could at least exclude the article Talk pages from being blocked.

Is the current block imposed due to edits made on Talk pages? I'd be pretty sure it wasn't. (Although the description is notably paltry in detail, and I wasn't able to obtain further information about the rationale for this block even after I explicitly asked WP admin's for it. So I'm basing my conclusion on scanning the recent contribution logs for the blocked IP range, alongside past experience.)

WP policy is that blocks should be proportionate, and only go so far as is necessary to prevent the disruptive actions of concern, in order to limit collateral damage to the minimum. I'm asking for this block to be reviewed because it isn't compliant with WP's own policies.

—DIV (1.145.19.122 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

The stated reason for the block is edit warring, but you do not discuss that in this request. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

April 2023: unblock2 — please actually consider it properly this time

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).

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

Request reason:

Have a look at Fraction of inspired oxygen and tell me if you think it's worth blocking me so that I can't fix the obvious problems in that article that've been there since September 2022?

I say again, you could at least exclude the article Talk pages from being blocked.

Is the current block imposed due to edits made on Talk pages? I'd be pretty sure it wasn't. (Although the description is notably paltry in detail, and I wasn't able to obtain further information about the rationale for this block even after I explicitly asked WP admin's for it. So I'm basing my conclusion on scanning the recent contribution logs for the blocked IP range, alongside past experience.)

WP policy is that blocks should be proportionate, and only go so far as is necessary to prevent the disruptive actions of concern, in order to limit collateral damage to the minimum. I'm asking for this block to be reviewed because it isn't compliant with WP's own policies.

UPDATE:

The foregoing request was declined by 331dot with the supposed rationale, "The stated reason for the block is edit warring, but you do not discuss that in this request."

Apparently 331dot was unable to understand that "edit warring" was the clear reason given for a proportionate one-day block in May 2021 on a single IP address. Which is nothing whatsoever to do with the present block.

The current disproportionate six-month block on IP range 1.145.0.0/17 was implemented in March 2023 for the vague reason "Disruptive editing" — which I did refer to in my unblock request. Specifically, I mentioned that such wording is too vague; after looking through the logs for this IP range, I was unable to find a clear case "disruptive editing". And in separate communications with WP admin's I did not get any answer to my explicit request for more detail on which specific activities were of such serious nature as to warrant this current block.

I realise that there are quite a few unblock requests coming in, but it doesn't inspire confidence when the admin reviewing the request isn't able to understand which block is currently in force.

To be fair, WP makes it unnecessarily difficult to track down the block message. There's nothing about how to find the block status on any of the internal WP block 'help' or 'FAQ' pages. I've also complained before about this general issue, saying that such information, including particularly the link to the IP range's contributions, should be given in the block message.

As a matter of fact, having seen a variety of IP range blocks of dubious merit, I'm wondering if unblock requests are ever approved. Any examples? Do admins keep statistics on this? They should be!

—DIV (49.179.9.115 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

There appear to have been enough disruptive editing from the /17 range to warrant a range block, and range blocks are typically longer duration. There is no way to identify a single constructive editor in that range and poke a hole in the block just for that, especially since IP addresses are dynamic and such a "hole" would work only temporarily until the editor was assigned a different address. I sympathize with this appellant, but I will not shorten the duration of the block.

As a workaround, I suggest that the appellant refrain from editing Wikipedia from a mobile network and use WiFi when available instead.

The blocked editor has made a fair point about the capability to block access only to articles but not talk pages. Unfortunately, this capability doesn't exist. However, given that we recently got the ability to block specific users from editing specific articles (instead of the entire Wikipedia), it seems like allowing access to talk pages only might be technically feasible and worthy of consideration. It should be proposed at Wikipedia:Village Pump. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm not reviewing this; I unblock users when needed(feel free to examine my stats on my user page, or my edit history for "unblock accepted"). A link to the contributions of the range is given. I did indeed misread the log, I apologize. You are, however, arguing process and not the merits of the block itself. If you weren't disruptively editing, then say so- in which case you will be advised to create an account so your edits aren't lumped in with others. If you disagree with how blocks like this are handled, you can discuss your concerns once you obtain editing access one way or the other; I suspect that you aren't new at this. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

April 2023: unblock

April 2023: unblock2 — please actually consider it properly this time

More problems with IP range block implementation