User talk:1.145.69.71

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).

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

---

Request reason:

CONTEXT

• 17:06, 24 April 2024 Ad Orientem talk contribs blocked 1.145.0.0/16 talk with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) ({{anonblock}}: Disruptive editing. See ANI thread)
• 18:13, 11 January 2023 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs changed block settings for 1.145.0.0/16 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only) (Abusing multiple accounts: disruption across various "List of governors" pages)
• 18:13, 11 January 2023 Ohnoitsjamie talk contribs blocked 1.145.0.0/16 talk from the pages List of governors of Pennsylvania and List of governors of Oregon with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Abusing multiple accounts)

ASSESSMENT

The previous block by User:Ohnoitsjamie appears reasonable based solely on the descriptions above: the block was apparently limited to two specific WP pages, and the (amended) duration of 1 month sounds reasonable. However, the description "Abusing multiple accounts" (i.e. engaging in WP:sockpuppetry is almost certainly wrong/misleading, as this range of IP addresses contains a large number (maybe all) that are randomly assigned by the ISP for each session.

The current block by user:Ad Orientem has a reasonable duration, stepping up from the previous (recent) block. However, it is insufficiently justified. The many users affected WP:COLLATERALly will typically not know where or how to find the "ANI thread" (provide a link), nor is "disruptive editing" much of hint as to what it contains (provide a specific summary). Such messages may be informative to other administrators, but natural justice demands that the reasoning be accessible to those affected by the block. For instance, it is unclear whether the editing that has been deemed problematic/undesirable is still occurring only on pages related to U.S. Governors, or whether it has become more widespread: this is an important factor in assessing the scope of the block, which now applies to practically all WP pages (including articles, article talk pages, and all user talk pages except the user's own talk page). As I have said several times before, if there's been no disruption on Talk pages, then editing of Talk pages shouldn't be blocked. —DIV

Decline reason:

A lot of words to argue process and not the merits of the block. You want a link, here it is. If you weren't responsible for the actions that led to the block, please request an account via WP:ACC. If you want to discuss how blocks are implemented, please do so at AN once you have your account. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The merits cannot be debated unless the reasons are transparently set out. Thanks for the link: its obscurity supports my contention that cryptic (and unwikified) references to "ANI" will likely not be useful to any affected editor. Obviously I don't think I was responsible for the (as-yet-undetailed) actions that led to the block; nevertheless, I have no intention of setting up an account. I may take this up at WP:AN eventually if I can find the time to dedicate to it. But given that my proposals are commonsense, I won't be offended if someone else puts them forward rather than me: I am not in it to get credit. P.S. "A lot of words"? Not a helpful comment. —DIV (1.145.69.71 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 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.

---