User talk:Dhesi

This is my Talk page. Rahul (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It appears that VPN services (hosted at colocation providers) are blocked even for logged-in users who have had accounts for many years and who have committed no abuse. I don't think this type of block achieves a useful result. IP blocks should be targeted when possible, and apparently such targeting is possible, because I can edit this User page. A logged-in user who has never committed abuse since creating an account 12+ years ago, and has given no indication of doing so in the future, should never be blocked regardless of the IP address in use. The guide to appealing blocks was of no help since the type of block I encountered is not mentioned there.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, as this account is not directly blocked. If you have an extraordinary requirement to use a VPN, you can apply for an IP-block exemption; see WP:IPBE. Please understand, I'm just providing information to you and not expressing an opinion on whether you should or should not qualify for IPBE or, for that matter, whether VPNs should generally be blocked. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2019 (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.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #25055 was submitted on May 05, 2019 11:44:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The response that I got by email was:

This is a reply to your Wikipedia unblock appeal from Beeblebrox, a Wikipedia administrator. DO NOT reply to this email - it is coming from an unattended email address. If you wish to send a response, which may be necessary to further your appeal, please click the link below.
Send a response by clicking here
Hello Dhesi,
While I believe that many Wikipedians would agree with your position, as it stands currently policy only allows IP block exemption if the user affected by the proxy block gives some sort of reason why the need to use it. Without a reason being supplied there is no way to evaluate your request.
Beeblebrox English Wikipedia Administrator

I am documenting here the things that are wrong with the above reply and with the entire appeal procedure.

Cannot reply. When I clicked on the "Send a response" link I got this:

The action you requested could not be performed: Your appeal has been marked as closed, which means the administrator reviewing your appeal feels the matter is resolved. If you received a message that indicates you will be unblocked, but you still cannot edit, please try again in a few minutes. If you are still unable to edit, you may wish to post {{unblock|}} to your User Talk: page. If your appeal was declined, then you may wish to appeal again in several month's time.

Cannot view my own appeal. When I click on the UTRS appeal #25055 link, I eventually get the text "Only administrators can review requests on UTRS." So I cannot view the text of my own appeal. I didn't save it when I entered it -- I did not know that I would be prohibited from viewing it later.

Response to appeal devoid of context. This response did not include the text of my appeal. So it's expected that I will read this response without access to the text of the appeal that I filed, which I am prohibited from viewing.

Response claims no reason was given. The response that I got is incorrect where it states "Without a reason being supplied". I did provide an excellent reason, which is already stated above. It is: "It appears that VPN services (hosted at colocation providers) are blocked even for logged-in users who have had accounts for many years and who have committed no abuse. I don't think this type of block achieves a useful result. IP blocks should be targeted when possible, and apparently such targeting is possible, because I can edit this User page. A logged-in user who has never committed abuse since creating an account 12+ years ago, and has given no indication of doing so in the future, should never be blocked regardless of the IP address in use."

A wide block where a narrow one is possible conflicts with every other policy within Wikipedia. The person(s) who impose such a wide block, in conflict with every other Wikipedia policy, should have to justify not using a narrower block. I have seen no such justification.

Minor bug. When I tried to view the appeal by following the links, I saw two PHP errors:

Notice: Undefined variable: is_admin in /usr/utrs/production/public_html/login.php on line 176
Notice: Undefined variable: is_admin in /usr/utrs/production/public_html/login.php on line 287

Rahul (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please address my criticisms above. Rahul (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ignoring the fact that policy requires there to be a reason to grant IPBE, you haven't edited in two years and have less than 500 edits total. I do not believe you meet either condition for granting IPBE in these circumstances: need or community trust. You will need to edit with your VPN or other open proxy provider disabled for the time being. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2019 (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.

None of my criticisms have been addressed. Rahul (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did: you haven't edited in years. You do not have the relevant standard for community trust. Simply wanting to use a VPN is not a need. Finally, VPNs and open proxies are all against global Wikimedia policy. We block them on sight, both locally and globally, and we hard block the entire range. If you want to edit here at this time, you will not be able to use a VPN or other open proxy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me and never was about me. Rahul (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of TonyBallioni's reply was about the policy in general, not just you. If you want to change policy, start a discussion at WT:IPBE. @DeltaQuad and TParis: regarding the PHP errors @ UTRS mentioned above. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from starting a discussion at WT:IPBE. I'm sure I could work around that, but oh the irony. It's a lost cause. Rahul (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Non-admin users shouldn't be logged into UTRS. They should use the appeal form on the default screen. Regardless, I made a patch.--v/r - T P 00:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]