User talk:1.129.105.24

I am weary of Wikipedia Editors not following the rules, making up their own rules, not being proportionate, and not giving proper weight to the collateral effects of IP-range blocks. But experience (as a responsible IP editor) has shown me that the people who review these blocks don't really care about those transgressions. Even when the official guidelines/rules are explicitly cited (as I've done in the past, to no avail). *sigh* It's really sad.

Anyway, I am appealing a 3-month block of what must be a huge range of IP addresses, specifically blocked 1.129.96.0/19. I assume it's a huge range, because my (shared) IP is dynamically assigned, and for the past few weeks I've not been able to edit whenever I've tried. I am not the only one affected, by the way, as seen from the other appeals at User_talk:1.129.104.40, User_talk:1.129.108.77, User_talk:1.129.111.144, and User_talk:1.129.110.91. Also apparently a regular constructive editor (User:Mclarenfan17) blocked here User_talk:1.129.111.226 (check history!).

So what exactly happened? It's stated the block is due to "Vandalism".
Sure, I can see some possible vandalism, on one page (List of Newcastle Knights players) on several occasions from ~21 May 2020 to 21 June 2020. It's hard to be totally sure, because for all I know it was actually an edit war with the IP editor in the right: there is zero discussion on the Talk page. The proper actions to take here would include: (i) discussing the problem on the article's Talk page ...didn't happen; (ii) warning the allegedly offending Editor ...don't know whether that happened; (iii) protecting or semi-protecting the article ...doesn't seem to have happened; and — as a last resort if none of the previous actions resolved the issue — (iv) blocking the relevant IP range for a short period (a couple of days to a week). Only after all of that should it be possible to implement a blanket ban of everyone on any of those IP addresses for a period of more than a week. Starting with a ban of 3 months is totally disproportionate. [1]

I did also find one edit logged as "(Changed a mistake)" but tagged as (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, possible BLP issue or vandalism)". [2] Yet a close inspection shows that it was more likely an attempt to fix someone else's vandalism.

There were also a series of edits on 09 June 2020 on the birth year of Jackie Mason that were each quickly reverted by logged-in Editors. That surely 'must' be vandalism, right? No! Proper inspection shows that the IP editor was reinstating the best-supported data, according to the article's own talk page. At worst it was an edit war, but definitely not vandalism.

There was a glitch on the Home video article that wiped out all of the {{Citation needed|date=April 2020}} tags, which I assume was unintentional and due to some technical bug.

Finally, I did see another single case of actual vandalism, almost certainly by high school students vandalizing Kiama High School. It's juvenile humour (which amused me) that could have easily been dealt with by semi-protecting/protecting that article.

In conclusion:

• not much vandalism
• easily dealt with by proportionate responses
• disproportionate response by Blocking Editor has caused excessive collateral damage, and proper weight was possibly not given to prior unblock requests (by others).
  

...Actually, I've changed my mind: I want to specifically remind the Block Reviewer that one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, without the need for an account. See [3]: " These principles may evolve or be refined over time, but they are considered ideals essential to the founding of the Wikimedia projects. ... People who strongly disagree with them are nonetheless expected to either respect them while collaborating on the site or turn to another site. Those unable or unwilling sometimes end up leaving the project. ... These principles include: ... The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration."
Also User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles: ""You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred."
Some Editors claim that "this no longer applies", but — strangely enough — they never provide any evidence to back up their assertions.
In my experience the blocking & reviewing Editors like to ignore these principles so that they can pretend that it's OK to simply tell everyone who appeals a block that they should create an account.

—DIV

P.S. I also know from sad experience that when I make statements like "I am a responsible IP editor it invites insulting responses such as — "We don't negotiate with vandals ... APPEAL DENIED". Would it help if I mentioned an example of an edit I wanted to make? Look at Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research: the editor in the text (correct) doesn't match the editor in the info box (wrong). I also want to address the issue raised at Alpha_decay#Charge?. And various other small things that I've since forgotten, so WP is the one that loses out.

P.P.S. That's more than an hour of my time on this. Wait and see how much time is spent on the response....

You don't have to create an account. But you have to accept the consequences of not doing so, which include sometimes being affected by range blocks. Being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not mean "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time in any manner without restriction or limitation". Some vandalism from this range includes this last of edit warring, this, and this, so the block seems justified. As your request seems to be more of an argument against range blocks instead of an unblock request, and there has been vandalism from this range, I am declining the request. Once you create an account, or wait for the block to expire, you are free to argue against range blocks all you wish. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]