User talk:2401:4900:2EE4:3AF3:0:5A:2F:7301

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "I think this is a general IP address of my location. I've never edited in bad faith to invite blocking of my IP. I think atleast account creation should be allowed and even random editing should be allowed with checking. Full blocking of all IPs of a series if some IPs misbehave is not sensible. Hope admins understand P.S. Going by history I understand the block. Look like, I will have to create using some 'sacred' place's safer internet." Decline reason: "per Эlcobbola. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Elcobbola: Your block :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose alteration or lifting. This is, of course, a nonsense request, including due to the following:
  1. "Full blocking of all IPs of a series if some IPs misbehave" is what range blocks are; if the IP wishes to deprecate block ranges, this is hardly the venue;
  2. The IP has provided no reason to lift the block other than personal inconvenience and, in fact, amended their request 10 minutes after making it to imply they hadn't previously looked at the historical disruption, and implying agreement ("Going by history I understand the block"), if not withdrawal ("Look like, I will have to create using some [other method]");
  3. It would be an understatement to characterise disruption from this range as significant. Since 2020, this range has been checked more than 70 times (!!!) related to more than 20 distinct LTAs (!!!). En.wiki, as another example, has blocked this /32 range 22 times (!!!) since 2020; and
  4. Relatedly, as a test for reasonableness, the current en.wiki block for this /32 range is for three years expiring 2026. The block here on Commons is a mere three months. Эlcobbola _talk 19:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Elcobbola: Looks like both the enwiki and commons block are anon-only as it's targeting a large mobile range, would it not be reasonable to create an account for this user assuming they are not the intended target for the block? Thanks. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand there exists a process to do that, but I am not familiar with and cannot opine whether it would be appropriate. The en.wiki range block also removed talk page access due to abuse (another reason the Commons block is hardly "not sensible") and this request ("I've never edited in bad faith to invite blocking of my IP") implies both historical edits and allusion to COM:AGF, which suggest this is not a new user; I would hope creation of an account for this user, if any, would involve appropriate caution and consideration of those factors. Эlcobbola _talk 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)