This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 70.68.198.124. Why is this Wikipedia user ganging up on me? All I asked if a draft article can be modified for review. I haven't edited any live articles, only proposed changes to a draft. Also, I'm not using a proxy / VPN. 70.68.198.124 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on my port scan and with the blocking admin's permission, I have lifted your block. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are tools that do show a VPN in use like this so it isn't without cause. (For admin eyes only) MER-C, have you used the new scanner? Proxy API Checker with port scan. It also incorporates ipqualityscore results. SQL and MusikAnimal did a good job with this tool.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarked, thanks. This block is based on the ipqualityscore.com result. MER-C 19:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using Shaw Internet, a mainstream provider in Canada. Also the question that I posted in wiki discussion page was pretty benign.

Blockchain and cryptocurrency is a hotspot for paid touts who abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes and won't accept no for an answer. Users of TOR, VPN or proxies are more likely to be hardcore spammers than those on normal IPs. MER-C 19:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that is a straw man argument. Also the article in question wasn't about a cryptocurrency or blockchain. I wasn't banned until I posed a question about rewriting the draft. Sorry for being persistent, but how am I supposed to react to being banned for making a benign comment?

@MER-C:, I've done a port scan here and found 0 open ports and a number of specifically closed ports. I'm aware this contradicts the ipqualityscore report, but I believe a plausible explanation is that this IP address was running a proxy but no longer is, and ipq hasn't updated yet. I therefore suggest it would be appropriate to lift the block. Thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. MER-C 21:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.