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

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

---

UTRS appeal #21536 was submitted on May 15, 2018 14:03:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I cannot currently edit Wikipedia from IP 82.149.10.13, which appears to be blocked [1]. I filed an unblock request on User_talk:82.149.40.13, but it has been declined. I'm suggesting to soften the IP block allowing registered users to edit from that IP, blocking only unregistered users. 82.149.10.13 is a shared IP used by many people (NAT), among which registered users uninvolved with any of the problems that may have led to the IP block.

Decline reason:

The IP address you mention belongs to a Webhost and unfortunately they are blocked from Wikipedia. This is because the software that powers Wikipedia requires IP addresses for administrator intervention against vandalism. We cannot make exceptions for one IP address, it could simply be reassigned to someone who would vandalise the encyclopedia. 5 albert square (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (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.

• Some facts about 82.149.10.13. Within the cu data time period, only one presumably unrelated account used this IP and that was a single edit on Feb. 28. All edits from this IP after that are the anon edits and all of those are from a machine or machines with matching operating systems and primarily using a certain browser. Favonian appears to have blocked one single editor outside of Nicopedia who has a matching operating system but is using a different browser.

• I wouldn't say "used by many people".
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: You wouldn't say that, but I know what I'm saying: that IP may not be used by many people on en.wiki, but is surely used on the net by the very many people that work in the same place I do. I'm obviously caught in a use case where I'm one of the few registered users editing from that IP on en.wiki (I thought we were more people, frankly). All that I can do is to repeat my previous suggestion: relax the IP block allowing registered users to edit (this should preserve the efficacy of the ban on unregistered ones, allowing admin to better control the edits from the registered ones). Otherwise, registered users (like me) will not be able to contribute to en.wiki when logging from the machines tied to that IP.

• In future, please make any unblock requests from the affected talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: I respect your decision, but I completely disagree with it. The IP that's blocked is one of the exit nodes for a local government network, which is natted by its ISP. That means two things:

- it's highly unlikely that this IP could be reassigned to someone who would vandalize the encyclopedia;

- every user from that network using this exit node (virtually a lot of people) can't edit Wikipedia.

I wonder why the solution proposed (allowing registered users to edit, like suggested here) isn't viable: the balance between project protection and AGF should favor the latter, but I understand it may simply be my POV. In addition, I remark that my proposal isn't make exceptions for one IP address, but make exceptions for registered user connecting from one IP address.

Before surrendering to evidence, I'm gonna file a last request thru UTRS to unblock my username only when used thru that network, since I am a user affected by an IP address block that is unrelated to their editing and that prevents them editing with a logged-in account.

Thanks.  Nicopedia 20:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not preventing you from logging in to edit. So you must have found a way around it, therefore that would be pointless and I'm still unsure it would be approved as IP block exemption is only granted in exceptional circumstances and through UTRS. I'm going to ping in Just Chilling for their input as they have more UTRS experience than me.--5 albert square (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: It is indeed preventing me from editing when logged in, when connecting from that IP: I'm simply editing (right now) from another machine in another location. Tip: do you ever go back and forth from home to work and back home again? Or using a mobile phone? ;-) No circumvention, no strange things: I simply noticed (and reported here) that a block has been put on a IP that's one exit node for a large governmental network, and that this block could be a serious problem for many people (local government workers) accessing en.wiki that way. Since it emerged that not so many people are actively editing as registered users from that IP address (mainly because it.wiki is more likely the target of the edits, I suppose), I suggested that the IP block could be relaxed allowing registered users to edit, so that content control remains easy for administrators in case of vandalism, and editing is safeguarded for legitimate users at the same time.

Thanks for reporting this case to an expert UTRS admin. I'll wait his intervention before filing a UTRS IP block exemption request.  Nicopedia 22:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (@5 albert square:) The address in question has been blocked as a colocationwebhost. This is normal practice and, as as has been explained, is necessary to prevent vandalism. An independent checkuser has examined the block and has declined to adjust it. The fact that the address is allocated to a local government network is not relevant - we get plenty of vandalism from local government networks and from other public bodies. Finally, if you applied at UTRS for an IPBE it would definitely be declined. Firstly, you have other means of being able to edit so you do not meet the 'exceptional need' criteria. Secondly, even if you met this first criteria, your article-editing history is far too sparse for you to be granted an exemption. Just Chilling (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: Thanks for your time and for the answer. I hereby take note that contributing to Wikipedia is limited for me (and virtually for other users) in time and place, as long as IP block on that address isn't relaxed for registered users. I really can't agree with the usefulness of such behaviour: allowing registered users to edit won't hurt admin ability to manage incorrect actions, while preserving the scope of the IP block; if I'd like to vandalize Wiki contents (which of course I wouldn't) I could do it from different IPs, so I find logical fallacy in your argument. CU data reported by Berean Hunter show that only one presumably unrelated account used this IP and that was a single edit and all edits from this IP after that are the anon edits, so that Favonian appears to have blocked one single editor: to me, blocking an entire shared IP serving the purpose to block one single editor sounds just like hunting for sparrows using tomahawk missiles. Moreover, it could be difficult to expand my editing history if IP blocked.

As a consequence, I think I'm gonna spend my (sadly short) time on projects managed by less restrictive rules, like it.wiki and OSM.  Nicopedia 10:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]