User talk:Plommespiser/Archives/2017/December

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Plommespiser. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Plommespiser/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Plommespiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

While it's easy to understand why unregistered users behind a proxy/vpn/tor is blocked from making edits, it's not as easy to understand why you by default are still autoblocking long-term contributors, that are logged in, and that even have been unblocked earlier after making appeals for similar reasons. This seems only to be a good thing to do if you really want to make people stop contributing to Wikipedia. Use of proxy/vpn is globally increasing and you can't really expect people to disable a proxy or vpn for every little contribution, or them to make a appeal every time they get blocked for no reason. Legitimate users are not the intended targets, but it sure feels that way when it happens repeatedly. Some ain't even in any control of what vpn/proxy software that is run on the router their devices connects to. Sooner or later, legitimate users will just stop contributing instead. This applies to any use of shared IP. The risk of blocking legitimate users and the unnecessary difficulties it causes for them would be a lot less of a issue if you for example only blocked unregistered users and new accounts with less than X amount of accepted content. Most spammers etc. are not both logged in and have a record of good behavior, there's even a lesser chance of them making any appeals, and they could still be blocked at a per case basis if needed. Please unblock again, thank you. Plommespiser (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You appear to be suggesting we change our policy around VPNs and proxies. That's a reasonable position to take, but not one I, as the reviewing administrator, am able to accomplish alone. You'll need to suggest this as a policy change. All I can do is review your block and lift it, if you are not editing from a proxy or from a VPN. Unfortunately, you didn't make that claim (and in any case, didn't tell me what IP address you were using). As such, I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do for you here. You may wish to check out WP:IPBE. Yamla (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is of course not your fault, but I must say that someone must have lost their head when they thought it was in Wikipedias best interest to autoblock any accounts for simply using a shared IP, or to cite from the block message: "Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked." and then additionally expecting those users to read long guides or fill out tickets to appeal the totally unreasonable blocking. This will push users away, both from contributing content and making monetary donations.

I appreciate your answer, but I understand that you're not able to lift a block of a VPN anyway and that I instead will have to submit a new appeal by using the "unblock ticket request system" and then answer a set of questions as if I had done something wrong. Then what?

If the appeal is approved, will I risk getting autoblocked again the next time I receive a new shared IP? This have happened in the past and it seems that every time a VPN customer connects to a new server (a new server will likely be outside a earlier whitelisted IP range on Wikipedia) or by changing VPN provider he or she will get blocked again, despite being a logged in long-time contributor. How can someone think this is in the best interest of Wikipedia? What's the point of spending so much time on whitelisting specific IP addresses instead of just whitelisting contributing accounts? I've been contributing to Wikipedia, mainly Norwegian, since before 2009 when I registered this account and I'm not much interested in repeatedly proving that I'm not a vandal. Even if I wanted to suggest a policy change I would not be able to because I'm blocked for simply using a shared IP and therefore can only make edits to my own talk page. I guess I rather leave it with this and stop contributing till someone (hopefully) understands that the current policy needs to be modernized to better meet a world where people are increasingly using a VPN or other types of shared IP addresses. Plommespiser (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)