User talk:216.200.240.180

December 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to trigger the edit filter, you may be blocked from editing. CLCStudent (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Unblock request[edit]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

IP range is indiscriminately large.

The block appears to have been triggered by vandalism from 216.200.228.212 and is marked as a school block. Looking up 216.200.228.212 at https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup gives NET-216-200-228-128-1 (addresses 216.200.228.128 - 216.200.228.255) assigned to Frederick County Public School District. That seems to be the appropriate target for the block.

In contrast, this IP address 216.200.240.180 has a history of constructive edits but not vandalism warranting a 5-year block. There were some edits that triggered warnings/reverts (not done by the author of this unblock request; shared IP) but I looked and saw what seem to be good faith edits. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%93Tajikistan_clashes&oldid=1054628809 the edit comment seems correct: The removed statements are clearly biased without a citation but the citations (I don't read Kyrgyz but used https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/kyrgyz/kyrgyzstan-56956928?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) do not actually say what the article claims.

I request that the block be narrowed to 216.200.228.128/25 - the actual school that was the source of vandalism. If other IPs outside that range were unintentionally causing minor disruption, I think the two years already elapsed of the block should be sufficient.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=IP range is indiscriminately large.<p>
The block appears to have been triggered by vandalism from 216.200.228.212 and is marked as a school block.  Looking up 216.200.228.212 at https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup gives NET-216-200-228-128-1 (addresses 216.200.228.128 - 216.200.228.255) assigned to Frederick County Public School District.  That seems to be the appropriate target for the block.<p>

In contrast, this IP address 216.200.240.180 has a history of constructive edits but not vandalism warranting a 5-year block.  There were some edits that triggered warnings/reverts (not done by the author of this unblock request; shared IP) but I looked and saw what seem to be good faith edits.  E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%93Tajikistan_clashes&oldid=1054628809 the edit comment seems correct:  The removed statements are clearly biased without a citation but the citations (I don't read Kyrgyz but used https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/kyrgyz/kyrgyzstan-56956928?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) do not actually say what the article claims.<p>

I request that the block be narrowed to 216.200.228.128/25 - the actual school that was the source of vandalism. If other IPs outside that range were unintentionally causing minor disruption, I think the two years already elapsed of the block should be sufficient. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=IP range is indiscriminately large.<p>
The block appears to have been triggered by vandalism from 216.200.228.212 and is marked as a school block.  Looking up 216.200.228.212 at https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup gives NET-216-200-228-128-1 (addresses 216.200.228.128 - 216.200.228.255) assigned to Frederick County Public School District.  That seems to be the appropriate target for the block.<p>

In contrast, this IP address 216.200.240.180 has a history of constructive edits but not vandalism warranting a 5-year block.  There were some edits that triggered warnings/reverts (not done by the author of this unblock request; shared IP) but I looked and saw what seem to be good faith edits.  E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%93Tajikistan_clashes&oldid=1054628809 the edit comment seems correct:  The removed statements are clearly biased without a citation but the citations (I don't read Kyrgyz but used https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/kyrgyz/kyrgyzstan-56956928?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) do not actually say what the article claims.<p>

I request that the block be narrowed to 216.200.228.128/25 - the actual school that was the source of vandalism. If other IPs outside that range were unintentionally causing minor disruption, I think the two years already elapsed of the block should be sufficient. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=IP range is indiscriminately large.<p>
The block appears to have been triggered by vandalism from 216.200.228.212 and is marked as a school block.  Looking up 216.200.228.212 at https://lookup.icann.org/en/lookup gives NET-216-200-228-128-1 (addresses 216.200.228.128 - 216.200.228.255) assigned to Frederick County Public School District.  That seems to be the appropriate target for the block.<p>

In contrast, this IP address 216.200.240.180 has a history of constructive edits but not vandalism warranting a 5-year block.  There were some edits that triggered warnings/reverts (not done by the author of this unblock request; shared IP) but I looked and saw what seem to be good faith edits.  E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Kyrgyzstan%E2%80%93Tajikistan_clashes&oldid=1054628809 the edit comment seems correct:  The removed statements are clearly biased without a citation but the citations (I don't read Kyrgyz but used https://www-bbc-com.translate.goog/kyrgyz/kyrgyzstan-56956928?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) do not actually say what the article claims.<p>

I request that the block be narrowed to 216.200.228.128/25 - the actual school that was the source of vandalism. If other IPs outside that range were unintentionally causing minor disruption, I think the two years already elapsed of the block should be sufficient. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

216.200.240.180 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should perhaps be reblocked as a confirmed proxy, with anon-only removed (i.e. blocking editors using accounts). It's currently running the LUMINATI_PROXY, according to bullseye, and owned by Zayo. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're suggesting, but could you explain your reasoning please?

AFAIK this address is not an open proxy. (Please correct me if you see evidence to the contrary.)

It was also not the source of the vandalism that triggered the original block. That was a much narrower IP range.

So what's the justification for any block for the wider range, or for this IP address specifically? Please help me understand. 216.200.240.180 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the current block is for a moderately large IP range: 216.200.192.0/18. My request is to narrow that to 216.200.228.128/25 which is the school that was generating a high volume of reverted edits that triggered the original block. 216.200.240.180 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.