User talk:120.17.85.26

Block appeal
To avoid anyone else wasting there time, I don't see any block for this IP, or the complaining editor on the same /16 either. Probably some troll (who may get the block in the future, thus saving the space-time continuum). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, 'power~enwiki'.
 * I'm not sure what to make of that comment. Is there a history of blocks? (There should be!!)  At the other three IP addresses listed above, the Editors rejected the appeals, and presumably those Editors noticed that a block was indeed in place at the time.
 * Also, practically the only reason I would see (and hence respond) to a block notice was if I attempted to edit a WP page and was unable to do so, with a message on the screen saying it was because the IP address had been blocked. So I don't think it could have been a 'spoof' template that I saw, if that's what you meant?
 * It is theoretically possible, I suppose, that I saw the block message 'here', tried to respond, temporarily had a poor signal to my ISP, lost my ISP connection, reconnected to a different IP address, and then therefore accidentally put my appeal in the wrong place. But I think that's really unlikely.
 * My points about problems with the process still stand.
 * —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC))
 * I have just realised I may have misread your message. I naturally originally interpreted your reference to a "troll" as meaning that the person who implemented the spurious block was a "troll".
 * If you were intending to refer to me, then it was rather rude of you, and also extremely foolish, because I have made thousands of good-faith edits — including all of these. As I have made abundantly clear, even if there was somehow an inadvertent error on my part in accidentally including one IP address outside the blocked range (even though I still say that is unlikely), I have provided three other IP addresses in the same pattern of "120.17.***.***", which the various Editors' responses clearly indicate were indeed blocked as part of a range of IP addresses.
 * —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC))


 * In response to user 'Jpgordon':
 * You may notice that I was instructed to: "Please make a new request" by user 'Boing! said Zebedee'. One would think that responding to an Editor's instruction would be viewed favourably.
 * The entirety of my argument is indeed inherently part of appealing a block. If you disagree with that, please itemise which elements of my statement you consider to be 'off-topic'.
 * It is rude and unnecessary to refer to "abuse" of the process.
 * —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

120.17.192.0/19 is the blocked range; there are multiple other (bad) unblock requests and a lot of egregious blanking of sections without explanations. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns raised.
Discussion raised now also at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses. —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

IP Editors
For the benefit of all readers, see this text from WP:SPOTVAN:

"IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are great contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the edit summary."

—DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC))