User talk:166.113.96.52

Overbroad IP Block
Hi there, @JBW. I'm writing to ask for reconsideration of an overbroad IP block. The contrib history for 166.113.0.0/16 shows that this block appears to be designed to block a couple of disruptive ranges including 166.113.128.0/17 which WHOIS shows is allocated to CERNER Corporation, and 166.113.0.0/19 which WHOIS shows is a school district in Colorado. Essentially, I think two independently disruptively ranges have lead to an overly broad /16 block.

This has caught me in a block in a new home I just moved to. You'll see my IP is from OEC Fiber, which would capture home and some business users who use OEC Fiber as our ISP here in Oklahoma. Perhaps I do have some disruptive neighbors, but hopefully those could be more individually targeted blocks.

I realize this is a soft block and user accounts can still be created. (I have one, in good standing, but not appealling this block there because I don't want my IP associated with my user account publicly.) Per WP:5P, it doesn't seem like user creation should be required.

I think we could still prevent an overwhelming majority of the vandalism by removing the 166.113.0.0/16 block and replacing it with two separate blocks, 116.113.128.0/17 and 116.113.0.0/19. Without that change, we could be losing out on legitimate contributions from some folks who don't want to make an account. They might be dissuaded from becoming a contributor if they're blocked in the first instance.

If you decline to change the block, I would suggest changing to a more general block template than &#123;&#123;school block&#125;&#125; because this range is much broader than just school districts.

Thanks in advance for your time. 166.113.96.52 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have had a look at this, and it seems you are to a large extent correct, so I will lift the existing block, and consider whether to place some blocks on smaller ranges. Thanks for calling my attention to this. JBW (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * One other thought. Way back in 2006 I found myself prevented from editing by an IP block which was nothing to do with me. I created an account, and have never again been affected by a block. You may like to consider doing the same. JBW (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Koshchki123. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Lexus—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Koshchki123 (she/they) (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lexus. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Koshchki123 (she/they) (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lexus, you may be blocked from editing. Koshchki123 (she/they) (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Flex Seal. Koshchki123 (she/they) (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making (or attempting to make) disruptive edits that triggered the edit filter. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.