User talk:2601:240:CD08:634:CC95:EFF1:9902:864B

Request narrower block range or alternative block strategy to deal with sockpuppet Blockevasion by User:CLCStudent
@User:Blablubbs @User:Doug_Weller — I am not the named sockpuppet User, nor do I bear any relation to, or am I in any relationship with that party. I am a former NU faculty member that periodically edits from a second home, apparently in the same area as this block-evading sockpuppet.

I do not doubt that User:Blablubbs is responding to real issues, and is acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia. However, his regular broad block efforts aimed at this User also repeatedly catch innocent IP addresses in its broad net. As a consequence, I would ask that alternative approaches to safe-guarding against this User be applied.

Two final notes. First, the seemingly readily available answer of "just create an account" is a non-starter for this regular WP contributor. During an earlier illustrious career here, including tens of thousands of edits, I became party to situations of stalking that the WP system was unable to prevent/contain that had real-world security implications in my professional worlds. However earnest and well-meaning, the lack of a formal, time-respecting, top-down structure for dealing with such real-world, out-of-encyclopedia problems at WP means I cannot possibly be involved again as a logging user.

Second, I acknowledge in arguing against broad IP address blocks, which are simply and effectively applied, that I am arguing a rare position at WP — the formal US jurisprudence position that it is better that one guilty party go free than to wrongly convict (here, wrongly block) one innocent. Here we act, often without regard for the innocents impacted. Rare though the position might be, I argue on principle, as one that is broadly fair and just.

With regard, a former Prof and continuing constructive contributor 2601:240:CD08:634:CC95:EFF1:9902:864B (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)