User talk:2605:8D80:681:3DAE:F4A4:901D:745B:6D2E

Unblock request

 * Pinging to evaluate this as it's part of an SPI rangeblock. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , this block is working as expected. Despite the claim about blocking half of Canada, this is the only anon IP editor to have put forth unblock requests in this range. It is a one month block which has gone half of its duration time without anyone else making such requests (and if they suddenly start flowing now because I wrote this, I will revoke talk page across the range). This editor has the option of logging into their account and requesting an IP block exemption which may help them avoid this inconvenience in the future.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JamesBWatson I've decided to come out into the open, because of the near impossibility of using the UTRS tool, which doesn't work with IPv6 blocks. It was I who submitted three unblock requests within this range last weekend. Your response seems not to be appropriate. I never used the phrase "an ENTIRE COUNTRY". And if such a phrase was used by "me" then it's clear that not all the edits since the block have been from one person. This is the range that Rogers Wireless uses, at least across the GTA, and presumably across the province given the number Ottawa-area edits I see in this range historically. I'm not sure blocking much of the IP range of the largest mobile provider in the nation is appropriate, to deal with one person. This could impact up to 10 million users. WP:SIP suggests that when placing a long block on an IP or IP range, a politely worded email to the organization's IT suggesting that they participate this way would be a good idea; was this done?
 * WP:IPBLENGTH notes that blocks should only be for a few hours, however this was not done, despite being the first block of this range.
 * WP:RANGE notes that millions of users can be affected, and these should be reserved as an absolute last resort, especially very large rangeblocks.
 * I'm also not sure why User:Berean Hunter is ignoring the collateral damage here, which seems excessive.
 * And while I can understand that a short rangeblock may occasionally be necessary, the removal of talk page access seems to be entirely unnecessary, and in violation of WP:PP. The unblock requests were not all the same. The response from User:Yamla to the first one on Saturday was "because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons"; as it wasn't me who was blocked, there seems to be a AGF fail here. second request on Sunday clarifies that it isn't just Mississauga, but apparently GTA-wide, and I note for the first time massive WP:COLLATERAL. And then User:Yamla ignores all the questions, and posts the exact same decline reason? That doesn't seem sporting. I tried to query User:Yamla about the duplicated unblock response on Monday but they abdicated their admin responsibility, and failed to even respond! So later on Monday I made a third unblock request making clear that I'm not the sockpuppet your are looking for. And then I get a bizarre response, partly in CAPS, with untrue claims, and the yanking of Talk page access, for no apparent reason other than one polite request a day for 3 days, that doesn't actually seem to have been taken seriously, is too much work for admins to handle. I don't even begin to see how the criteria for talk page access removal has been met here - particularly for a massive range block effecting many users, that can't be addressed with the UTRS system. Please lift this block. And if that's not possible, lift the talk page block. WP:PP notes that removing talk page access may be done in extreme cases of abuse. I don't see that three polite unblock requests over three days by someone who was WP:COLLATERAL is extreme abuse - I'm pretty sure this is meant to refer to other things. . Nfitz (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeffed and explanation given at your talk page.