User talk:Plommespiser

Archives (Index)

2017/January 2017/December 2018/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Plommespiser. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Plommespiser (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

Blocking admin: not provided.
Block message:

While it's easy to understand why unregistered users behind a proxy/vpn/tor is blocked from making edits, it's not as easy to understand why you by default are still autoblocking long-term contributors, that are logged in, and that even have been unblocked earlier after making appeals for similar reasons. This seems only to be a good thing to do if you really want to make people stop contributing to Wikipedia. Use of proxy/vpn is globally increasing and you can't really expect people to disable a proxy or vpn for every little contribution, or them to make a appeal every time they get blocked for no reason. Legitimate users are not the intended targets, but it sure feels that way when it happens repeatedly. Some ain't even in any control of what vpn/proxy software that is run on the router their devices connects to. Sooner or later, legitimate users will just stop contributing instead. This applies to any use of shared IP. The risk of blocking legitimate users and the unnecessary difficulties it causes for them would be a lot less of a issue if you for example only blocked unregistered users and new accounts with less than X amount of accepted content. Most spammers etc. are not both logged in and have a record of good behavior, there's even a lesser chance of them making any appeals, and they could still be blocked at a per case basis if needed. Please unblock again, thank you. Plommespiser (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Plommespiser}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=not provided | 2=<nowiki>While it's easy to understand why unregistered users behind a proxy/vpn/tor is blocked from making edits, it's not as easy to understand why you by default are still autoblocking long-term contributors, that are logged in, and that even have been unblocked earlier after making appeals for similar reasons. This seems only to be a good thing to do if you really want to make people stop contributing to Wikipedia. Use of proxy/vpn is globally increasing and you can't really expect people to disable a proxy or vpn for every little contribution, or them to make a appeal every time they get blocked for no reason. Legitimate users are not the intended targets, but it sure feels that way when it happens repeatedly. Some ain't even in any control of what vpn/proxy software that is run on the router their devices connects to. Sooner or later, legitimate users will just stop contributing instead. This applies to any use of shared IP. The risk of blocking legitimate users and the unnecessary difficulties it causes for them would be a lot less of a issue if you for example only blocked unregistered users and new accounts with less than X amount of accepted content. Most spammers etc. are not both logged in and have a record of good behavior, there's even a lesser chance of them making any appeals, and they could still be blocked at a per case basis if needed. Please unblock again, thank you. Plommespiser (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)</nowiki> | 3= | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1= | 2=<nowiki>While it's easy to understand why unregistered users behind a proxy/vpn/tor is blocked from making edits, it's not as easy to understand why you by default are still autoblocking long-term contributors, that are logged in, and that even have been unblocked earlier after making appeals for similar reasons. This seems only to be a good thing to do if you really want to make people stop contributing to Wikipedia. Use of proxy/vpn is globally increasing and you can't really expect people to disable a proxy or vpn for every little contribution, or them to make a appeal every time they get blocked for no reason. Legitimate users are not the intended targets, but it sure feels that way when it happens repeatedly. Some ain't even in any control of what vpn/proxy software that is run on the router their devices connects to. Sooner or later, legitimate users will just stop contributing instead. This applies to any use of shared IP. The risk of blocking legitimate users and the unnecessary difficulties it causes for them would be a lot less of a issue if you for example only blocked unregistered users and new accounts with less than X amount of accepted content. Most spammers etc. are not both logged in and have a record of good behavior, there's even a lesser chance of them making any appeals, and they could still be blocked at a per case basis if needed. Please unblock again, thank you. Plommespiser (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)</nowiki> | 3=not provided | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1= | 2=<nowiki>While it's easy to understand why unregistered users behind a proxy/vpn/tor is blocked from making edits, it's not as easy to understand why you by default are still autoblocking long-term contributors, that are logged in, and that even have been unblocked earlier after making appeals for similar reasons. This seems only to be a good thing to do if you really want to make people stop contributing to Wikipedia. Use of proxy/vpn is globally increasing and you can't really expect people to disable a proxy or vpn for every little contribution, or them to make a appeal every time they get blocked for no reason. Legitimate users are not the intended targets, but it sure feels that way when it happens repeatedly. Some ain't even in any control of what vpn/proxy software that is run on the router their devices connects to. Sooner or later, legitimate users will just stop contributing instead. This applies to any use of shared IP. The risk of blocking legitimate users and the unnecessary difficulties it causes for them would be a lot less of a issue if you for example only blocked unregistered users and new accounts with less than X amount of accepted content. Most spammers etc. are not both logged in and have a record of good behavior, there's even a lesser chance of them making any appeals, and they could still be blocked at a per case basis if needed. Please unblock again, thank you. Plommespiser (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)</nowiki> | 3=not provided | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}