2600:387:F:7812:0:0:0:3

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: Blocking tens of millions of customers isn’t polite.2600:387:F:7812:0:0:0:3 23:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: This is not an issue of politeness or impoliteness, this is an issue of management of problematic editing. User accounts that are logged in from this range are able to edit, and would encourage you to create an account to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

Is there any particular reason to unblock rather than the block not being "polite"? Yes, it is expected that a three month block on a large range might affect some innocent users, but as far as I can see, a large part of the edits from this range have been vandalism and the small part of constructive edits can IMO be made logged in - both this block and the global block (which expires tomorrow) are set to only affect logged out users and for those causes I see little reason to unblock this range - possibly we could consider allowing account creation however. EPIC (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I echo EPIC's sentiments. --SHB2000 (t • c) 05:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz, Hasley, Minorax, Sotiale, Superpes15, Vermont, and Xaosflux: would one of you please have a look among the noise of CU to see if we have problematic accounts locally and consider whether we can allow local account creation. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount of collateral on the range, alongside a considerable amount of abuse. No big objections if account creation is allowed locally, but it can probably be left off - most Meta-Wiki participants will be making accounts elsewhere. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's anon-only. Is there demonstration of this blocking autocreations? We rarely expect new users to start their first account on the metawiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

---