User talk:1.145.115.242

Unblock request (block comments)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1.145.115.242 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, Jamie.

You may perhaps not be aware of my campaign against blanket IP-range blocking as anything other than a last resort — in other words, respecting WP's own policy in practice, not just paying it lip service. Therefore other actions such as semi-protecting the targeted pages (presumably no more than 50 articles?) would seem like it could have been a suitable first step.

That's especially so given that — it seems that — the (unknown) person carrying out the contentious editing has also operated from currently unblocked IP addresses, as per Special:Contributions/210.50.184.169. In other words, the block is not entirely effectual.

In any case, I should give credit that you implemented a second block of a type that I've never seen before, namely an IP-range block (on anonymous accounts) applying only to two designated WP articles. I commend this type of more targeted approach, which has reduced prospect of causing collateral damage.

Another suggestion: from only a quick look at List of Governors of Oregon I am not convinced that the nature of the complaint about the contentious edits has been effectively communicated to the relevant person. In particular, I notice that there is

• no discussion on the Talk page outlining the (alleged) problem;
• the reversions do not always provide clear explanations, e.g. referring cryptically to an "RFC", which is unlikely to mean anything to the average 'casual editor' (it would be better to consistently refer specifically to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Request_for_comment_on_the_contents_of_lists_of_officeholders;
• there was a very amateurish attempt to communicate via a user Talk page, as at [User_talk:1.145.71.145]. Quote: "We already hand a RFC which came to the decision to delete trivial info [...]." Poor communication, no link, no specific explanation of what constitutes "trivial info". This is obvious from the contentious editor's immediate response — quote: "Means nothing."!
  • An illustration of the problem with blithely referring to "trivial info" is that the RFC purports that the articles under discussion are mere lists, and yet in reality they contain extended prose such as Oregon became a U.S. Territory in 1848. Like most other U.S. territorial governments, Oregon's territorial governor was appointed by the President of the United States. As transportation and communications were not as reliable or as fast as 21st-century methods, there were times when a departing governor left office and a new governor could not yet take over. This resulted in several local individuals acting as territorial governor until the new executive was appointed and arrived to take office. // President Polk initially appointed Brigadier General James Shields to be Oregon's first territorial governor and Shields was confirmed by the Senate, but he declined the position and Joseph Lane was appointed in his place.

—DIV (1.145.115.242 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

P.S. Unfortunately, due to the blanket form of the block, this is the only way that I can pass on my comments to you. (Yes, that's yet another problem with the blanket blocking option.) If someone else is reviewing this, I suggest that you please refer it on to both User:Ohnoitsjamie and User:GoodDay. 1.145.115.242 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. And no, it's not the only way you have to air grievances. You can create an account for immediate editing access. You can email ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is this got something to do with the RFC that resulted in the 'trivia' being removed from List of office holder pages? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

---