Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

China

IN China, the government has blocked us from accessing Wikipedia. When I go onto an anonymous surfing program, Wikipedia doesn't permit me to edit any articles. :( ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Probably because the IP used by the anonymizer was used at one time by a vandal. -Dandaman32 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Name: dvdhws1939. : I find myself blocked and can not understand why. I have made 2 contributions in the past week (they were my first) and both have been accepted. 1. A minor change to the entry for Dick White. 2. A new entry regarding Dick Forsman the ornathologist. I found myself blocked when I attempted to add a minor detail to information about my home town. Why? 15:05 21/08/2006

User Name: Rosser1954. can anyone out there tell me why I have been blocked? How do I find out the reason - nothing comes to mind or fits with your list of reasons for blocking. How does one contact the LOcal Administrator?

As I have stated on your talk page, your user account is not blocked. If it were, you would not be able to post here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user name Mikefreeman. I have been blocked for attempting to correct a vandalised article on the Ben Dover page. Some has deleted the truth that the persons appearing in Truth or Dare [made by myself]are Lyndsay Honey and paula Meadows. The block said that I have vandalised the page under the name of Ganeesh or whatever! I don't know how this person could represent me or use my IP address. How do I get unblocked? Mike Freeman http://eroticartist.co.uk

Question on being blocked

Dear Sirs,

My name is Edward Lynch. I am originally from the United States and currently living in Taiwan. I have just moved into a new apartment where the internet connection is under the landlord's name and has been active during the tenure of at least two of the previous tennants. I have recently found that I have been blocked by an administrator who goes by the handle of Golden Wattle. I attempted to email this administrator but have found that I am unable to inquire as to why I have been blocked because I have been blocked. I am aware that the online community in Taiwan has a poor reputation and that perhaps many users of this same ISP have behaved badly in the past. I have never posted or edited anything on Wikipedia before. The reason for blocking me that was displayed -- "vandalism -- has been warned before" -- clearly does not apply to me. I would appreciate it very much if I could contact any pertinant administrator directly to settle this issue. My email address is tedwlynch@hotmail.com. Thank you.203.79.253.1 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to blocking policy

This shouldn't be merged, it should be discussed at WP:BP, this information was recently created - not moved from a policy page. Therefore, it is not policy yet, even if the information on it is consistant with policy - if that makes sense. Fresheneesz 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it does not. Codifying current practice is a valid way (and arguably, the best way) to create policy. And why shouldn't it be merged, btw? >Radiant< 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid way to create policy is through consensus. And this page shouldn't be merged without it. Fresheneesz 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that you seem not to understand is that the common outcome of a common process does equate to consensus. >Radiant< 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the view of a minority on what that outcome is, is not neccessarily consensus - and i'd feel much better if this information were proposed on the talk page of WP:BP before it is added. Fresheneesz 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who obviously wants to merge it - so YOU fix it. However, since you suggest it, i'll not be lazy, and oblige to put a small note on BP's page. Fresheneesz 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a minority view - this is the way things work (see lists of blocked people, and related cats and newsfeeds). Asserting that things aren't consensual because they might not have been discussed as much as you like isn't very helpful. Do you have any objection to the substance of this policy? >Radiant< 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m, not really. Sorry, i'm being a jerk. Fresheneesz 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my comments here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with proposed merge. Two more focussed pages may be better than one longer one, especially as they cover different ground to a user (how blocks work vs. how to appeal one). Blocked users probably want a short simple guide to how to "appeal a block" without having to read the whole of blocking policy, given their state. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FT, please check your timestamps? This thread is about a year old :) >Radiant< 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge template in the article. I think we can all agree that the discussion has run its course, or as much of a course it is going to run. It's been "active" for well over a year now. --ElKevbo 05:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user

i just got onto my wikipedia and i tried to create a new article but as soon as i had done so i found my self with a warning over vandalism.The next day i turned on my p.c i logged on and found that i had been given a final warning during the night,the warning stated that i had vandalised agian and is threatining to block me!

(moved to WP:ANI; this page explains how to appeal a block but is not in itself a forum for doing so). >Radiant< 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Tomananda is unfairly blocked. He exhausted his 3 reverts on this page but he did not violate the 3RR rule. I contacted the admin that blocked him the following is his response. What is more fair is that Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts on that page was not blocked. Please unblock Tomananda. --Yueyuen 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. Edit warring is prohibited. Also, the threshhold for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability; Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth" except through reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: the threshold is not just Verifiability but also Neutral Point of View, which should be attained by due discussion and consensus (in case of dispute). A good article is not just a list of facts, no matter how well documented they are. --Sugaar 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

I am new to wikipedia (psalms 52:10 and I blocked myself by accident, i was trying to block someone who deleted information about me and wrote hateful things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalms51:10 (talk • contribs)

You're not blocked (if you were, you wouldn't be able to post on this page), and the username Psalms 52:10 (talk · contribs) does not seem to exist. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of last 2 sections

I have rewritten the text of the section "What happens next", in a way that I hope is better styled.

I have not changed anything that is not absolutely clearly both practice and current policy, just the style and wording, and clarified a few aspects and points that are current but were not explained or covered. For example, i have indicated that admins will not usually override each others actions, since this is wheel warring, which wasn't stated before, so blocked users and others know where they stand if the admin doesn't like the appeal.

I also added a section "Abuse of the unblocking process". The aim is twofold -- to discuss the process, what abuse of it means, and what will happen. And also to encourage good conduct, by making very clear, we don't want to block people, and good behavior when blocked helps that to happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wrong to speak the truth on wikipeadia, i have decided never to use this site full of falsitudes again. Truth tellers are blocked, you need to suck up especially in the biography section, where is freedom of speech? unblock- accidently blocked myself, someone was writing mean things about me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalms51:10 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Reformation in Blocking Policy @ Wikipedia

As I have stated over and over again, I believe that punitive blocks are necessary to keep the vandals from damaging Wikipedia. By punitively blocking users, they, in turn, cannot damage Wikipedia any longer thus covering both topics (punitive/preventative). You can think up any criteria to fit this new reform if it is accepted. Please review once again. Redsox04 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a concrete proposal rather than a vague suggestion. >Radiant< 09:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Radiant!, and also add that there seems confusion between punitive and protective:

Protective == "doing whatever is needed to reasonably prevent damage to the wiki". Roughly speaking, as an editor more and more becomes visible as a bad actor, the block deemed suitable to protect the project increases, potentially to an indef block/site ban.

Punitive == "punishing them for actions regardless of whether or not this will actually help the project". Roughly speaking, punishing for past actions.

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL

The page says that AOL could be blocked but the help page for AOL indicates it's a non-issue currently. However, you can't remove the AOL info that's there 'cause it also appears to apply to non-AOL ISP's. I don't know enough to modify it, but it should be adjusted so it's clear for Comcast or school IPs. Is the following more acceptable?

Do you use an ISP or web accelerator that involves shared IPs? Common examples include ~~AOL,~~ Comcast, StarHub, schools, colleges, or Google Web Accelerator. If so, you may have been affected by collateral damage. If you are using ~~AOL~~ Comcast (or any ISP listed above), please see our advice to ~~AOL~~ ISP users. If you are using Google Web Accelerator (or any other web accelerator that uses shared IPs), please disable it for this site by following these instructions.

However, the AOL help page that is currently linked says it's inactive/historical. Does a new guide need to be written, one that discusses non-AOL ISP's? Has a similar solution been reached for them as well? WLU 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing administrator? Not always possible.

The section on appealing a block incorrectly states that you may e-mail an administrator to discuss your block. However, this is false, as all administrators do not have e-mail enabled. This section should be changed so as not to further frustrate already irritated contributors.[1]

If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add ...

New wording:

If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature both you and the blocking administrator must have a valid email address registered in user preferences. If you are able to contact the blocking administrator via email, and the administrator is willing to discuss the issue with you, but you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.

This is important because the instructions require you to contact the blocking administrator via email first before you gain the right to appeal--yet not all blocking administrators have email enabled. So if you're blocked by an administrator who does not have e-mail enabled, you don't have the right of appeal, you merely must ride out your block for the full length of time.

KP

Sockpuppetry

I was thinking that the section under the "How to request an unblock", should mention that users should not create a alternate account to file the unblock:

Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below.

If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, or if you cannot contact them, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add

{{unblock|your reason here}}

to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page. Also, please note, you should not create a second account to file this unblock request.

So I was thinking of updating it to this. Any suggestions? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy IP Blocking

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I have only just joined. I had to do so because when I went to make a minor edit in wording in an article I was blocked. This was due to the fact that I am connected through iprimus (Primus Telecom), which uses a proxy server. While I agree to blocking a proxy due to consistent vandalism being issued by it's users, I wish to request that the policy on blocking be changed so that members of a proxy can still register on wikipedia. It is completely unfair to prevent them all from registering, when, once registered, they can be individually blocked. I understand that they can then make multiple accounts and undermine the system, but isn't blocking them to prevent that against the whole idea of wikipedia? Besides that, if they know how, they can simply bypass the proxy in their browser. Ultimately I would like to request that the policy be altered to stop the prevention of proxy users creating an account, or that at least the relevant instructions on how to bypass the proxy, and a list of affected ISP's be added to a relevant area. I myself had to navigate to an historical page on the problems with blocking AOL users to determine what I needed to do in order to register...

--KeeperoftheWatch (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a duplicate of this post on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock email

Is there a reason the unblock email unblock-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org isn't stated more clearly on the page, on the block template, or on the Wikipedia:Contact us/blocked page? It seems unnecessarily hard to find. Took me a good half hour starting at a standard block template and navigating pages. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AOL User advice

The main page that it links to for AOL users is considered no longer relevant. Shouldn't this article be updated to reflect whatever circumstance caused the other page to be deprecated? 71.255.66.62 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with connexion

Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is so complicated sometimes its frustrating!!

I am someone who wants to appeal a block....SO I click help....and I click the section that goes to unblocking....which takes me to a new page that offers great info on the step by step process and emailing and blah blah blah blah blah all that stuff....and yet....there is no easy access way to dispute or email. I mean its like each thing takes you to a new catagory!.....I mean i come to this section and it has catagories on what to do about being blocked and now i have to go back to my blocked page. I mean where is that? Why cant wikipedia just be like other websites and offer simple links when it comes to contacting people? Each thing is like long long pages of so much info and sometimes u keep jumping from one page to another, when you can just do what other websites do...which is....have a contact section. And then have the emails, or phone numbers, or addresses, or whatever, or anykind of contact info wikipedia whats to put up. And then all a user has to do is just click it. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]