91.121.6.61

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).

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

---

Request reason:

block reason listed as "open proxy - OVH is a web hosting company"; this is a horribly conflated reason, I pay almost $60/month for the privilege of having a clean, unmonitored Internet connection that is not subject to throttling and tracking by my local country. This is clearly not "open" - I am paying handsomely for the privilege, as do all OVH customers. Perhaps with the exception of a few errant computers, blocking all of OVH is ridiculous. It would be like blocking an ISP with a few million users because one DSL line happened to be running Wingate. As I hope you are aware, OVH are one of the largest colocation providers in Europe, so this comparison is very much valid. (Actually it would be cheaper for me to pay $20 for a throwaway 3G SIM and hide behind its NAT along with a few thousand others if I wanted to troll. Blocking OVH is dumb.

Decline reason:

Your analogy doesn't work here because the ISP isn't providing anonymizing services for all of its clients whereas OVH is and that could be used as a tool for nefarious reasons here. Whether it is free or $60 per month is irrelevant.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2012 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

(Dear reader, please refer to previous unblock request on my talk page). Branding a colocation provider an 'anonymization service' is nonsensical: this company require a copy of the account holder's passport and proof of address before they allow opening an account, in addition to being reputedly hostile to any unfriendly behaviour from its customers (for example, they automatically mail warnings for BitTorrent or port scanning). A passport copy is much more than my ISP requires (and infinitely more than an anonymous Pay As You Go 3G SIM requires). Furthermore and increasingly unlike the average ISP, the IP address I am connecting from is irrefutably associated with a single account holder. In this respect the block is contrary to the block's goals: I am *less* anonymous via OVH than I would be via BT or my mobile phone provider (3 - they operate huge NATs). I am again contesting this nonsensical block of one of the largest and most reputable co-location providers in Europe, through which legitimate customers (who can be complained about using the standard abuse@ mechanism that has existed for 20+ years) terminate their VPN endpoints. Failing a trip around in circles, is there perhaps a mechanism to *whitelist* a single address?

Decline reason:

See below. — Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (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.

• It would be helpful to reviewing admins if you could copy over the block notice you see when trying to edit. This IP is not directly blocked so it is difficult to evaluate the reasoning behind it. You are probably either autoblocked or rangeblocked. Without knowing which it is it is difficult to review the situation. It also appears that these block appeals are the first ever edits from this IP. If you do have an account it may be possible to grant an IP block exemption but we would need to know what account to apply it to. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• • The block message is "open proxy - web hosting company OVH" - you can use the "active blocks" link in the unblock template (second after the IP address) to locate any rangeblocks.
  • As to the block itself, regardless of how stringent their access policies are, I still do not feel that editing from this network is permissible under the no open proxies policy. We do not make a habit of contacting ISPs to determine who is editing from a particular IP address, and use of this network in combination with a "normal" internet connection could allow someone to easily abuse multiple accounts and evade detection. I can certainly see the appellant's side of things, especially since British ISP's are notoriously problematic for checkusers, but I still cannot see that it's worth making an exception for this particular service. To answer the appellant's question, no, it is not possible to unblock a single IP address within a blocked range. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically it is possible to recalculate the block and replace it with two narrower rangeblocks, but a) that takes more confidence in one's math and network management skills than most of us would profess and b) we haven't yet had a case where that was deemed to be of such benefit to the project that we needed to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the size of the range, that also means replacing a single block with around half a dozen or more, which makes things much more difficult to track and manage. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Will not unblock

The short of it: 99.9% of the traffic from hosting services (and that includes OVH) is disruptive. Those ranges host spambots, open proxies, anonymizers used for socking and trollings, and myriads compromised boxen part of zombie botnets (OVH is only very marginally better than others at preventing those – and yes, I am very familiar with their policies: not only did I work briefly for them as a sysadmin, I also still have servers hosted there).

I did not block this particular range, but I do block those I come across; there are so very few legitimate editors coming from dedicated and VPS ranges that it makes no sense to not block them at the first sight of abuse. So, no, the range will not be unblocked.

Even if you are unwilling or unable to change your routing/proxy use to avoid using that endpoint while editing Wikipedia, you can ask for a named account using this tool, which could then be allowed to edit through the block. (You might want to mention this discussion in the comments field to simplify and expedite matters). — Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---