Revision as of 17:19, December 4, 2008

Abuse Complaints

Archives: 1 2

Range Blocks

TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:

• Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the anon proxy part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable. Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--BRichtigen 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:

1. 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
2. 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
3. 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
4. 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
5. 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
6. 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)

lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --AlanS 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. Jallen 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks! --BRichtigen 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

• Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --₮K^/Talk 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --BRichtigen 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

• Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --₮K^/Talk 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)

I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.

Of course, I care for the Poles and others, as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.

--BRichtigen 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. It is not a forum for malcontents to foregather and indulge in a good old whinge, whinge, whinge. Bugler 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. Jallen 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

• Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --₮K^/Talk 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. Jallen 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Isn't that what should have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "Terrorists! Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --AlanS 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us. Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... share his knowledge. But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The URL you gave shows that the network this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's a fourth. This means that at least 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --AlanS 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. Geoff Plourde^Complain! 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. Jallen 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Interference and Collusiveness

AlanS received the following block:

• 20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The interference seems to be the following edit on a talk-page:

Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: This one for being made by a "liberal evolutionist" --AlanS 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the administrator HenryS lifted the block, the editor with blocking rights Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of creepiness is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the open door policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--BRichtigen 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)