Deptrai (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I am requesting an IP block exemption for this user, for the IP address 204.11.35.233. Per the discussion on its talk page as well as the blocking user, it is only blocked as collateral damage to an overly-broad IP range block.
I have read the relevant Wikipedia documentation, think that I meet the conditions (see the above-cited discussion for details), and agree to abide by the relevant policies.
Decline reason:
You created this account on August 6, and have made only two edits from it, both to this page. Sorry, but this does not qualify you for IP exemption.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:11, 13 August 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.
Please try editing the Sandbox - the range in question is blocked with settings that permit logged-in editing, so no exemption should be needed. Max Semenik (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)No, it's not anon-only, my bad. 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I Give Up
editMr. Bradbury:
1. You are not correct that I only edited this page, I also edited Materialscientist's page to query him regarding the reason for the block prior to making the request to unblock the address on its talk page, as was linked to both in my unblock request above, and in both of the unblock requests on the IP-address.
2. What difference does it make??? Everyone agrees that no inappropriate behaviour ever took place, or ever was implied to take place, on either the address or the user-account, and there was _never_ any reason for a block. The only purpose of the user-account is to unblock the _address_, which otherwise cannot be unblocked due to technical reasons. It seems quite likely that you didn't bother to read the linked-to discussions in which I carefully and politely explained the situation.
Mr. Semenik:
I did _exactly_ what you asked me to do, what can possibly be the problem now? Why did you ask me to make this user-unblock request just to decline it? I can't understand how it can be _so_hard_ to unblock someone who was never accused of anything!
All:
What is going on? How can this be so hard? One server in a co-loc is used as an open proxy so rather than blocking it, you decide to slap a /22 on the CIDR and cause 1,023 completely-unrelated hosts of collateral damage, with the explanation that "there are also some web servers in that range." Of course there are web servers, it's a co-loc!!! "Machines that run web servers are sometimes used as open proxies" is as relevant as "computers are sometimes used as open proxies." Why not use a CIDR/0 block, that will solve the open-proxy problem perfectly! I haven't tried, but I honestly suspect that if you run an analysis you'll find that far more open-proxies are _not_ web-servers than _are_ web-servers, and I'm quite sure that less than 1 per million web-servers are open-proxies. Many people even run web-servers on their home machines. If you already know that a machine _isn't_ an open-proxy (like mine), why would "it's a web-server" be a reason to block it?
Forgive me if I'm upset at this point, this has consumed way too much of my time, trying to remove a block for which I never did anything to deserve, it just appeared one day! I'm busy but I took quite some time to make (what I thought were) carefully-explained and polite appeals which then get dismissed with one-sentence brush-offs. All of the time that I have spent reading wikipedia policies and procedures on blocks, composing these discussions, and finding IP's from which to post them, could have been spent working on a real page to make Wikipedia a better resource.
You seem to throw up /22 blocks and slap "declined" on unblock requests with very little reflection. Please, Materialscientist, Hersfold, Semenik, Bradbury, look at the entire sequence of events; read the entire list of above-referenced discussions and ask yourselves, what the heck is going on here? Someone who never did anything wrong on an address that never did anything wrong not only is blocked, but can't get unblocked via any procedure whatsoever.
One day I got a message on Wikipedia telling me that my IP is blocked (NB: the fact that it is a range block is not displayed in the message [EDIT: I just looked at the block message again and the range is mentioned, but in a separate part of the message, I must have missed it the first time]) because it's an open proxy. Holy crap, I thought, something is terribly wrong! I desperately checked configurations, even ran network packet monitors to find evidence of exploitation or misconfiguration, but everything seemed fine. So, somewhat calmed, I asked you, Materialscientist, why you placed the block and you told me that it was a range block and it wasn't my host that was the open-proxy, and I should make an unblock request. I did so, and it was quickly declined because, Hersfold, you said that you can't think of any reason why anyone would ever edit from that address (my goodness, how hard did you think before you said that?). For Pete's sake, Materialscientist, why not just tell me from the start not to bother making an unblock request? When I carefully explained that there is a reason for using the address, Mr. Semenik told me that the procedure to get a single address unblocked is to create a user account and request unblock for the user, not the address. OK, I did that, and it gets the brush-off decline because "it's a new account." So what? It's not an address that ever was an open proxy or engaged in any other kind of abuse!
So why does my time get wasted like this? Is there some kind of breakdown of the wikipedia process here? I tried to follow instructions as best I could at every step, but did I do something wrong? All the facts were known to everyone at every stage of the process, even from before the /22 block was ever placed -- that there would be massive collateral damage, how it should be appealed, and even by inference that the appeals would be declined. There were no new relevant facts for me to unveil or explanations for me to articulate and enlighten you with in all these discussions and requests, no need for the twists and turns of bureaucratic procedures. There was never any reason to block this host and we all have agreed about this all along. You could have just told me from the very start, "you're collateral damage, you did nothing wrong but you won't be permitted to edit Wikipedia again, don't waste your time making unblock requests." In fact, it can just be put right into the template for the range-blocked-IP message in the front-end.
And most of all, Materialscientist, stop making /22 blocks so cavalierly!!! Less than 0.1% of the hosts (with completely unrelated owners) in that range ever did anything inappropriate, and the other 99.9% are collateral damage. I am the squeaky wheel but how many others are just silently prevented from using Wikipedia? Your own published policies on range-blocks indicate that this is to be avoided. These are not VPS's, they are bare metal owned by individuals or small businesses (at least mine is), related in IP address only by their physical location. Do an rDNS on my address, then try adjoining addresses and you will see that there are no other hosts in the resulting domain.
I will link to this page from each of your talk pages, to try to make you aware of it since there's clearly no point in making any more unblock requests. Do whatever you like, I will not bother anyone any more, but if you don't unblock me, I obviously will never again be able to edit Wikipedia. Thanks.
Đẹp Trai (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I concede your staterment regarding an edit to the blocking admin's page. Therefore three edits (four now) rather than two. You link to the relevant documentation. Can I draw your attention to a phrase in the opening paragraph, which reads "An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure, may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion". You do not have any editing record, credible or otherwise. Clearly most editors within this range are not vandalising, but we have no way of telling except by assessment of editing from established accounts. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)