User talk:35.164.239.14

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

This IP is not an open proxy. Inappropriate application of web host block policy. No evidence of disruption. The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

IP address belongs to Amazon EC2. Yamla (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Yamla: Please, what is the basis in policy or guideline for blocking this IP? 35.164.239.14 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXY, primarily. Note that I am not the blocking administrator here. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you for your reply. The unblock request was on the basis of the fact that this IP is not an open proxy; how does WP:PROXY apply? Please request a check for an open proxy. Thank you again. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a range block. All (or, well, most) of EC2 is blocked. This specific IP address may not currently be running an open proxy, but a significant number of EC2 instances do. And as EC2 is a shared resource, you can't guarantee this particular one won't in the future. And of course, you are indeed using this as a proxy, albeit not an open proxy. A more interesting question (to me, anyway, perhaps not to you) is whether proxies should be blocked anon-only by default, allowing people to edit if they are signed in. We already have a partial solution to that in the form of WP:IPBE, but I'm personally concerned about these blocks applying to signed-in users. Anyway, in this case, the block is being applied to EC2 in general and, in the general case, it's an appropriate application of WP:PROXY. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you for your reply. Thank you for your views. This IP is not shared. This IP was not in a range block at the time of the above unblock request, I see it is now. What is the basis in policy or guideline for this range block? The edit history is good faith edits and improvements to our project. There is no evidence of disruption to our project from this IP or its 16 bit range. The IP block and the range block are not necessary to prevent disruption to our project. Thank you again. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for the blocking admin. But again, the policy is WP:PROXY. Are you specifically claiming there's been no vandalism across the entire /16 range? I haven't explicitly checked, and don't have access to checkuser information, meaning I can only see contributions for those editing anonymously. But honestly, it'd be unusual for there to be no vandalism from such a large range. If you wish, I'm willing to copy a statement from you requesting an unblock, on to WP:ANI, without endorsing the request. I warn you, though, that I believe WP:PROXY explicitly requires us to block all of Amazon EC2. --Yamla (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Like you I have no comprehensive history of the range, but the IP block and range block are new today, which seem to indicate to me the edit history of this IP may be related somehow to today's IP block and range block. I understand from my reading of WP:PROXY that open proxies such as Tor may be blocked on sight, but please I do not understand the application of WP:PROXY to this IP or this range. Is there a case I can read to better educate myself regarding the authorization under WP:PROXY of the status of Amazon web hosts as block-on-sight web hosts which would perhaps document some of its history of vandalism? Thank you again for your patience in discussing your administrative action the decline to unblock. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not as far as I know, but I want to be very clear, there may well have been an extensive discussion on this very subject that I'm not aware of. It's certainly the case that WP:PROXY was discussed at some point, for example. Much of my time these days is spent reviewing unblock requests and I very rarely place range blocks myself, meaning I don't have to be specifically aware. I suggest that DoRD (talk · contribs) may have useful commentary, too. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range block?[edit]

@DoRD: What is the basis in policy or guideline for the 1 year range block on 35.164.0.0/16? 35.164.239.14 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same policy pointed out above, WP:Open proxies. Web hosting ranges are frequently abused by spammers, vandals, sockpuppets, and other miscreants, so they are often blocked on sight. —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thank you again for your reply. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I understand and support the blocking on sight of open proxies as per procedural policy WP:Open proxies. This IP is not an open proxy, how does WP:Open proxies apply? Thank you again. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thank you again for discussing your administrative action the range block. I am considering appealing the range block, and before I do, I would like to understand the basis in policy or guideline for the range block so that I may file a concise informed appeal. Some of our volunteer colleagues are running a service to identify open proxies, did you check or ask for a check for an open proxy on this IP 35.164.239.14 before applying the range block 35.164/16? Thank you again. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thank you again for your ongoing engagement in discussing your recent administrative action, the 1 year range block on 35.164/16. An additional question for you, regarding your determination of a period of 1 year for this range block: Information page WP:Blocking IP addresses offers advice on the length of time of an IP block :

Block lengths should typically range from several weeks for dynamic IPs and short term Tor nodes, up to several years for long term proxies hosted on static IP addresses.

Has this IP 35.164.239.14 or this range 35.164/16 been identified as a long term open proxy hosted on a static IP address? Thank you again. 35.164.239.14 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Restored comments) Have you considered logging in rather than just using IP addresses? Springee (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any such unblock discussion will include an investigation into whether or not you are the blocked user, HughD, evading the block. The fact that you are blanking any discussion of that user, here, is really rather concerning. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this request for unblocking has offered more examples of behavioral parallels between HughD and the IP editor. I would also note that while the IP editor is here claiming no bad behavior, the same person was, during the same time, using Chicago based IPs here [[1]] and here [[2]]. Both IPs were blocked for 12 hours yesterday. I think this discussion of a SPI related to this IP editor is significant [[3]]

After a thorough investigation, we've determined that these IPs are the same person and likely HughD. However, there isn't strong enough evidence to mark it as confirmed. So, the investigation is being closed.

At the time the issue was HughD was blocked for 6 months and thus hadn't logged in. This meant that IP related evidence wasn't available. The behavior evidence however was strong even before edits like this [[4]] and this [[5]]. Once with an Amazon IP, once with a Chicago area IP. I would welcome an ANI investigation. Springee (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:, It is likely that this IP address is being used by HughD [[6]]. This IP editor has been found to have been using a large number of addresses and NeilN has blocked a number for being WP:ILLEGIT. Springee (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe this is the case, yes. 35.164.239.14, any comment on this before we consider what action to take next? --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for accuracy, HughD's account is not currently blocked though the activity of the IP editor in question started prior to the end of HughD's block. HughD is subject to an indef topic ban covering climate change and post 1932 US politics [[7]]. IP edits such as the ones made by this IP violate that band [[8]]. As a bit of additional behavior evidence note the phrase "what is the basis in policy". A search of Wikipedia shows that phrase used 9 times. HughD is 2 of the 9 [[9]], [[10]]. Consider the nearly identical phrase "what is your basis in policy or guideline". It returns 21 page results. HughD is the author of all 21 (found by searching for "basis") [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]] (twice on that page), [[16]], [[17]], [[18]] (twice), [[19]] (once + two similar phrases), [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]] (once and one similar phrase), [[25]] (once + 1 similar), [[26]], [[27]], [[28]] (1+2 similars), [[29]] (1 + almost the name of a section created by Hugh!), [[30]] (must 'show' a collapsed section to find it), [[31]] (2x in collapsed section)

I'm certainly seeing a pattern in phrasing. Springee (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm issuing blocks on that basis. --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.