User talk:203.81.67.123

July 2013

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Um, would someone mind explaining what that was about? 203.81.67.123 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can someone explain this? I am not aware of any malicious edits from this ip. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This address is being used as a proxy and they get blocked. There have been no attempts at outing...no personal info has been disclosed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2013 (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.

Thanks for your review, Berean. I've been asking around for some feedback on this, to try to figure out the reason for the block, and it seems that most IPs are proxies, but confirmed proxies are legitimate, so the "confirmed proxy" doesn't seem to be the issue. Perhaps there is something in the edits that raises some issue. All the edits in the "user contributions" are mine, going back to July 1. They were made in good faith, there were good reasons for making them, and I stand by them. If there is something problematic about any of them, perhaps you could point it out to me. Regards, —203.81.67.123 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The blocking admin has just added a link to the user page, so it looks like the reason for the block is that they think I am the same person as the Aspie kid in England. I am not. At the very least, it should be evident that the two IPs geolocate to different areas. The IP linked to the user:Badanagram account, 86.11.254.79 geolocates to England, while my current IP, 203.81.67.123 geolocates to Myanmar (Burma). The differences in writing style should also be evident to even the casual reader. There are differences in syntax and register, as well as capitalization and punctuation habits. The EngVar differences are also evident, the most recent version of his user page contains the spellings "behaviour, apologised, favour, criticise", clearly British. You can see the Americanisms in my own writing in this diff, with American date formatting, month first, and here, with the American spelling of "criticized". I did try to help the kid by removing the old postings on his previous IP from three years ago--he seemed quite distressed by them--and I couldn't find any reason, policy reason or human reason, for leaving them up. There is an Aspie in my own family, and I know how they can stress on things. But it looks like I just ended up making things worse for him. There are also some concerns about blocking this particular IP, from the standpoint of collateral damage. Myanmar is not particularly dense as far as internet usage--there are possibly as little as 10,000 users altogether (goats and cows wander the streets freely here). The same IP is used in towns hundreds of miles apart. So blocking even one IP could have a wide geographical impact on a technology — and a tourism industry — that is just barely starting to get off the ground. 203.81.67.123 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2013 (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.

When your 4th edit is to ANI, the problem is obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And evading the block at 203.81.67.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A request for a prompt and civil response to my repeated queries

My apologies if I have stepped on any toes by going to Dennis Brown's talk page. It never occurred to me that anyone might have a problem with that, especially since I have not received an adequate response to repeated queries about the block on this talk page. Special thanks to Dennis for doing a quick check on this IP and confirming that the "confirmed proxy" (of a state-supported internet provider) is legitimate.

I see that after my second request, the blocking admin, Todds1 posted new information about the block, and someone immediately processed the block without giving me time to respond.

I am still not clear on the reason for the initial block, and would like a suitable explanation before proceeding any further. Admin Todds's above answer to my query was to post a link to WP:SOCK, along with an edit summary of "quack". Now that might be amusing to those in the know, but to me it is a rather opaque insiders' joke.

My understanding of the IP policy is that anyone can edit as an IP, or edit logged out, as long as they don't use the IP for something disruptive, like vote-stacking or edit-warring. If User:Badanagram, or anyone else, wants to come over to Myanmar and post a few anonymous links, there is absolutely no problem with that, as long as it is not for the purpose of evading policy. So I repeat my original question, that as yet has gone unanswered: where are the "malicious edits" here that would distinguish a sock from a legitimate IP user?

Admin Todds has pointed to my "4th edit to ANI" as a reason for the block. I request a diff, and an explanation of exactly what word or phrase Todds finds objectionable or malicious, from a policy standpoint.

I ask for a prompt and civil response to my repeated queries.

203.81.67.123 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)