User talk:Thrung

Welcome!

Hello, Thrung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. /29 statically assigned from within the blocked /20 since 2006. Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Block is against 217.151.96.0/20, which is owned by M247, formerly WebTapestry (see whois -h whois.geektools.com 217.151.96.0 - which defines a /24 rather than a /20). M247 is a UK ISP and connectivity provider that also provides web hosting, but is not exclusively a web host. I use 217.151.105.8/29 allocated from within that block statically and solely to me since 2006. Edits have always been from 217.151.105.10. Apologies for not including this information before. I had thought it would be apparent from my editing history and from the lengthy description provided when I previously requested unblock via the web form before realising how to use the Talk page. Please forgive a Wikinewbie Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

M247 has been used abusively by spammers (I know from personal experience) and likely won't be unblocked. Unfortunately, our software does not allow us to punch holes in rangeblocks. I recommend applying for IP block exemption via the private unblock system. (As for the whois info, the registrar reports in /24s but if you look up 217.151.97.0, 217.151.98.0, etc. they're all M247, hence the larger range.) MER-C 16:27, 25 April 2018 (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.

Confusion[edit]

I'm confused.

I submitted an Unblock Ticket Request and waited an appropriate length of time, with no response (from people whom I do understand are volunteers giving their own time freely; I feel no entitlement here).

I edited the Talk Page to request and unblock and this was rejected for valid procedural reasons.

I re-requested the unblock and was informed that individual holes cannot be punched through blocked subnets; but more significantly that a series of /24s had been consolidated into a single /20, which may be convenient, but makes it even harder to punch a hole by making the block sixteen times thicker (which is how I feel trying to understand all this).

I will resubmit my request using the Unblock Ticket Request system. ~~If anyone can tell me why my previous request failed (was it lost? malformed? misinformed?) I would be relieved.~~ EDIT: I received a verification link to my e-mail address when I submitted the form. This didn't happen last time. I must have done it wrongly before.

Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21356 was submitted on Apr 27, 2018 14:26:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am uncertain regarding the progress of my Unblock Request. Talk page shows "UTRS appeal #nnnnn¹ was submitted on Apr 27, 2018 14:26:02. This review is now closed." It is not clear to me if this means the appeal is in progress, has been declined/denied, or is in some other state, and I am unable to find my way around Wikipedia enough to figure it out for myself. Could someone please clarify "This review is now closed", and advise what (if anything) I now need to do? If the appeal is declined and I remain unable to edit pages using a logged-in account from my static IP range then I can think of no alternatives, which would be a shame.

Thanks in advance.

¹ Probably not appropriate for the appeal number to appear in my Talk Page history; apologies if that is an incorrect assumption and I should have left that number in place in this help request.

Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal was denied. The response, which was emailed to you, included the following:

"Looking at our logs, the IP address you're editing from belongs to a webhosting service. Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor and web hosting services, are blocked from editing Wikipedia. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through a webhost.

Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies and webhosts are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Anonymizing services allow malicious users to rapidly change and disguise IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns.

Unfortunately, you won't be able to edit while using this webhost."

Note that I did not write this response, I'm simply relaying it to you. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons given for the denial of my requests to unblock are factually incorrect. It is stated that "the IP address you're editing from belongs to a webhosting service." This is simply untrue. The IP address I am editing from (and have always edited from when editing from my home PC, which is where I do edit from, I do not edit Wikipedia from my work PC - that would be an inappropriate use of company resources) is in the subnet 217.151.105.8/29, which is statically and uniquely assigned to me, and has been so since 2006. No-one has access to those IPs other than myself, my family and a very occasional guest in my house. I understand that Wikipedia wants to avoid editing from webhosts, but the ISP M247 is not simply a webhost, it is a full ISP and provides connectivity and static IP ranges. The IP range from which I edit "belongs" to me, and will continue to do so as long as I keep paying the bills. Is it always the case that an IP from within the 4096 affected by the block on 217.151.96.0/20 will be blocked? Can an exception be made for an account (i.e. mine) logged in from within that range? Can an IP Address Block Exemption be made here? I can assert and avow that no malicious or mischievous edits have been made from within 217.151.105.8/29, and can promise that I will do all that I can to ensure that it doesn't happen in future as long as I have that IP range uniquely assigned to me (which is the intention - I have no plans to change ISP); but if there is no mechanism Wikipedia can use to allow me to bypass this block then there's little point in my continuing this appeal process. If there is a mechanism, if the IP Address Block Exemption that has been mentioned but not applied is truly available as an option, I would be delighted to offer whatever further information, evidence and proof is needed to allow it to be applied. Please guide me. Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2018 (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.

Interesting. All of the defined machines in 217.151.105.8/29 appear as proxies named after parts of a penis:

They do show up looking like proxies with names that look like porn servers. Is this a phallacy? Suddenly, "IP" sounds homophonic.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do not show up looking like proxies with names like porn servers. They show up looking like IPs with names like the plurals of parts of the body found in the undergarments - the perineum is not gender-specific. My qualification is in medical biology and I have an odd sense of humor. The main point is that the IPs in that range do not have generic rDNS, they have explicit (no pun intended) PTR records that are all of a type that demonstrate that the /29 is a related group, and mine. The IPs above and below that range have one of "sensible" rDNS, generic rDNS or none. If the PTR records are a concern to Wikipedia I shall have them changed. They serve no purpose other than to ensure rDNS does not pattern-match a generic rDNS.
Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Personal Appeal to Jimmy Wales[edit]

In the past I have responded to every personal appeal made by Jimmy Wales for support of Wikipedia.

Now it's my turn.

I have appealed the fact that my personally-assigned IP range is blocked from editing Wikipedia as collateral damage, because it is part of a larger IP range that has been marked as being entirely given over to web hosts, even though the presence of my IPs in that range is patent proof that this is not true.

I have made a number of appeals. All have been denied. After each appeal I read:

If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

This dissuades me from making any further appeals, but only because of inadequacies of the English language. Unconvincing implies that the appeals have failed because they are not capable of convincing. The reality is that the appeals are completely capable of convincing, but their target audience has shown itself barely or completely incapable of being convinced.

Hence this appeal. There's no point my re-stating the reasons behind my appeals, as they are unchanged. I would now like them to be read by someone else, please. If that means going to the top, so be it.

Help me, Jimmy Wales, you're my only hope.

Professor Eugene Q Thrung III (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]