| Revision as of 15:39, 26 January 2015 edit162.119.231.132 (talk) →Not a proxy: is there a solution?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:20, 8 September 2022 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,449,295 edits template out ancient IP talk page messagesTags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| == January 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. An edit you recently made to ] seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the ] is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks. <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-test-1 --><!-- Template:uw-test1 --><span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]]</span> 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| == Not a proxy == | |||
| {{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. This is not an open proxy. It is a public IP attached to a medical center, which is where I'm sitting right now. It's use ain't against the rules. I'm the guy who made all the edits in 2015 with this IP. {{ping|Mike V}} placed a broad range block, 162.119.0.0/16. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log/Mike_V. It was apparently triggered by a spurious SPI. ] The block is a serious inconvenience. I've been making positive contributions. Please unblock this address for my benefit and for future users who are stuck in waiting rooms. ] (]) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| :While yes, it is a medical center, there are still open ports being used. Here's the results from an nmap scan. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top}} | |||
| Starting Nmap 6.47 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2015-01-26 15:24 UTC<br/> | |||
| Nmap scan report for 162.119.231.132<br/> | |||
| Host is up (0.091s latency).<br/> | |||
| Not shown: 986 filtered ports<br/> | |||
| PORT STATE SERVICE<br/> | |||
| 17/tcp open qotd<br/> | |||
| 21/tcp open ftp<br/> | |||
| 80/tcp open http<br/> | |||
| 389/tcp closed ldap<br/> | |||
| 636/tcp closed ldapssl<br/> | |||
| 1723/tcp open pptp<br/> | |||
| 2323/tcp closed 3d-nfsd<br/> | |||
| 5080/tcp closed onscreen<br/> | |||
| 8080/tcp open http-proxy<br/> | |||
| 8081/tcp open blackice-icecap<br/> | |||
| 8082/tcp closed blackice-alertsv<br/> | |||
| 8083/tcp closed us-srv<br/> | |||
| 8088/tcp open radan-http<br/> | |||
| 8888/tcp closed sun-answerbook<br/> | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| ::You're the expert - I dunno what most of that means. If I register an account will I still be unable to edit from here? If I can't that'd be a serious inconvenience. I'm stuck here a lot. ] (]) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I agree that this block should be reviewed. If the IP is a ], policy says that open or anonymising proxies ''may'' be blocked from editing - if their being used abusively. ] lists about a dozen inappropriate uses (and about an equal number of legitimate uses). The IP user is ''not'' me and they are ''not'' Darknipples, and since no-one else is trying to introduce pro-control balance to gun-control articles at this time that I'm aware of, I don't think the IP is someone "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts." Probably the best guess, ''if'' the IP editor is abusing a proxy, is that he/she is circumventing a sanction, but I don't know of a blocked pro-control editor at this time. There are ]. | |||
| Unless this IP editor has done something wrong, they should be unblocked. I have posted a DS alert re gun control below. ] (]) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Discretionary sanction (DS) alert == | |||
| {{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 15:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, kinda already know about it, seein' as how I just filed a case under it. ] (]) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 8 September 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.