Conservapedia talk:IP blocks

From Sid's talk page

Lets just see where he's targeting those block nukes...

• 00:47, 14 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "68.224.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-7, though he's got a bit more work to do. Thats only 1/7th of the netblocks that company owns in Atlanta.
• 00:43, 14 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.44.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • RIPE Network Coordination Centrer in Amsterdam. Though even more work is needed there - they own the entire class A network. Anything starting with an 82 is there. Karajou, try banning 82.0.0.0/8.
• 00:56, 13 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "203.162.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • Somewere in Asia. Though again, a bit of a miss. That netblock is 202.0.0.0/7.
• 02:27, 12 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.242.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • Herndon, VA. This one he almost got right. Still another block owned by that company though. If you toss this into Google maps[1], you will see that Karajou is on his way to banning the center of the United States Government. Given that the congressional interns have previously edited Wikipedia[2], think they'll ever get banned over there?
• 23:18, 10 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.176.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • Ottawa. This one actually was a correct hit - thats all they've got.
• 21:25, 10 July 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.167.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite
  • Saint John, NB. Another correct hit (in terms of getting all the IPs owned in that netblock).

I eagerly await the attempt to get 82.0.0.0/8 and 202.0.0.0/7 though. 50,331,642 IPs. I wonder how many points that will be worth. --Shagie 18:12, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, nice research! And actually, the software doesn't allow "/8" bans (or anything under 16, for that matter) because... uh... "would cut out far too many people in one go". There we go.

And does anybody have any idea what prompts him to ban 65k IPs so liberally? The locations look fairly random. Especially the Asia one. --Sid 18:23, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I still would love to see the attempt. And for some reason, I don't think they would be particularly adverse to blocking everything and anything that comes from a computer that you can't follow the copper to (ie: on continental US). Dunno about Asia - might be an open proxy someone found. --Shagie 18:30, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Agreed on all points. The Asia bit would make sense, too. I honestly don't think that he has any idea what he's doing, though. That help page there admits that range blocks are not intuitive and that sysops should be really careful with them. Additionally, WP's info page has nice sentences like

• IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked.
• Use careful judgement and make them as brief as possible; this can affect over sixty-five thousand IP addresses, potentially affecting millions of users.
• These should be reserved as an absolute last resort.

Yeah, I bet Karajou was REALLY careful there :P --Sid 18:48, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Ultimately, such wide and indefinite blocks - especially within the US is bad for its long term survival. Consider some Alantonian reading about it in some conservative media and then trying to create an account to see that his IP address has been blocked. He may not know that is an entire range - it was his personal IP address. That this group doesn't want any contributions from him at all. Zilch. To such an end, we should encourage more of these /16 blocks (anyone willing to work out the patch so that they can do /8 and /7 blocks too?) - the more people that can't contribute positively in the long run - the better. The more people that feel personally attacked by a group of right wing Christian conservatives - the better. One can only hope that in the process, of getting banned, an existing real user gets banned too. Given the level of paranoia there, such guilt by association is reason to get banned in itself! --Shagie 19:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, are they really doing this and leaving the blocks up? That's crazy! I know Atlanta is a hotbed of liberalism, homosexuality, and satan worship, but still, there must be a few rednecks left! Can we write an Atlanta paper and try to get people to want to join CP for real there? While the block is in place? Or, Ottawa? Can you make a map of the "nuclear destruction"? human^{be in} 20:34, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, with each new rangeban, the probability of killing off an innocent user increases. Of course, we will never hear of those people because they're already banned. The only indicator will be the ever-growing silence, and that won't really be much of a change for them. I mean, right now, practically the only people registering are either "liberals" (going by Andy's definition), vandals, or parody users. Actual ultra-conservatives join at a rate of "1 per month" or so. --Sid 19:39, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

If some Evil Deceitful Librul could only get them to ban each other, the place would self-destruct inside of a week. --Gulik 19:41, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

The sad thing is, it is going to be irritating when they turn off you or me. And they will. Waiting for the day you'll need IP approval before edit privilages are granted. Д^ιЯɖі$ɧ _ɥοםЄʟ^{βЯƏакĐΩωΝ} 19:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

82.44.0.0/16 - TELEWEST-HSD-CROYDON - Telewest Broadband, presumably in Croydon UK. Shagie, RIPE is the European number assigner; if you look up a European net in ARIN, all it will know is that it's a RIPE address, but if you use RIPE's whois you get the real info.

203.162.0.0 - all of Vietnam, maybe? It's split into lots of small address blocks, and I'm too lazy to check them all, but I _think_ what's going on is that the whole range is assigned to the Vietnam Postal & Telecom authority, which in turn delegates most of it to the Vietnam Data Corporation, which in turn gives it out to smaller groups. Similar comments as above, but with APNIC, the Asia Pacific authority

142.176.0.0 & 142.167.0.0 - I wonder if one of those was a typo? --jtl^talk 20:05, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

<sidenote>One of these last two was also the test IP range.</sidenote> --Sid 20:15, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

And another one: 12.107.*.* just got nuked. --Sid 20:41, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

That would be a chunk of AT&T - can't tell where though, AT&T owns all of 12.0.0.0/8. That bit appears to be sublet out to VALTEC PRODUCTIONS --Shagie 21:00, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh this one is a gem... 69.124.0.0/16 -- Hicksville, NY. Certainly there is at least on conservative there. Think we should move this off Sid's page and onto something more official? --Shagie

I agree with the general motion. However, it's past 4am here, so I'm not really in article-creation condition. If you guys want to create a more official article out of this all, that would be awesome. I'd clean up my user page and archive my talk page myself tomorrow then. --Sid 21:09, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Ottawa

What do you want to bet he's been going through the prominent RW users and blocking their ranges. For instance, I live in Ottawa, and I see that's pretty high on the list. They would have had the IP from when TK thought I was someone else. I remember DanH being suspicious of me when he found out I used to live in Halifax, too. --Kels 11:08, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I just realized, they blocked the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada! --Kels 12:53, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Pfeh. By CP standards. He's probably a filthy hippie. :) --Gulik 19:57, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, that's odd. They blocked what's apparently the range for Ottawa, but I just checked my current IP, and it's reading as 65.xx.xx.xx, so what's the deal? The one TK blocked that time started with 67, if that helps. --Kels 20:48, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

IPs are really organized by network topology and only incidently by geography. That block was for the "Stentor National Integrated Communications Network" located in Ottawa, not for every address in Ottawa (and without knowing what the Stentor National etc. is, I couldn't really guess if the addresses are in Ottawa, or just the organization's offices. Your IPs are all in a completely different range. --jtl^talk 20:57, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

How many users in total?

In order for a non-techie like me to get a handle on this - is it possible to put any kind of a figure on the potential users who could be blocked by all this activity?--Bob_M (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Sure, wait a couple of minutes. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 11:43, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The equation here, for the xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/16 addresses, is 2⁸², or 2¹⁶, which comes out to 65536. Seeing as there are 12 of these, the equation would be 2⁸²*12, which simplifies to 2¹⁶*12, which again simplifies to 65536*12, which is equal to 786432. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:15, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, that was wrong… hang on… --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

BUT thats just individual IPs, and while only one user at any moment will have a given IP many ISPs use dynamic IPs so the total number of users potentially effected could be exponentially greater. 24.141.169.255 12:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

You've got a number: V.W.X.Y/Z - for example 10.1.2.0/16. Then, do 2^{(32 - z)}. If you were to ban 10.1.2.0/24, this would block 2^{(32 - 24)} or 2⁸ or 256 IP addresses. Meanwhile, 2^{(32 - 16)} or 2¹⁶ is 65,536 addresses. --Shagie 12:32, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait, just ran it again… I was right. Thanks, Shagie, it's in conflict with the article, so I thought I was wrong. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

And I was wrong about it being in conflict… I need to read stuff more carefully :). --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:36, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Ooh…

4.154.0.0/16. That was me, I was finally pwned. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 11:42, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you mind if we include that in the article? --Sid 12:00, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Who was your sock this time Linus? Doggedpersistance 12:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Sid: nope, not at all :). Doggedpersistance: Er… I think Kook was just trying to block me out for good. May have had something to do with me creating a sock in my name in an attempt to show good faith. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Map

Should I map out what portion of the world they've blocked, geographically, if I can find the data? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 11:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

That would be a nifty visual. --ηοξιμαχονγ 12:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I think we should teach them how to edit the extension

Allowing for /8 blocks, its really easy, merely altering an if statement, it would make their lives easier....:) 24.141.169.255 12:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I might just do that… what is the extension name? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:13, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Check the talk page to on the mediawiki file linked to from this article and its explained. 130.113.218.226 18:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

More blocks

(Block log); 12:55 . . Hojimachong (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:24.122.0.0/16" with an expiry time of infinite: icewedg-connected)

Wow... they are busy. (whups, some one allready added it to article)

Go, Hoji! Soon, nobody will be able to post to CP! --Gulik 19:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I need to return to CP and not rest until the ENTIRE of West Yorkshire is banned from editing. Not that anyone in the People's Republic of Yorkshire would care to contribute anyway...XD _prettydilettante^lies 20:09, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

TK

Wow, he really outdid himself there. The one that took out a boatload of universities and research centers alone is worse than anything else. (Nice link, btw! Didn't know there were lists like that!)

Really a great example of why "/16" bans are DANGEROUS. --Sid 07:45, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Everyone knows universities are festering cesspits of Liberalism. I'm sure Conservapedia is better off without them and their Darwinistic "research centers". The only "research" CP needs is that done by the Family Research Council fnord!

(I think I did predict this was going to happen. :) --Gulik 12:40, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Formatting

I'm going to put this suggestion here since I'm too lazy to do it myself anyway.

It looks as though we've been adding the range block chronologically, so the page look rather hodgepodge-y. The suggestion:sort the IP numbers numerically. I suppose one could CP (copy/paste NOT the other place das info into a spreadsheet and have IT sort the list out and then CP back into place. I'd do it but as I said I'm too lazy and don't do spreadsheets.

CЯacke® 10:58, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

An interesting suggestion, but why a spreadsheet? We got... 17 or so data points so far... sorting them shouldn't be THAT hard, if I got you correctly. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll shuffle things around into order once I had a shower. --Sid 12:19, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank you, Sid, for implementing my suggestion. I'm tempted to award you with another four points just for being so prompt about it. (Only "tempted" because you took a shower first.) ~~ CЯacke® 13:15, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Herndon VA

The Herndon VA ones likely aren't actually Herndon VA - for various historical reasons (Google "MAE West" and "MAE East" if you're really curious), lots and lots of 2nd and 3rd tier internet backbones have presences in the Herndon / Reston / Falls Church area. --jtl^talk 19:41, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Snicker

We need a doomsday clock showing how long until the world is banned from editing CP. Dagomar 20:06, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice. Or a gauge, showing how much of the world is nonblocked.... --Gulik 20:32, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

XXX.YYY.0.0/24

TK has been doing a new style of blocks...

• 16:38, 25 August 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "74.73.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Troll/Sock IP)
• 15:43, 25 August 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.151.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 4 months (Youyouyou & Fdsfuodfjdf Socks(Vandals))
• 15:40, 25 August 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "85.164.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 4 months (Bye)
• 10:54, 25 August 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "66.169.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Antichrist - Hickory,NC)

The amusing part here, is I doubt that all three of these blocks were uniquely distinguished by XXX.YYY.0. Isn't sysadmin position in CP supposed to be given on ability? Well, maybe the ability to screw up. --Shagie 15:44, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I had sent TK a mail about that one roughly an hour ago, actually. His reply was that my "instructions [to also specify the third number] seem contrary to the ones at Wikimedia". I sent him the link to the non-technical Mediawiki page linked in this article and tried to clarify the issue to him. Let's see where this goes. --Sid 16:33, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

But yes, I agree that it was foolish to enable this thing without giving all sysops proper lecture on usage, especially regarding duration and range specification. --Sid 16:35, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Update: Judging by his last mail, the misunderstanding has apparently been resolved. :) --Sid 17:32, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, TK doesn't remeber what he was told before:

1. (Block log); 02:32 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:217.65.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 3 months)
2. (Block log); 02:31 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:217.65.0.0/16: too wide)
3. (Block log); 02:30 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:84.64.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 6 months: Troll IP)
4. (Block log); 02:29 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:84.64.0.0/16: too wide)
5. (Block log); 02:29 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:86.45.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 6 months: Troll proxy)
6. (Block log); 02:28 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:86.45.0.0/16: too wide)
7. (Block log); 02:27 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:137.191.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 6 months: Troll IP)
8. (Block log); 02:27 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:137.191.0.0/16: too wide)
9. (Block log); 02:26 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:12.47.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 6 months: Troll proxy)
10. (Block log); 02:25 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:12.47.0.0/16: too wide)
11. (Block log); 02:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:164.82.0.0/24" with an expiry time of 3 months: DC Govt. Offices)
12. (Block log); 02:21 . . TK (Talk | contribs) (unblocked User:164.82.0.0/16: to wide)

--Shagie 02:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

And again...

1. 06:53, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "67.159.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (JohnMorrisonBirch/PheasantHunter/HeartOfGold socks)
2. 06:52, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 67.159.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
3. 06:51, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "74.33.0.0/22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (JohnMorrisonBirch/PheasantHunter/HeartOfGold socks)
4. 06:50, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 74.33.0.0/22 (contribs) (fixing notes)
5. 06:49, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "74.33.0.0/22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
6. 06:48, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 74.33.0.0/16 (contribs) (extend)
7. 06:47, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "205.188.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
8. 06:46, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 205.188.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
9. 06:43, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "67.82.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
10. 06:43, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 67.82.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
11. 06:42, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.179.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
12. 06:42, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 142.179.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
13. 06:40, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "209.112.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
14. 06:40, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 209.112.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
15. 06:39, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "129.13.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
16. 06:39, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 129.13.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
17. 06:39, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "193.62.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
18. 06:37, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 193.62.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
19. 06:37, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "207.172.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
20. 06:36, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 207.172.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
21. 06:35, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.122.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
22. 06:35, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 24.122.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
23. 06:33, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "4.154.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 years (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
24. 06:32, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 4.154.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
25. 06:28, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.123.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
26. 06:28, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 24.123.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
27. 06:27, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "69.124.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
28. 06:27, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 69.124.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
29. 06:26, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "12.107.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
30. 06:26, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 12.107.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
31. 06:25, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "82.44.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
32. 06:25, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 82.44.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
33. 06:23, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "203.162.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
34. 06:23, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 203.162.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
35. 04:03, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.242.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
36. 04:02, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 24.242.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
37. 04:01, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.176.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
38. 04:01, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 142.176.0.0/16 (contribs)
39. 04:00, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.176.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
40. 04:00, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 142.176.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
41. 03:59, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "142.167.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (Troll IP range, reblocked with smaller area)
42. 03:58, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 142.167.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide, reblocking to smaller area)
43. 03:17, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "193.25.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (shortened ip range)
44. 03:16, 6 September 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 193.25.0.0/16 (contribs) (too wide)

The point of these being, it is obvious that TK has no clue what he is actually doing and instead of narrowing it to the proper range, he has instead let all those people he had blocked before back in. --Shagie 11:04, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

*gestures vaguely* It certainly looks that way, yeah... I think he did a few correct /24s here and there, but those were cases in which he decided from the start to go with it - all those refined range blocks backfired. Then again, it may just be a token. Despite all our mocking, TK is no idiot - he certainly knows that (quasi-)permanently blocking several hundred thousand IPs hurts the project more than it helps. So maybe he decided to lift the blocks while maintaining a token - it's not like many people aside from us actually keep close track of the big picture regarding blocks, so it should be enough to keep his buddies pleased while keeping the project from slowly strangling itself. (I know, I'm giving TK a lot of credit here - even I can have a good day :P) --Sid 12:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Sid - why are you helping TK?@!! Let him screw it up all on his own! DogP 12:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The thing is for him to fix those, he has to go do some user log paleontology. Digging up the fossilized remains of users that have been blocked and trying to figure out what IP range to block. As the block log contains a huge number of blocked users, this is a significant amount of work. And he looks like a fool in the logs blocking and reblocking IP addresses. Hopefully one of the more competent admins will take note and ask what he is doing and if he should be blocking at all (though one of the more comptient admins is pulling in javascript for the sysops from a Wikipedia page). While this may be of some help to him, it requires that he does some work. In the meantime it is useful to point at him and laugh and notify everyone who has had an IP block that they can go create accounts again. --Shagie 12:46, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I see. That is excellent, just superb. DogP 12:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

142.0.0.0/8

Why is there so many blocks in that range? --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 21:34, 23 November 2007 (EST)

There is a persistant troll located in that region --Uncle J 18:01, 28 November 2007 (EST)

IPs per sysop - -Update????

Does someone have the wherewithal to update the list, especially total # of IPs blocked? PFoster 16:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Guess what i did?

I just blocked 1,024 ips at liberapedia. My first rangeblock. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)

iPhone range blocks

I've been unable to edit from or create accounts from my iPhone for a while now-are they blocking the entire range of AT&T's EDGE addresses for that space? I was being assigned a 32.xxx.xxx.xxx number. Damn iPhones are probly only used by libruls anyway. DogP 18:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Time to update?

This and the chronological list are both over a year out of date. Should we try & update them to the present, or just add text explaining that the stats & lists here show a snapshot of range blocks during 2007? The block log is currently about 40 blocks per day, so it would take a long time to pull out all the range blocks from among them over the last year. If there's an easy way of filtering the log to show only range blocks, then we could at least copy/paste to the chronological list. weaseLOId~ 16:04, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Hmm, I wonder...

What would happen if they blocked 192.168.0.0/16? Any thoughts? Stile4aly 11:52, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Merge with Conservapedia:Range_blocks?

I'm not immediately clear why this is a separate article from Conservapedia:Range_blocks since they are both about range blocks. The other article appears out of date now, though, and TK has been on a spree of yet more range blocks recently. Bondurant 06:48, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Wonder how this is doing these days?

I notice there's been a shitload of range blocking done in the past few months, especially by TK. I wonder how little of the world can edit CP these days? Any chance of an interesting update from any of our top wonks? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks larron! You really have turned this site into something astonishing, I appreciate your intense wonkiness in all matter wiki-stats! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - next month it will be two years that I posted my first pic. I wonder how I will celebrate ;-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)