Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Archives/Unblock/2011/August

202.27.212.175
close

Reason: Requested unblock via unblock-en-l. I didn't see anything immediate, and all the google posts look old when the block was placed in '08. So I have unblocked for now. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to unblock, hash.es has last good in august of 2010, so it's likely dead. Whois indicates a wholesale provider, so it may have been reassigned and now interfere with genuine editors.  Sailsbystars (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)



Sorry this was the original range that was blocked, the above IP looks like a closed proxy if a proxy on 3128 no? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional Note: This IP had the IP above noted in it's block log. Also the IP listed is inactive on hash.es also. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're on the same page here 202.27.212.175 on 8080 was originally the access point for a proxy that showed up as edits from 202.49.134.179. And perhaps 202.49.134.179 was also a proxy all by itself. However, neither responds as a proxy on 8080 anymore.  202.49.134.179 is open on 3128, as you indicated but some googling reveals that it belongs to a dialup isp. Dialup ISPs  frequently used closed proxy type services to accelerate downloads, so given that fact and the fact it doesn't proxy for me, I think we can close this case. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

217.173.49.82
close

User requests that proxy be unblocked. I initially set block to "Anonymous users only" but reverted and decided to bring it here instead. I saw no abuse on the IP address.--v/r - TP 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - please don't ever lift a proxy block without first confirming that the proxy is either not open or otherwise offline. ProcseeBot generally knows what it's doing. Anyway, port scan on this IP address shows that port 80 is open. It appears to be some sort of administrative login point for a Cisco router, asking for a username and password with the message "level_15_access". Port 23 is also open, running a telnet service, and port 25 (SMTP) is filtered. All other ports are reported as closed. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: checkuser indicates that this IP address is not the subject of abuse, nor are the /29 and /20 network blocks it's a part of. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wasn't even aware of this WikiProject.  I found it after reading policy.  I'd like to make two suggestions though.  The first is to add a link in the policy and the second is to include a link in the bot's rationale with a "report here first" message.--v/r - TP 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I'll take a look at the policy and see what can be done; as for the bot, that'll have to go through the operator. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean we can unblock, or not? Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I can't confirm much (in terms of this being a proxy or not) beyond what I already have, but from what I can see there wouldn't be much harm to it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say safe to unblock. Looks like it was a zombie computer and it has either jumped IPs or had the proxy cured or the ISP kicked the use off until they fix the problem.  In any of those cases, we probably can let it edit again.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblocking to request a few checks after we set this free. Both are Cisco Operations on :23 and :80, telnet and http respectively. It also looks like it's been dead for a few days. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

41.66.138.134
close

Reason: Requested unblock via unblock-en-l.

Interesting results but out of my league to figure this one out. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's a zombie computer on someone's corporate network. The preponderance of evidence indicates it hasn't been fixed yet.  Has been used for spamming since at least May on other websites.  The proxy likely jumps ports/is only online some times of day, however, which is why we can't confirm or disconfirm it easily.   Sailsbystars (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking --  DQ  (t)   (e)  03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

69.158.68.37
close

Reason: This user has asked to be unblocked on their talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming the request is genuine, the account quoted on the IP talk page user:Io_Katai looks OK, so I've suggested he apply for IPBE.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've just granted it as a temporary solution, since this user seems to be a valuable contributor. Anyone is free, as usual, to revert my action. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very very to be a proxy. Unblocked and IPBE removed. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

80.254.147.84
close

There is a request for unblock at User talk:Allanlewis, who is apparently caught in a proxy block. I have checked as well as I can, and it seems that the proxy is not working, but I would like someone with more experience of these matters to check. Because I know that this project tends to have a backlog and can take a long time to respond, I will give the user IP block exemption for now, but this can be removed if it turns out the proxy is still working. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's a gateway belonging to a cisco subsidiary that does web filtering etc for various clients. The listed port is no longer open to me.  Looks like it was an open proxy briefly before the company figured out that someone misconfigured a setting.  We should probably unblock as since this is a gateway it will affect many users editing from corporate environments.  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

98.142.216.62
close

Reason: A range was blocked of which my computer is a part. My IP (98.142.208.62) is my personal server, used only by myself. There has never been an open proxy on this IP. I have never had an association with any other IP in the 98.142.208.0/20 range. --Revaaron (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins cannot unblock IPs that are in a blocked range without undoing the rangeblock entirely. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it not be possible to block the actual offending IPs, or more specific ranges? The range covers a huge group of IPs and includes my own, which is not running an open proxy. Surely, WP has some sort of system for dealing this. --Revaaron (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this is 1) The same thing we went through a month ago 2) Should not be your home ISP's IP Address 3) We block webhosts in general 4) I'm not comfortable unblocking the range. You can take this to and see if they will give you an IP Block Exemption. But I can't do it without a checkuser, and I don't feel you need it to be honest. Note: This Website comes right off of your IP. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  18:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a similar brain dead httpd serving photos since I began using WP in 2002-3. It's never been a problem in the past. There's never been an open proxy in evidence. It'd be a stretch to call a photo of my cat a web site, let alone use that as a basis for categorizing this IP as a "webhost." There are a total of three IPs in this block of 4096 addresses with any contributions, and from what I can tell only one of them (98.142.211.209) was engaging in abuse, and that last occurred in March 2010, over a year before the block was put into place. I support the goal is to prevent abuse while allowing honest users to contribute, but I fail to see how this block, as implemented, helps WP achieve it. Thanks again- Revaaron (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this range is under a global block, so even if we were to decide the range is safe to unblock (which it almost certainly isn't) on en.wikipedia, you would still be blocked from editing by the global block. It's not an explicit rule, but in general webservers are not allowed to edit wikipedia because most webhosting ranges can be and do get abused as open proxies.  It's IPBE or edit through your ISP.... Sailsbystars (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, it seems I'll be booted from editing WP for good for the unlisted rule of having an http server on port 80? Is an open proxy is in evidence, from this IP or any IP associated with my username? Editing through my ISP (work) isn't an option, as Wikipedia is blocked as a potential source of objectionable information and explicit images. Even if WP was no longer blocked at work, from what I can tell I'd be blocked again- as a developer, my machine is always running some sort of web server, though I've never run or used an open proxy. --Revaaron (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

202.156.13.252
close

Requesting unblock. IP was directly blocked Jan 9 2011; block report indicated Port 80 was open. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Host is down right now, will check later. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * and unblocked. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)