sotnd conservaleaks

2009-02-13 ZB1 Tor network
2009-02-13 ZB1 Karajou's "friend" is back again....
2009-02-14 ZB1 TK's range block of
2009-02-14 ZB1 Check User Request
2009-02-14 ZB1 Rod Weather's "not a parthian shot" parthian shot

TK's range block of

Justine <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:30:24 -0800 (PST):

I do not see the point of this block, as TK has explained in the edit
summary, it covers a TAFE (technical and further education) institute
in a northern QLD city, Mackay.

The 65,000 range width would block out prospective editors to the site
for quite a substantial time (1 year).

I suggest removing this block, and if necessary, reducing the length
and the range.

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:35:05 +1100:

I've just done a little of my own IP check research to find that this range
extends down the coast as far as Sydney IP addresses (Neutral Bay) and
Victoria (Glenorchy)

"TK" <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:42:01 -0800:

So, there some new policy, wherein this group passes judgment
and approves blocks?

Because an entity has a range, you are stating they use all the addresses?
This is news to me. Would you care to explain? I am certain everyone here
would like to understand you logic....

And please, also, explain who is clamoring there to edit CP, or how you
figure they have even heard of it?  

All we have gotten from that area and its liberal colleges is vandals.

But I do await your explanation.


"TK" <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:48:55 -0800:

Your research would be wrong, Justine.

Central Queensland Institute Of TAFE, Mackay campus, 90 Sydney St., Mackay
QLD 4740,  AU

Here is the link to the college/government:


Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:53:36 +1100:

Please do not counter my query with another question TK. I'm not passing my
judgment or approving this block, I'm contesting it. Instead of breaking the
rules by reversing your block without discussion, I think that I've taken
the high path by presenting it to the group. Whenever an admin blocks
someone in my area of the world (Australia), I like to check up on who and
where has been blocked. From my quick investigation, I have found that the
range block does not just cover the Mackay TAFE.

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:56:58 +1100:

TK, go to any IP lookup service and type in, or anything
within the range of what you blocked.

The specific IP above detailed an IP in Chatswood, NSW.

"TK" <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:47:07 -0800:

I already gave you the link, Justine.

You have already told me several times that you do not trust me.  Fair
enough, since only Andy's trust is important to me.  But kindly submit here,
who else you have publicly questioned as you have done my recent block.
Otherwise,  keep it private, or pick up the slack in helping us get rid of
the vandals and parodists, instead of thinking of yourself as a
self-appointed "monitor".  You are insulting in your arrogance.  

The facts show this is not a private network, but one of the Queensland


Query the APNIC Whois Database

Need help?

*       General <>  search
*       Help <>  tracking spam
and hacking
*       To assist you with debugging problems, this whois query was received
from IP Address [ ]. Your web client may be behind a web

% [ node-2]
% Whois data copyright terms
inetnum: -
netname:      CENQUETAFE-AU
descr:        Central Queensland Institute Of TAFE, Mackay campus
descr:        90 Sydney St.
descr:        Mackay
descr:        QLD 4740
country:      AU
admin-c:      NB30-AP
tech-c:       NB30-AP
mnt-by:       APNIC-HM
changed: 20010613
changed: 20041214
source:       APNIC
person:       Neil R. Barker
address:      Neil Barker
address:      3 Tudor Court
address:      Mackay
address:      QLD 4740
country:      AU
phone:        +61 7 49524541
phone:        +61 4 18185254
nic-hdl:      NB30-AP
remarks:      This data originated from AUNIC, and was copied as part of
remarks:      the AUNIC to APNIC migration.
remarks:      Original nic-hdl in AUNIC: NB17-AU
mnt-by:       MAINT-AU-NB30-AP
changed: 20010612
source:       APNIC

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:43:19 +1100:

You've just shot yourself in the foot, TK. The query you present only
illustrates from * - 512 IP's*

Sure, that may be the *Mackay Campus*, since that only covers a range of
203.25.140/23 and NOT the /16 range.

Your block is of the /16 range which has blocked * to 65000 IPs.*

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:49:46 +1100:

I suggest unblocking the range and reducing it to 203.25.140/23

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:50:12 +1100:


"TK" <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:25:35 -0800:

You undid my block?  Without seeking Andy's approval?  That is against the
rules, no?  Are you above the rules, Justine?


Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:47:53 +1100:

No, TK. I have not undone your block, I'm suggesting that you change it.

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:49:04 +1100:

Can you please change it to


"TK" <>, Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:53:46 -0800:

Hmmmm....I just re-blocked the same IP and range, and it took it.  Explain
that, please....

23:26, 13 February 2009, TK <>  (Talk
<>  | contribs
<>  | block
<> ) blocked
<>  (Talk
=edit&redlink=1> ) (expires 23:26, 13 August 2009, anon. only, account
creation blocked) (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s))

And please, perhaps some warm milk?  Why is this so pressingly urgent?  What
is the emergency here?  Do you honestly think all the IP's in that range are
assigned?  Do you honestly think there is really anyone trying at this
moment to get to CP?  And if they did, they couldn't edit at the moment
anyway, right?  What have I shot myself in the foot about, Justine?  And if
I made a mistake, why are you so horridly vengeful about it?  Who else here
have you questioned so publicly and mean-spirited like?


Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:59:08 +1100:

1. The reason why the software took it is because you added the "anonymous
users only", which is effectively a different block.

2. The reason why I'm pressing this issue is because the range is far too
large. You don't need the /16 range, you only need the range
as I pointed out earlier. If I don't press the issue now and simply resolve
it, I'll likely forget and the 65000 IP's will be blocked for a year.

I just don't see how you're being so reluctant in reversing (and *reducing
the range*) of a block that a fellow admin has deemed unnecessary.

"TK" <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:14:43 -0800:

You are a being baselessly provocative, Justine.  

You are acting like a shrill banshee.  


Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:27:08 +1100:

As I've been typing this, I've noticed on the recent changes that you've
reversed each block.

Thank you.

Now, if you'd like to specifically block the TAFE in Mackay, I'd suggest a
block on

30 posts later than the original I posted! Haha.

Anyway, I'm glad that it has been resolved.

TerryK <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:30:59 -0800:

No, little dear....sorry....all you had to do is have some respect, and do
this privately.  But since you dislike me, and sought to embarrass me,  the
next time I will not answer you whatsoever.  You are not my better, or my
boss, you are supposed to be a peer.  Sorry you think it is your job to
"review" me, and say things like "well you shot yourself in the foot" and
the like.  It betrays your mean and nasty nature.


On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Justine Allen <>wrote:

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:32:17 +1100:

Please do not demonstrate this thread and an attack of you, TK.

If you read my first two posts, you'll hopefully realise that I was short
and to the point of what was wrong with your block.

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:35:54 +1100:

I guess that language may come about with two people who think they are
right about an issue.

Justine Allen <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:46:20 +1100:

I'm truly glad we've resolved this and I did not mean for any embarrassment
for TK: it was a tweak of a block.

I have lesson plans to construct for Year 7 - 8 performance grades, so I
have to go for tonight.

I'll be running GuardDog from tomorrow afternoon pretty much 24/7.

"TK" <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:56:04 -0800:

Final response.

It comes about when one person dislikes someone so intensely that they seek
to embarrass or entrap another publicly.  That is putting one's
self-interest and acrimony above working as a team member.  The proper way
of dealing with this is how we have done it since before you were a member
here, and that is a private email, so as not to cast aspersions or make
snide comments.  I constantly have emails going back and forth from other
members here, each of us, in turn, asking about a block, politely, calmly,
with respect and friendliness.  So far, since my return here, you are the
only member to post with your questions, in essence demanding justification,
and seeking to make your point continually.

That language comes about because you have decided your knowledge and
reasoning are superior to Andy's, in that you refuse to trust me, or give me
the benefit of any doubt.  That is unfortunate for you, but not for me, as I
have the trust of the people here who have demonstrated respect, forgiveness
and true friendship.

Perhaps if you spent just a small percentage of the time you invest in
tracking my blocks, Justine, and educating us on how the system works (like
the taking of the new 16 block, even though the same exact IP, because the
anonymous only box was checked) this could be a more harmonious group.  I
would have emailed you with my questions, but you have made it quite clear
that you wished me not to email you, and as you know, I openly and above
board copied Andy on those.  I humbly apologize for not understand the range
blocks as well as I should have, but you have never once shared, as the rest
of us have, sources for doing the checking you talked about, etc.  I would
run Guard Dog too, but no one has ever responded to my questions about it,
how to make it work, etc.  But no loss, inasmuch as you, TerryH  and PJR are
running it, I guess.

I also humbly apologize for not acting as quickly as I should have in
response to your original demand.  I lost two hard discs the other night,
and along with it, all CP data on my computer.  I have spent two nights
trying to salvage data.    No worries, I will no longer undertake to block,
as I feel I don't have sufficient understanding of how to do it.  Obviously
my past efforts for CP were completely misguided, as it engenders this much


Justine Allen <>, Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:31:08 +1100:

Keep range blocking Terry, as long as you are certain what the range is that
you are blocking.

"TK" <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:54:07 -0800:

I thought I was certain before, because if you actually looked at the range,
and the cities posted from, for LowKey/Horace, it is a wide swath.  Now you
have total responsibility for Horace, and his hundreds of socks, Justine,
because I am now uncertain.  

I just grow weary of the snipes and nastiness of those supposedly on the
same team.  It might help all of us, if those with Oversight actually did
range blocks when they remove porn or the like, instead of merely blocking
the user.  Of course I might be missing something, and the range blocks are
made, but hidden.  I don't think any of us understand how "oversight"

And I am now seeing something unannounced (at least here) that of "Proxy

*       14:26, 14 February 2009, Proxy blocker (Talk | contribs | block)
blocked (Talk) (infinite) (Your IP address has been blocked
because it is an open proxy. Please contact your Internet service provider
or tech support and inform them of this serious security problem.

Anyone here have a clue as to what that is?


Justine Allen <>, Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:52:20 +1100:

It may be an automated process carried out by the software, as it also
happened on 2nd December. It blocked

04:58, 2 December 2008, Proxy
contribs <>|
block <>) blocked <> (
(infinite) (Your IP address has been blocked because it is an open proxy.
Please contact your Internet service provider or tech support and inform
them of this serious security problem.)

The "serious security problem" obviously doesn't affect us as the user has
been blocked (most likely a vandal). The problem is at their end because if
they happen to be a legitimate user, they probably do not realise they
connecting to the Internet via a proxy connection.

2009-02-13 ZB1 Tor network
2009-02-13 ZB1 Karajou's "friend" is back again....
2009-02-14 ZB1 TK's range block of
2009-02-14 ZB1 Check User Request
2009-02-14 ZB1 Rod Weather's "not a parthian shot" parthian shot

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.