User talk:143.231.249.138

Hello, 143.231.249.138. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Corpus Christi, Texas, you may have a conflict of interest. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Choco Taco. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Continuing Vandalism

The vandalism from this IP is steadily increasing. At what point should the IP be blocked? Almost all of the edits are being rolled back within minutes thanks to the congress-edits account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenthrow (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Representative, stop vandalizing Wikipedia.

Check their IP, it's coming from the house of representatives, and I personally say they be IP banned and all edits reverted. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=617044904&oldid=604844827 Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who is editing using this IP address (143.231.249.138), the above user's comments (by Bumblebritches57) should be disregarded. That edit was clearly not vandalism. Dustin (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, you need to take another look at WP:VANDAL, which under the subheading "Silly vandalism" states Wikipedia's disapproval of adding patent nonsense to pages. The edit in question by 143.231.249.138 is patently nonsensical:

• In spite of allegations to the contrary, the claims that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility are completely unsubstantiated.

Even his edit summary is frivolous: "There are no aliens here."

I remind you that nowhere does the article Nevada Test and Training Range mention aliens or extraterrestrials, much less does it contain allegations that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility. This is clearly a case of a vandal amusing himself at the expense of our encyclopedia, and it sucks. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnValeron: Regardless, that user still ought to be disregarded considering its previous, now removed comment. Dustin (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, despite the edit summary and the lack of mention of extraterrestrials, that still isn't "clearly a case of a vandal amusing himself at the expense of our encyclopedia" the way I see it. The edit should have been reverted, but I still wouldn't call that an instance of "obvious vandalism". Dustin (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, are you aware of the context here? Aside from his long history of vandalizing Wikipedia from March 2012 onward (as shown above), user IP 143.231.249.138 publicly embarrassed us again today in a high-profile way by vandalizing our articles Alex Jones (radio host) and Abby Martin, predictably attracting the attention of the popular website infowars.com, which headlined its article U.S. GOVT. EDITING WIKIPEDIA TO SMEAR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PERSONALITIES?. Of course the story quickly went viral on social media, much to Wikipedia's shame. I cannot understand why you'd stoop to defending this jackal, who should have been banned for life long ago. JohnValeron (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnValeron: I am saying that it wasn't obvious, not that it can't be classified as vandalism. Also, did you even read my earlier comment? "Regardless, that user still ought to be disregarded considering its previous, now removed comment." This is regarding "these" changes. I find it hard to believe that that talk page comment was within policy. Dustin (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I might support a temporary block. The reason for this is that I don't believe that it will necessarily always be the same person, representative, or whatever editor from the House of Representatives using this IP address. Someone else could have made the same bad edit as that which you linked. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, I honestly don't care about some quickly removed use of the phrase "giving blowjobs to lobbyists," which seems to have robbed you of perspective. By the time I got here, that was long gone. I responded to your assertion that, in the context of the lead for Nevada Test and Training Range, the following edit "was clearly not vandalism."

• In spite of allegations to the contrary, the claims that extraterrestrials are housed in this facility are completely unsubstantiated.

I believe this was intentional, unmistakable and in-your-face vandalism fully consistent with user IP 143.231.249.138's past misdeeds—which deserve to have consequences. JohnValeron (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnValeron: Oh, I see what you are saying now. I actually meant to say "not clearly vandalism". Sorry, I didn't notice that until now. Regardless, as with most IP addresses, I would not consider an indefinite block to be acceptable. You can't always expect the same government employee to use this IP address. Say you have some library IP. Multiple different people may use that IP, and some of then may be constructive while others remain unconstructive. A temporary block would be preferable in these situations. Dustin (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose a soft block of much longer length might still be acceptable, though. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

These edits [1][2][3], clearly violates the policy on "Biographies of living persons" and "Libel"; also in its history one cand find the removal of sourced content and the use of another IP (144.141.194.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) tracked to an US Navy facility in Virginia Beach) to undo the reversion made by a registered user; obvious vandalism in several articles:[4][5][6]. This I.P. must be blocked permanently due to its long-term vandalism, because as we can see above, this user has been blocked several times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhakito (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to allow edits from registered user accounts using this IP, but the anonymous edits are getting out of hand. Is it possible to block anonymous edits from this IP 143.231.249.138 but still allow edits from registered users? To the effect that further vandalism could be dealt with on a registered user level? I am not familiar with the granularity of IP Bans. The only reason I can see that this IP is allowed to continue editing is that is associated with Congress. If the IP belonged to a McDonald's with public wifi, it would have been banned a year ago. Tenthrow (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it was from McDonald's, I doubt that it would be perma-blocked. In that case, it is virtually guaranteed that it won't always be the same person editing with that IP address. As far as I am aware, the majority of IP edits are with constructive intent rather than the intent to vandalize. In any case, with WP:SIP rules applying, an indefinite block of this IP address would be unacceptable. Dustin (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from IP removed due to WP:BLP violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please add more info/cites to Draft:CongressEdits

Great start! But please review the further sources I added to the bottom, draw facts from them, and footnote said sources to said facts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one day for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Banned for exposing the truth? Are you one of the Kremiln's gremlins? Wake up sheeple! 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there better things to do on US House computers or is the do-nothingness getting to you? Hcobb (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Different person here. I would just like to make clear that this IP adress is shared by a large agency that has 435 different offices. Unlike the poster above, I have only been making edits fixing grammar (the serial comma should be a standard Wikipedia policy). Also, the claims by the other user at this IP that Alex Jones is an agent of Russian government are completely absurd. Jones clearly works for Stratfor. Is this all part of some massive disinformation campaign? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello different person, please feel free to create an account so that your comma placements can be distinguished from claims of alien influence in various members of government. Tenthrow (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mediaite. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. –Wine Guy~Talk 21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Mediaite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Out of over 9000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? Some of use here are just making grammatical edits, adding information about birds in Omsk, or showing how one can patch KDE2 under FreeBSD. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

143.231.249.138 may be a shared IP address, but it is not "whole IP range." Why not ask the system administrator at your end to identify the persistently abusive user via date/timestamp on 143.231.249.138 logs corresponding to the vandalism here at Wikipedia? Then your sysadmin could report it to the user's supervisor, who should explain to the vandal that such misuse of a U.S. Government computer and Internet service is a criminal offense. JohnValeron (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that these actions are illegal or a misuse of government computers is absurd. My constructive edits exposing the role of the governments of Russia and Cuba in promoting conspiracy theories and the other user's performance art edits exposing the absurdity of arguments promoting transgenderism and "social justice" (or maybe they're actually promoting those concepts, it's hard to tell these days, see Poe's law) are perfectly legitimate actions for congressional offices to be engaged in, especially for press secretaries and/or press assistants as a means of furthering policy goals.

Do you think that it's a coincidence that the edits exposing the conspiracy theories just happened to start when CongressEdits was created (or more specifically, after Ars Technica covered its existence)? CongressEdits provided the perfect platform to expose these issues that are normally reverted by the shills at Wikipedia. These conspiracy theories need to be exposed for their true nature, whether its showing that the secret Bohemian Grove meetings are just alleged, or showing that the Reptilian theory has no basis in reality. Russian disinfo agents promoting these conspiracies are all over the place, especially here in Washington. Just last week I met Russian agent who was promoting her paintings at a gallery on H Street (apparently even spies have regular hobbies in their free time).143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you add information, it must be verifiable in reliable sources. From the sound of that last sentence, you think everyone is a spy. Dustin (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

143.231.249.138, are you insinuating that you are a Congressional press secretary and/or press assistant, vandalizing Wikipedia as a means of furthering a policy goal advocated by the House member you work for, with that person's full knowledge and consent? If so, I submit that you're not only a cybercriminal but a common liar. JohnValeron (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

An okay attempt, but a little too fat. Might want to cut back on Runet memes, 'ere they send the Pyros after you. --illythr (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You're always welcome to create an account. — ceejayoz ^talk 16:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have one, but I don't sign into with my password at work. Theoretically people could find out who I am, but good luck, I'm behind seven proxies. Haters gonna hate. I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" Pardon?Vysotsky (usurped) (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost that entire response consisted of Internet memes. It was written by the troll; disregard it. 108.3.188.161 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that Twitterbot is anything to go off of, then this IP address is the main one being used at the moment, and it is also the main one vandalizing. You can't really work around that without signing in. Dustin (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If an IP can be trusted to be responsible anonymously, then there is no issue. If you are banned for vandalism, the only way around is to use an account. If that account is vandalizing, then it will be blocked as well, if it is contributing, then there is no issue here. Tenthrow (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

According to WhoIs (and checked through current government employment records), the contact point to report abuse from within US House-controlled IPs is Stephen C. Pearson, Senior Network Systems Engineer, +1-202-226-3544, Stephen.Pearson@mail.house.gov; in case someone more-closely affiliated with Wikipedia than me would like to discuss this with his sysadmin.Mudlock (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought: ceejayoz advises the user at 143.231.249.138 to "create an account." However, according to Wikipedia's Block log, admin Tom Morris at 14:08 today blocked 143.231.249.138 for 10 days, specifically including "account creation blocked." Please, strictly as a point of information, how would any user at 143.231.249.138 create an account during a 10-day prohibition against creating an account? JohnValeron (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I was unaware of this. Why is account creation blocked for a multi-user IP address? Dustin (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

They can do it from any other IP. Life isn't always fair. 99.191.106.234 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/24/wikipedia-blocks-anonymous-edits-and-trolling-from-a-congressional-ip-address/

Do we get to add category WP pages w/news coverage yet? Hcobb (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

DONE Added Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. For specific articles see Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014 – July 10, July 15, July 23, July 24. JohnValeron (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming my two cents in here. Clearly the boys in the House are so bored of bickering over the various hot-button topics that they have to get their jollies by editing and vandalizing Wikipedia. Oh JOY. >.> Maybe if we find out who it is we could do something about this by, I don't know...NOT VOTING FOR THE BUTTMONKEY WHO IS VANDALIZING IN THE FIRST PLACE? --Zhane Masaki (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the probability is near zero that these disruptive edits are being done by a member of Congress. They're so sophomoric they betray the hand of an intern or very junior staffer delighting in demonstrating to all the world what an asshole he is. JohnValeron (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not insult the vandals. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well. Please let me revise and extend my comment. The vandal in question is not an asshole. He is a consummate asshole. Better? JohnValeron (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You take that much offense to a mere vandal? That's laughable. Just like this guy's edits - at least they're mildly creative, unlike most vandals. The fact that this is from the House is just icing on the cake. --24.209.10.157 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

He is no "mere vandal"—his misuse of US Govt computer and Internet service makes him a cybercriminal. His being on the taxpayer payroll is not icing, it's vomit. JohnValeron (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's no excuse for insulting him. — Saeed (Talk) 03:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal. When 143.231.249.138 apologizes for vandalizing Wikipedia at taxpayer expense and in violation of the law, I will apologize for insulting him. Sound fair? JohnValeron (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnValeron: I know that one is unlikely to take this the wrong way, but you should have said the vandal using this IP. You can be sure that multiple people have used this IP address before, meaning you cannot identify this IP address as being a single individual, although you can connect the vandalism to one individual (who is yet unknown, and will not likely be ever revealed). Dustin (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the internet access to the House is necessary anyway, and is used for far more than vandalizing Wikipedia. Ergo, it's not costing taxpayers any additional money. --24.209.10.157 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia acted correctly. They treat you like -any other person- in this world. You have no other "writing"-rights, only that you have the big letters "US House of Representatives" over you office, standing. Editing articles like the "Mediaite" -one or about the "Reptiles" .. in the way it was done by -your- IP adress, is hilarious, and should result in a life-time "ban". But you can be very happy, that it didn't happen. You also see, that you (maybe for the first time in your life), argue with real writers, Wikipedia-writers (authors), ... and you already see what is happening. Wikipedia authors aren't dumb, and you can clearly see, what is happening. In this thoughts, and in this way, bye. 89.166.252.249 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technia has also reported on this and links to this page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusion in Media regarding scope of blockage

As Harizotoh9 points out, on July 24 Ars Technica headlined "Who's banned from editing Wikipedia this week? Congress," with the subhead reading "9,000 House staffers can't touch the site, at least not for anonymous edits." The lead asserts, "Most members and staffers of the US House of Representatives won't be able to edit pages on Wikipedia for more than a week. Administrators of the popular Web encyclopedia have imposed a 10-day ban on the IP address connected to Congress' lower house."

However, according to the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the entire net range 143.231.0.0 – 143.231.255.255 is dedicated to the U.S. House of Representatives. If so, surely blocking one shared IP address—in this instance, 143.231.249.138—does not shut out the entire House. If someone with greater technical expertise than I could please clarify this, it would be most helpful. Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that's Ars getting it wrong, although it's possible that many computers are proxied through this address, even though the house owns the entire range. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking its cue from Ars Technica, Newsweek has now likewise grossly misconstrued this, writing "An administrator for the crowd-edited encyclopedia site has blocked most members of the United States House of Representatives and their staff from anonymously editing the site." JohnValeron (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I blocked this single IP based on disruptive editing and vandalism emanating from it in a similar manner to how vandalism from any other shared IP (from a company, school, public library etc.) would be handled. There are other IP addresses that are publicly associated with the US Congress and I have not seen any particular issue with the edits from the IPs I have looked at—if edits from an IP are not disruptive or in some other way problematic, I don't see why we would need to block them. If you know of particular IP addresses where more vandalism is coming from, feel free to report them here in the normal way and an admin will take a look. There is obviously some press interest in this block. Alas, it is beyond my powers to ensure that the press report accurately and don't overdramatise it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the press were able to read this page earlier, then they ought to be able to read about us discussing their mistakes as well. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Commisserations

Commisserations on being blocked from editing from trying to expose the real truth. 81.156.97.239 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppet, as this is the only edit from this IP. LaMona (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That IP is on a talk page and with no real discussion. Not the place to be calling IPs sock puppets, especially where the result is naught. Dustin (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This IP needs to be blocked. Again.

An obvious transphobe is using this IP to edit the article on transphobia, justifying it with rhetoric commonly used by transphobes (i.e. "womyn-born-womyn", "TERF is a slur"). They claim to be acting with the explicit permission of a U.S. Representative, which is either an outright lie (and therefore more reason to block the IP) or true (and therefore more reason to block the IP).

I... honestly have no idea how to actually raise this issue officially. Anyone here know what they're doing? Davidjcobb (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a cited statement to an article, which was later reverted. When it was reverted I didn't start an edit war; I went on to the talk page of the article and stated my reasoning for for why the statement should be included in the article. What is your justification for banning other than the fact that someone else has a different view than your personal opinion? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My justifications are "allowing people to use hate speech as a citation is generally a bad idea" and "the IP in question has a lengthy history of disruptive behavior already." Your IP address isn't trustworthy, and you personally are editing a topic that you have an obvious and spectacular bias on, as your comments on the talk page make clear. Davidjcobb (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree If there were some way to permanently block the vandal abusing Congressional IP 143.231.249.138, I would fully support it. Failing that, at minimum another temporary block is fully justified by his latest antics, which are totally beyond the pale. JohnValeron (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're so invested in this topic that you consider any dissenting views to be hate speech, but there haven't been any disruptive edits from this IP adress since the expiry of the last ban. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if those dissenting views were presented as opinion with some light shed on how hateful those views are, it wouldn't be an issue. 173.26.60.174 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

IP 143.231.249.138's claim that "there haven't been any disruptive edits from this IP adress since the expiry of the last ban" is quite simply another of his barefaced lies. Since the block expired on August 18, he's made (aside from Talk page contributions) five edits to Wikipedia articles—only one of which was not immediately reverted for vandalism. His abuse continues unabated. JohnValeron (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The ban expired on August 4th. There have been a lot more than five articles edited since then, and just because some of them reverted doesn't mean that they were vandal edits. Many of the reversions were done by anonymous IP adresses themselves. The personal vendetta that you seem to have against Congressional staffers editing Wikipedia seems to be clouding your judgement. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with Congressional staffers editing Wikipedia. I have a problem only with YOU vandalizing Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Another transphobic comment was just made by this IP and then had to be immediately reverted.131.111.185.81 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please just permaban this transphobic vandal IP already? Davidjcobb (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If I were an Admin, I'd permaban IP 143.231.249.138 immediately. However, I don't think an ordinary editor can do that. JohnValeron (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Update I just found this page where someone has already formally reported this Vandal. Seems like a good place to weigh in. JohnValeron (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Gavin McInnes, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I've blocked this IP from making anonymous edits for a period of one month. If you'd like to make good-faith edits, please create an account. Thanks. --Fran Rogers (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked because I disagreed with the trans-lobby? These days, If I complain about a man using the womyn's restroom then I'm cosidered transphobic and get called a TERF. This has been happening a lot lately here in the halls of Congerss. If feeling uncomfortable about some creeper coming into the same bathroom as me is considered transphobic, then why is transphobia considered a bad thing? I wouldn't be surprised if the Admin who banned this IP is trans. If she is a real woman, then she should should be following real Feminists like Julie Bindel, not sellouts to the trans lobby like Anita Sarkeesian. People need to understand that transgenderism is being promoted by the Patriarchy to diminish the experiences of real womyn. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case. Rallias 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallias (talk • contribs)

Why don't you drop the fake feminist facade for your hate? If you're going to be disgusting you should at least not try to pin it on liberals. It's really obvious from your previous edits that you're some kind of idiot conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.206.1 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that there's a brand of transphobic feminist called TERFs, "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism — ceejayoz ^talk 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Different user here. It appears as though the admin who blocked this IP may have blocked the entire Rayburn House Office Building. While I understand why you may want to impose a block on editing from this IP given recent edits, I'm not sure why you have also blocked account creation on this shared IP. In light of the recent panel discussion hosted by the Cato Institute regarding Congressional edits to Wikipedia,[7] it looks as though there may be an edit-a-thon on Capitol Hill soon to help expand the content related to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data. The ability to register new accounts would be of significant help to that endeavor. As a side note, it seems as though a lot of people around here don't seem to understand the concept of a shared IP; I can tell you for sure that the edits to the articles about trans issues were not done by the same staffers who were exposing conspiracy theories. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I'd bet the farm you're not a different user. Your puerile pose of being victimized is a dead giveaway. Second, you're lying as usual to gain sympathy. The entire Rayburn House Office Building has of course not been blocked. Due to your inveterate abuse, your single IP address 143.231.249.138 was rightly blocked for a month. That is only one of many IP addresses assigned to the U.S. House of Representatives. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia and go back to lurking in the gender-appropriate restroom down the hall. JohnValeron (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to see each office have a publicly known IP assigned, so the sorts of cowardly edits we're talking about could be associated with a particular staff. — ceejayoz ^talk 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron, are you trolling? Or do you just not understand how routers work? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of that, I'm sure anyone legitimate on this IP can create an account at home or somewhere else to edit under. Sorry that one bad editor had to spoil this for everyone under this IP. 71.198.222.74 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP 143.231.249.138, this is just the latest of many times your IP address has been blocked by a Wikipedia admin. Where was your concern before as to how your vandalism might affect other users of that address? You are a fraud—which is in fact the only thing transparent about your cowardly ass. JohnValeron (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Cato event encouraging Wikipedia editing in Congress was just three days ago. I hadn't edited from Congress before that. What are you trying to ask exactly? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron, you seem to be ignoring the fact that right at the top of this page, there's a warning that says, in so many words, that this IP may be shared. I suggest dialing it back a bit. I'm not supporting the actions of the vandal on this IP, I'm just bringing that fact back to light. 71.198.222.74 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP 143.231.249.138, I'm not asking anything. I'm calling you a coward for hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Just three days ago you posted at the Transphobia talk page: "There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative. When you have other Representatives trying to push for laws such as ENDA, or when you have the EU using neocolonialist methods to impose transgenderism on the nation of Georgia through a visa agreement, it's all the more important." If you are explicitly authorized to vandalize Wikipedia on behalf of the Congressman for whom you work, anonymity is not required. A Congressional staffer, conducting legal official business in full public view on the Internet, has nothing to fear from transparency. Yet you camouflage yourself in order to spread your vile personal bigotry. That is the antithesis of the democratic process. JohnValeron (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, since IP 143.231.249.138 misleadingly mentions The Cato Institute's August 18 panel on government transparency and Wikipedia's potential to provide information, readers may want to view the C-Span clip where Cato's Michelle Newby repeatedly advises Congressional staffers to forgo anonymity and establish their own accounts in order to edit Wikipedia with credibility. IP 143.231.249.138 obviously either missed or willfully ignored that advice. JohnValeron (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was clear when I said "different user here" towards the top of this thread that I was not the same person as the user above who was posting the comments about trans issues. The link that you posted above with Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits specifically showed just three IP addresses in the House (which I'm guessing is one for each of the house office buildings). So either you can't seem to grasp the concept that multiple internet users have the same external IP when traffic goes through a router, or you're just trolling and are no different than the other users who you accuse of vandalism. Good day to you, sir. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, IP 143.231.249.138 is lying to gain sympathy. The page I linked to clearly shows multiple ranges of IP addresses assigned to Congress. Each of these ranges, as you must know, contains many IP addresses. For example, Range 143.228.0.0/16 includes all addresses in the Net Range 143.228.0.0 – 143.228.255.255. Similarly, Range 143.231.0.0/16 includes all addresses in the Net Range 143.231.0.0 – 143.231.255.255. You are a congenitally dishonest, recidivist vandal at Wikipedia. If God is merciful, when your summer internship is up, you'll never be heard from again. JohnValeron (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron, your combative tone is only inflaming matters. Please calm down. --Fran Rogers (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Yes, there's a total of 2^15 IP address's assigned to the House as determined by the article you linked, only the 3 specific IP addresses listed by that page, 143.228.129.13, 143.231.249.138, and 143.231.249.141 are known to be active (I may be glossing over other IP's... I do not know of any other IP's not listed by that page). Of those three, two have been active in 2014. So yes, there's a whole pile of IP addresses in that pool, much too many in the face of IPv4 scarcity in my opinion considering their apparent allocation strategy. But that's not reflective of the visible activity patterns. Rallias 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallias (talk • contribs) Addenendum: Although, if they follow the same allocation policy that I've been told is in use at the NSA base in Hawaii, one IP is one person.

No, you are the one who misunderstands. Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits does not list all active IP addresses within the Congressional ranges. Rather, it highlights three addresses from which editors have, as the article explains in its lead, "added libelous statements, removed content with malice, added childish insults, and violated Wikipedia Policy. This has resulted in the blocking of at least two of the IP addresses and the opening of a request for comments page." That article is about abuses, and is moreover badly out of date. I pointed to it only because it delineates the ranges of Congressional IP addresses. JohnValeron (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Addendum: If one IP is one person, then you are arguing that there are only three active Internet users in the entire U.S. Congress. Ridiculous!

@JohnValeron: Please read the Wikipedia article proxy server. The House of Representatives network uses them (as do most government and many corporate networks). One (very intentional) effect of a proxy is that the IP addresses of specific terminals on the network are not exposed to sites outside the network (including Wikipedia). Instead, the traffic of many users, using different terminals, may appear to originate at a single IP (which is not the actual IP for any of them). As others have tried to explain to you, this is exactly the case here. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's proxy server article does not mention the U.S. Congress. Are you personally privy to network administration at the House of Representatives? If so, please tell us how many individual users are deprived of editing Wikipedia for a month because IP 143.231.249.138 has been blocked. I'm trying to get a sense of the scope here. Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not an employee of the US Congress or its contractors nor privy to details of the Congressional network. I suspect that the number of users of any given proxy is (rightly) considered a confidential aspect of the secure network in question, and that information will not be available to you. Suffice it to say that it could be as few as 2 1 or as many as 2^15. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm guessing the number of users deprived of editing Wikipedia for a month because IP 143.231.249.138 is blocked = 1 … the vandal in question. JohnValeron (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul:, if this is the case - and I'm asking not arguing, cause I'm not tech savvy - why/how is it that a long series of related edits can appear for over a month from this IP, while the edits of different House users don't appear to come this IP address, and edits related to the edits attributed to this IP aren't coming from other House IP addresses? Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are likely multiple proxy servers in the network, as well as dynamic addressing techniques that mean that a given terminal may or may not always use the same proxy. This is all very common network architecture. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, because I don't think you addressed my misunderstanding here. Basically, if this IP address is supposed to be the access point from anywhere from 2 to 32768 people, why is the IP address editing and talking like a single individual, with no behavior or edits that can be attributable to others? Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't agree with the premise, as I think there are in fact multiple "speakers" here under the subject IP, and they don't all "sound" the same to me. But if it was true, I obviously couldn't explain that by explaining network topology and the effect of proxy servers to you. The fact remains, however, that that is how they work. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess there are a lot of transphobic staffers in Congress then. Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One person who does accept the premise that our vandal is a discrete individual is User:Fran Rogers, the admin who blocked IP 143.231.249.138 for a month. At my Talk page tonight Ms. Rogers referred to him as "a single bad apple." That belief no doubt underlies her confidence in blocking this culprit. JohnValeron (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if there is a single bad apple (which I also suspect to be the case) it does follow that there has only been one person editing anonymously from behind the 143.231.249.138 proxy. Hopefully the folks that have been doing legitimate edits will be encouraged to create a Wikipedia account, and log in to make their edits, in order to avoid being blocked. A big thanks to User:Fran Rogers for initiating the block, and giving everyone time to cool off. --Edsu (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that only ten IP addresses in this /16 have ever edited Wikipedia, the vast majority of edits coming from a mere three IPs including this one, strongly suggests that House users are indeed being filtered out of a couple proxies. I do think the transphobic dreck came from a single bad apple, but the above protestations may very well have come from others. Maybe they are the same guy. No matter: whoever they are, they raised valid concerns about account creation and collateral damage, which I addressed below. --Fran Rogers (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate users on this IP address are free to use the alternative account creation process we have available for exactly these situations (so "account creation blocked" isn't entirely accurate). Users at any upcoming edit-a-thons will also be able to assist in creating accounts on-the-spot, so it shouldn't be an issue. Per the C-Span clip, we do encourage Congress and their staffers to get involved in editing! We just need it done in a productive and accountable manner. --Fran Rogers (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fran, thank you for your response. I had seen the block log which stated that account creation was disabled, but I was unaware that there was an alternative account creation process. Have a nice day. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is also not impossible for someone to simply use their mobile to create an account. If using the phones network and not a wireless connection, the IP of the phone would be different and thus not restricted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indifferent opinion (talk • contribs) 13:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification for the media: I've been seeing a lot of media reports stating that the recent block resulted from edits to the Orange is the New Black article. However, the block request that led to the ban [8] was about an edit [9] to the Religion and abortion article stating beliefs that aborted fetuses were in the sewers plotting to take over the world. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Your assertion that User:Resaltador's block request posted at 15:43, 20 August and based on IP 143.231.249.138's Nuwaubianism edit at 20:32, 19 August led to the ban is not supported by evidence. The block imposed by Admin Fran Rogers at 22:21, 20 August came 6 hours and 38 minutes after Resaltador's block request. In the meantime, IP 143.231.249.138 posted his transphobic edit of Orange Is the New Black at 22:02, 20 August—in much closer proximity to the block just 19 minutes later. Moreover, on this Talk page at 05:15, 22 August, Fran Rogers referred specifically to "the transphobic dreck [that] came from a single bad apple." She did not mention Religion and abortion. JohnValeron (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a technical solution?

Since April 2009, this anonymous IP address associated with the U.S. House of Representatives has accumulated countless complaints from other editors, eleven formal warnings, and five blocks for disruptive editing. The first block lasted a week, the second and third for a day apiece, the fourth for 10 days, and the fifth (ongoing) for a month. This is not a temporary affliction likely to heal itself anytime soon. It's a long-term pattern of serial abuse, for which Wikipedia's Band-Aid responses have proven wholly inadequate.

Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits delineates the ranges of Congressional IP addresses. Range 143.228.0.0/16 encompasses 143.228.0.0 – 143.228.255.255. Range 143.231.0.0/16 encompasses 143.231.0.0 – 143.231.255.255. In the August 2014 section of this talk page, User:Dwpaul explained that proxy servers are used by the House network: "One (very intentional) effect of a proxy is that the IP address of specific terminals on the network is not exposed to sites outside the network (including Wikipedia). Instead, the traffic of many users, using different terminals, may appear to originate at a single IP (which is not the actual IP for any of them)." While not privy to details of the Congressional network, he added, "I suspect that the number of users of any given proxy is (rightly) considered a confidential aspect of the secure network in question, and that information will not be available to you. Suffice it to say that it could be as few as 1 or as many as 2^15." (The latter exponential expression = 32,768.)

User:Fran Rogers, the Admin who instituted the present block, joined the discussion, stating that only ten IP addresses in the Range 143.231.0.0/16 have ever edited Wikipedia. According to Ms. Rogers, "the vast majority of edits coming from a mere three IPs including this one, strongly suggests that House users are indeed being filtered out of a couple proxies."

I'm not a techie, but if I follow this correctly, it is therefore impossible for Wikipedia to isolate the serial abuser of IP address 143.231.249.138. Blocking that single IP address, Ms. Rogers may have effectively blocked as many as 32,768 potential users at the House of Representatives!

The keyword is of course potential. Besides 435 voting and 6 non-voting members, and functionaries such as clerk, chaplain, curator, historian, parliamentarian, postmaster, sergeant at arms, et al., the House also employs a large bureaucratic workforce. All told, some 10,000 people belong to what the Chief Administrative Office calls "the community of House members, officers and staff." Yet since the House is assigned 65,536 IP addresses, it remains a mystery to me why each of the 10K "community" could not be designated a unique IP address, with 55,536 left over to allow for future growth in the number of House clerks, chaplains, curators, historians, parliamentarians, postmasters, and sergeants at arms. This would enable Wikipedia to readily identify and selectively block what Fran Rogers calls "a single bad apple" without sweeping out the remaining 9,999 good applies in the process.

Does anyone know why this has not been done? JohnValeron (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care and neither should you and here's why: Anyone elected to or employed by Congress has better things to do than editing Wikipedia. If they chose to, they could go home and register an account, which actually affords editors more privacy. We can't know if there's only one bad apple or ten or a hundred. Wikipedia has a mandate to protect itself from vandalism. Blocking this IP has the side effect of raising awareness of the problem and I'd like the block to be continued indefinitely until the owner of the IP can assure us that the vandalism, POV-pushing, and the like will stop. For this reason I encourage the Congress to establish a Wikipedian-in-residence position for educational purposes, assuming that editing Wikipedia is something they care to spend time and money on. Imagine if the endless parade of politically-connected staffers became Wikipedians before they moved on to their next employment? If editing anonymously isn't a priority for them, then there's no reason this community should waste effort worrying about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, you say "anyone elected to or employed by Congress has better things to do than editing Wikipedia." On the other hand, you propose an educational solution to enable Congressional staffers to become responsible Wikipedians. That's self-contradictory. If Congress has no business editing Wikipedia, why squander resources teaching them how? Just permanently block all 65,536 House IP addresses, plus the additional 32,768 reserved for the U.S. Senate, and be done with it. I assume that'd be technically feasible because they fall into just three ranges of 32,768 consecutive addresses apiece. JohnValeron (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any government IP should be allowed to edit Wikipedia as it evinces a waste of taxpayer resources but I suspect the community doesn't agree with blocking so many potential editors. As a compromise position I'd love to see a Wikipedian get a salaried job so WMF has a desk ensconced there and we can train editors that will likely edit whether we have hooks into them or not. Just as we make efforts with college students, I think outreach is a great way to affect people that will be hard to reach in the future outside of edit-a-thons. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether Congress should be able to edit. That's Congress's, and ultimately (at least ideally) the American voter's, job to decide and enforce. --Fran Rogers (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the topology of the House's network, but there are plenty of reasons why it could be set up the way it is. Almost certainly the three House IP addresses we've seen the vast majority of edits from are proxy servers serving some sort of content filtering and logging. And while the House has an entire luxurious /16 block and could probably get away without using NAT, they still very well might, for advantages it provides (such as a greatly decreased attack surface). IPv4 addresses simply do not equate to individual "users" in this day and age, and that's the reality we have to deal with on Wikipedia. (We're certainly not going to ask Congress to reëngineer their networks just to make identifying individual Wikipedia users easier!) This anon-only block will remain until it runs out; if problematic edits continue, we block them again for a longer duration, rinse and repeat, per the blocking policy. Good-faith editors will be able to edit logged-in all the while, so collateral damage will be extremely limited. --Fran Rogers (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---