User talk:Curps/archive26

Feedback

Curps, I am just wondering...what would be the best way to give feedback to you regarding the operation of your bot? Is there a method that you would prefer in particular? --HappyCamper 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bell Canada block

[1] This block, while sound on general principles, is inappropriate as it is from a Bell Canada ip which is probably used by many other users. I have made a long list of a number of accounts which are similar at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Reverend_Abramovich_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. Fred Bauder 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. Bell Canada's ISP is called "Sympatico" and it's the largest ISP in Canada [2]. However, blocking of this particular username is not really any different from blocking of any other username that seems unlikely to be used for legitimate purposes, which we do routinely in the case of "on wheels" accounts and various usernames created for purpose of mockery. It's unfortunate that any block might cause autoblocks in its wake, perhaps there should be an checkbox option at the Blockip page to allow just blocking the username without blocking the underlying IP address. -- Curps 04:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

71.255.208.178

I reverted an edit by 71.255.208.178 who reverted your removal of non free image (Wilber Ross) with an expletive edit sum and the anon reverted it back again. I usually limit myself to one revert so thought you would need to know. Thank you.--Dakota 07:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

I know you don't know me that well, but have this Valentine for your awesome work blocking vandals and such and for dealing with the guy above. --Shanel 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Uh-oh, another violation of WP:TOE. But Curps does do some good work, doesn't he? Herostratus 06:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. -- Curps 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cluttering and Disk Space

I understand your concerns for cluttering Wikipedia. However, is it that much of an issue? How much hard drive space does Wikipedia's servers have?

It's probably measured in tens of terabytes, so aren't making those spelling or phoenetic redirects like trying to raise the sea levels with a water gun? --Shultz 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not cluttering in terms of disk space, it's cluttering the encyclopedia with entries that don't belong. Wikipedia isn't a blog or personal webspace. -- Curps 05:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how redirects have characteristics in common with blogs and personal webspaces... --Shultz 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That freaken George Reeves dude

Ah, the George Reeves guy has started using open proxies... he used 72.9.242.58 which is tagged as an open proxy, and from 212.161.126.193 and 63.40.154.18 and 206.135.171.203 which I guess must be open proxies.

• Can you block those IP addresses, please?
• Is that even going to do any good? There must be a zillion open proxies, I suppose he can go from one to the next at will.

Herostratus 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He's actually performing a service in a sense, identifying open proxies for us. What the MediaWiki software really ought to do, automatically, is run an open proxy check in the background on every IP address that gets blocked (or every underlying IP address of a registered user that gets blocked) and automatically upgrade the block to "indefinite". -- Curps 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me

Thanks for unblocking me. I know why I was blocked (because of my IP address), and it's not because of vandalism. I can explain over e-mail. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Your explanation makes sense. It's no big deal, but it did say an "indefinite" block. Isn't that excessive for a case of vandalism? Also, I sent the e-mail throgh the "E-mail this user" on the left. I assume you have a valid e-mail set in "my preferences"? --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I sent you two e-mails. Sounds like I wasn't blocked because of my IP address. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism (that the anon editor did to the Wikipedia article, which you in fact reverted) was pretty bad and it was to a high-profile article, and as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, while casual vandalism usually gets a warning, more serious vandalism intended to "discredit Wikipedia" (and to a high-profile article) doesn't necessarily. You're right, the block was on your username, not an autoblock on an IP. I intended to zap the anon 169.199.67.74 who you reverted, but got you instead. It's a disturbing screwup. I do have a valid e-mail set but apparently not a reliable one, haven't received either of your e-mails. I'll have to look into it obviously. -- Curps 20:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, their vandalism is really annoying. But, that IP address is registered to the Contra Costa County Office of Education — probably all the schools in their system. See the details at http://www.arin.net/whois/. I don't know for sure, but suspect it's some kid in a computer lab, using a dynamic/shared IP. According to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Expiry_times_and_application, I think that 24 hours or some other limited-time block would be more appropriate than an indefinite. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail. Hopefully it works now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I mistakenly sent two messages. Anyway, glad you're getting e-mail now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I got e-mail before... just, it seems, not all of it. -- Curps 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

Happy Valentine's Day, my dear Curps!
Phædriel

Gee thanks. -- Curps 06:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85 checkuser (cont.)

Hi Curps. After the resolution of a checkuser ran of Mcfly85 his confirmed sockpuppets are still editing. Can you block these users:

• Arniepieski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Fthepostingquota (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) still editing..
• Macnme (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Can you help? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 01:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

for removal of the Squid vandal Tawker 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks for fixing the gulper shark article!!!Mike 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrzburg radar

Out of respect for your views on locking page moves by making an extra edit, I did not do so when moving Würzburg radar back to Wuerzburg radar. Please remove the extra edit so I can move it back again. The WP:RM should decide the issue and moving it during a debate is confusing for anyone who is not familiar with the issue--Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Angry Persian vandal

Curps, I'm going to tattle on this person and let you take the appropriate measures. By the way, what are the appropriate measures for non-administrators to take with people like this? Aren't we supposed to give them a kind of warning? --Jugbo 20:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rayleung2709 collaterally blocked

User:Rayleung2709 (seemingly a good user) has been collaterally blocked. Could you take a look (User talk:Rayleung2709), cheers.--Commander Keane 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to him and asked David Gerard to handle it and decide when to unblock the IP range. This is directly related to yesterday's massive "Squidward" attack. -- Curps 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

U(zbek)SSR

I really don't mind friend, just promise you'll do that translation when you get the time! Or tell some other guy that speaks Russian to do it. Cheers, Michalis Famelis 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please

Do not use racial slures when talking to me. If you think my work is vandalism for whatever reason, it still does not warrant the use of racial slurs. Thank you for understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.22.50 (talk • contribs) .

Who are you and what on earth are talking about? -- Curps 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A vandal, I see [3]. -- Curps 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The nomination may not have been entirely correct, but that article was a speedy. I retagged it properly as A7, and Maru took care of it. I still have no idea what the anon is talking about above, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki4christ

FYI, Wiki4christ is another sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. Like all Gastrich sockpuppets, it should be blocked on site. JoshuaZ 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Impressed

Hey man! Watching your help for Yagan as a main page art, very impressed, keep up the good work, and dont forget to archive sometime! (phew if you had the time), problem is reading your talk, realise that compliments come from the real *&^%#$! people, so I can see how double edged it can be!!!SatuSuro 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

AOL blocks of almost 2 hours?

applied to anyone who complains about their ip range being blindly blocked for 75 minutes?--64.12.117.5 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is absurd, a 75 minute block on an entire AOL range?--205.188.117.65 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when are 75 minutes "almost two hours"? --Nlu (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Longer than 1 hour, shorter than 2 hours, that's really not the point, is it--205.188.117.65 19:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• (User_talk:Nlu#from_Talk:_Main_Page)Perhaps you'll have better luck explaining this--64.12.117.5 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• And another block, because explaining the AOL proxy system now qualifes as "Incessant trolling/false accusations", and joy, it's another 75 minute block, applied to however many AOL happen to rotate through that range--64.12.117.5 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the admin who applied the above blocks, so you should probably try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if you wish to raise the issue. However, due to the nature of AOL IP rotation policies, a range block is sometimes the only way to deal with a persistent AOL vandal. -- Curps 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here'd the problem, Nlu doesn't seem to understand, and assumes that because I was affected by the block, I must be a vandal, therefore suggesting that AOL has a shared ip must make me a vandal, and warrents a 2 hour block on AOL, the circular reasoning is making my hurt.. I make a complaint about a range block, Nlu blocks me for making a complaint about a range block--64.12.117.5 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is literally blocking me for my efforts to explain AOL, the worst part is, I probably wouldn't believe me either, if I wasn't already familiar with this AOL nonsense--64.12.117.5 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• i mean look at the latest reasoning, doesn't "believe" AOL really has a sharedip system?--64.12.117.5 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what I wrote, and you know it's a misrepresentation. --Nlu (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really a bizaire problem, and I'd take it to WP:AN, but the first thing they'd do is look through my post history and go "ZONG WHY SHOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU UR A VANDAL, GOSH" and delete it, and it doesn't help that some people are tagging AOL user pages with lists of known vandals, and warnings to revert on sight--205.188.117.65 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• oh nevermind--205.188.117.65 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bling-chav

Does he really need to be banned? I felt a short block to make the point was more appropraite at this stage. The Land 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be trolling, topped off with outright vandalism to a very prominent page (Current events). And no genuine newbie starts off by heading straight to RfA. Some harassment of UkPaolo too. This is a returning sockpuppet and a troll, so an indef block seems appropriate. -- Curps 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any idea who he's a sockpuppet of? How about a week block initially - with some assumption of good faith. Many people seem to be watching him (as it happens, I've been watching since his first RfA edits... The Land 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

SECRET aNIMATED sITCOM

So why are you wasting both of our time giving me worthless warnings instead of fixing the problem? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I did fix the problem first, then notified you about it. -- Curps 06:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IP range blocking

The 203.xxx.xxx.xxx IP range is NOT open proxy range. It's believed to be a range of open proxy only because it is a shared IP range by the users of ISP Hong Kong Broadband, which has many vandalist customers. You act marking it as an "open proxy range" and blocking all the IPs "indefinite" created drastic result to me: although I'm not a vandalist (see special:contributions/Deryck Chan), I'm being forced to use an open proxy in editing wikipedia because my own IP address is blocked unreasonably with a diligent editor possessing more than 3000 edits being regarded as a vandalist, which creates more problems (as I'm now using an open proxy). Another admin, namely FireFox, had tried to put a "hard unblock" on my username, but that didn't work. I just want to know if any of you admins could do anything with me, the poor non-admin which is being blocked because permanently because his IP is being shared by vandalists within the same ISP.

From the angry and furious moderator of WP:HKCOTW, WP:SCOTW and WP:BAP Deryck C. 13:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NB: Please tell Mushroom, Improv and Sasquatch, who are also responsible for the IP rangeblock, when you come up with a solution, or want someone to discuss with. FYR, my email address is deryckchan [at] gmail.com. Deryck C. 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Rayleung2709#helpme for some discussion about this. The vandal had a particularly strong connection with the 203.186.238.128/25 IP range: either the vandal is one of their clients, or they haven't secured their IP addresses properly against outside abuse. So it would be really helpful if one of their clients could discuss with this ISP, to help prevent any future massive vandalism episodes like the one we faced a few days ago. Anyways, I'm pretty sure the block is cleared already. -- Curps 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As a user of the broadband company, I'd like to supply you with a bit of information.

First, the 203.xxx.xxx.xxx is a shared DHCP range with IP address randomly distributed on every re-connection. Therefore, if one client keeps on disconnecting and reconnecting (which takes at most 10 seconds), making one edit between each reconnection and disconnection, he would have be vandalizing with ALL THE ADDRESSES IN THE IP RANGE.

Second, the ISP would not be helpful in identifying the real vandal - Hong Kong is free speech, and have you seen an ISP saying that "we will be reponsible for what our clients do online"? Of course not.

Third, I strongly suggest that there are more than one vandalists. I don't have a real evidence for this, but the edits are so massive that one single person cannot do them.

Fourth, as a follow-up to the fact that the number of vandalists may be large, I think you people as admins should do something with the registered users, not the vandalists. As the vandalizing wave come approximately weekly (every week I find that I'm blocked), and the blockage lasts for a few days, it's simply unreasonable to disallow me to edit for half of the time.

Fifth, you said the blockage should be cleared, but, sorry, no. The blockage on the address, as I can see from the IP address user talk page and the list of blocked IPs, the block on the several IPs that I'm frequenting are said to be indefinite. It'll never lift unless you do something about it.

Therefore, I'm still using a proxy (the one at my school, half-open) to edit Wikipedia, and I certainly hope that the administrators can do something, such as making registered users in this IP range exempt from blockage, or make a list of hard-unblocks for users of this IP range (making those users totally immune to IP specific blocks, which I think can solve most problems).

The still frustrated, angry, furious and proxy-using moderator of four projects, Deryck C. 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better for you to tell the developers these problems, because I don't know about things in AOL. You'll be a better person in addressing the similarity between AOL and HKBN. You may include the comments I left here as a reference. For the time being, I'll keep using this non-public proxy. Deryck C. 07:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not blocked for the moment. However, as the problem comes so oftenly, I suggest that you refer this to the developers before the next vandalism wave rocks the wiki. Deryck C. 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

About the templates for referencing Hong Kong

I am writing in response to your message regarding the templates used to reference Hong Kong. Actually, the current templates already suit all different kinds of purposes in Wikipedia and are user-friendly. The current arrangement is like this:

• {{HK}} for "Hong Kong" ({{HONG KONG}} redirects to this)
• {{HKG}} for "Hong Kong, China" ({{HKG-PRC}} redirects to this)
• {{HKSAR}} for "Hong Kong SAR of PR China" ({{HongKongSAR}} redirects to this)
• {{HK(PRC)}} for "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)"
• {{HK-full}} for "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" ({{Hong Kong in full}} redirects to this)

I have checked that most of the articles that contain one of these templates are actually using the correct templates. I think this way of naming the template is pretty descriptive, and is simple enough for typing when editing an article. Furthermore, most people in Wikipedia don't know about the naming convention in Hong Kong and they usually automatically add {{HKG}} to the articles about sport events, such as Olympic Games, in which "Hong Kong, China" instead of "Hong Kong" should be used. This has happened many times before, and it took me a lot of time to change them from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China". But User:Instantnood insists to change {{HKG}} from "Hong Kong, China" to "Hong Kong". This would mess up a lot of sport-related articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, {{HONG KONG}} , {{HKG-PRC}}, {{HongKongSAR}} are redundant and has been redirected. But Instantnood insists to screw up the redirections and make two separate templates the same one. I really don't know why one has to change a convenient template system to a nonsense one. Finally, thank you for moving {{HONG KONG}} to {{HK}}. The latter one is easier to type. - Alanmak 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I myself has also been changing references to Hong Kong and Macao in sport events into the "Hong Kong, China" and "Macao, China" respectively by applying the right templates. Even after your changes, people would be using the {{HKG}} template you've modified for situations that it's not necessary to use the specific designation of "Hong Kong, China". That's always a problem, therefore what we'd have to do is to check the applications of these templates periodically.

The major problem with your edits, Alan, I'm afraid, is that you created new templates by creating forks or by performing cut-and-paste moves. The correct procedure is to use the "move" button, or, when the destination is occupied, Wikipedia:requested moves. Given it's always been hotly debated, it's better to seek opinion before you make these changes. You're advised to rsstore them before any discussion is fruitful. (P.S. you may want to take a look at template talk:HKG regarding how it was compromised.) — Instantnood 05:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

About Myself

I AM NO NEWBIE TO THIS GAME. THE SANDBOX WILL NEVER EVER BE BY ME VISITED. WIKIPEDIA IS KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN LANDS. THERE CAN BE NOTHING MORE SAID

--Iamnoanon 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Minor Barnstar
		You must have got a lot of much bigger 'stars, but let me thank you for your edits defending the diacritics right to exist! Renata 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, those weren't really edits, just voting really, and it's not really defending so much as just participating in discussions. It's not an edit war, everyone on both sides is civil. -- Curps 03:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I ment edits like this one. I also saw a bunch of similar edits made from like a year ago. So I just decided to tell you that I appreciate it. Renata 04:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

And your reason for blocking User:Jooler is what!? How is this any different from this edit to my page? 88.111.81.220 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The block was for this: [4]. It's only a one-hour block, to take a time out. I see that there were prior blocks for this user, though. -- Curps 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By what criteria did you make the block? Show me the policy. The previous blocks are irrelevent to this discussion. 88.109.165.240 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are very relevant, as are the talk page discussions where other admins warned you and blocked you some weeks ago for other issues. Please don't do unwise things. The article WP:POINT may be useful reading. -- Curps 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your block was not appropriate. and is now on permanent record. 88.109.165.240 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• 17:17, 29 April 2005 AndyL blocked "Curps (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR on 25 April)
• 04:10, 18 February 2005 Chris 73 blocked "Curps (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Quebec sovereignty movement)
• 12:32, 30 December 2004 David Newton unblocked Curps (contribs) (Block has not expired properly)
• 10:50, 29 December 2004 David Newton blocked "Curps (contribs)" with an expiry time of $2 (Violation of three revert rule)

A reminder about blocking

When you block a user, please remember to mention this on the user's talk page! I was working on blocking User:I Iove wikipedia :) until I noticed you'd already blocked him. Kudos on the fast action, btw. - Brian Kendig 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can check the block log, there's usually a link to it at the top of a user's contributions page. -- Curps 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit war

Sorry Curps, but I'm afraid that's not the case. It was user:Alanmak who created {{HK}}, either created it as a fork or cut-and-paste the material from {{HONG KONG}}. He, at the same time, keeps changing originally inclusion of {{HONG KONG}}, {{HKG}} (before he changed its content) and other relevant templates to {{HK}} that he had created (that made you possibly confused when you looked at special:whatlinkshere). Those were clearly inappropriate edits, no matter related to Hong Kong or not. Please kindly help ensure that one's constructive activities on Wikipedia is not adversely affected just because there's an ArbCom case launched, in good faith or not, by somebody else. Thank you very much. — Instantnood 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim Aubrey

Thanks for your vandalism patrolwork on this article. I was surprised at the many, many edits made but in comparing versions, I see almost nothing I needed to fix. I wasn't able to get online this weekend to monitor it during its day in the sun on the front page. If I can help with your articles, please let me know. Again, thanks for watching over Mr. Aubrey. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the Censorship

As someone who is supposedly a champion of free information, you sure don't act like it. Rather, you have used your position and the trust given to you by the community to engage in a campaign of censorship along with the rest of the Atheist cabal which runs this place. Censoring the spiritual beliefs of billions, along with using administrative powers in a campaign of harassment and libel is unacceptable. I know that you don't like my edits, but you are required to respect them. Your constant marginalization of Christians and Christian issues are a direct attack on Wikipedia itself as a source of human knowledge. You are no better than the vandals you claim to fight, and your constant buffoonery is an embarrassment to the whole project.

I kindly ask that you STOP with your sustained assault on Christians, and put down your hidden agenda for the sake of balancing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for people with radical agendas, especially radical atheist agendas, and your recent behavior is unbecoming of a Wikipedia administrator, but more in line with a monkey. We don't have to like each other, I only ask in the name of civility that you cease stalking me, and cease attacking everything I do because of who I am.

The issue is very simple. You are carrying on edit wars and creating a large number of sockpuppets, and this conduct has resulted in an Arbitration case against you. Please reconsider the utility of doing so, and please see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am simply reverting you as per standard practice, as are a number of other administrators; I am not otherwise involved in editing the articles or topics in question and your mischaracterization of my supposed beliefs, actions or agendas is entirely out of line.

Please take the time to try to understand how Wikipedia works, and try to work harmoniously with other editors. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: it's not personal webspace where one person can unilaterally control the content. Just like politics and society in the real world, it's necessary to work with others who may not share your point of view. -- Curps 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Curps, but it takes two to edit war. You cannot point a finger at the side of an edit war that you don't like and tell them to stop edit warring. Things just don't work that way.

"it's necessary to work with others who may not share your point of view" yes I totally agree. I have been more than willing to come to a comprimise with the atheist cabal here, but all I get is harassment, censorship, and trouble. Between biased admins who conspire to block me, and their underlings who are given free rein to operate attack socks, how am I ever supposed to edit? Maybe you can make others run and hide, but that is just not who I am. I have an unwavering belief in the eternal love of God through his message in Jesus Christ, and so do billions of people around the world. Censoring the message that so many believe in is incredibly narrow minded, and proof positive of a hard line atheist agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jake Williamson (talk • contribs) .

The problem, as you yourself point out, is that you're not just edit warring with one person, you are edit warring with many users and admins, trying to unilaterally impose your edits. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: it's not personal webspace and it's not a place for spreading any kind of messages. It's an encyclopedia. If you pick up a copy of Britannica, it has a dry, "just the facts" style. You wouldn't try to pressure the editors of Britannica to carry an explicitly Christian evangelical message, and you shouldn't try the same on Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to edit your own user page to describe yourself and your beliefs. I believe your original account is still available, the block on it was only temporary. However, duplicate accounts (known as "sockpuppets" in the jargon used here) do get blocked indefinitely if used to conduct edit wars (in violation of the three-revert rule for instance). -- Curps 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See, every time I try to initiate dialogue, it gets removed as if it were childish vandalism. Maybe the blind masses will gobble up this explaination, and your cabal buddies can laugh over it, but this insult to honesty is just plain dishonest. For heavens sake, I can't even carry on a conversation with anyone without harassment from the clique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mary Smith (talk • contribs) .

Mary, this should not be happening. Likely you are conversing on non-talk pages, as we generally don't delete comments on user talk pages. Kukini 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (don't forget to use the tildes to sign your comments!)

Don't bother, it is another Gastrich sock. Hexagonal 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Abusive Sockpuppets

At User talk:Avriette there has been users/accused socks clogging up this users talk page. After a CheckUser was ran against the socks they were confirmed. So the users can't abuse Avriette any more, can you please block them?

They are:

• Gators222 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Auburnfan4 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• I_ignore_you (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Thanks Curps. Moe ε (formerly known as SWD316) 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Again. Moe ε 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

Thanks for your agressive and rapid blocking of vandals on today's main page article on merit badges. I have no use for vandals, they are the scum of wiki. The daily main page article should be protected. Rlevse 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Fuckyourmother

I have given this user an indefinite block for violating the username policy. When checking the block log I saw that you had blocked him already (also indefinite block). So, no harm done. But putting a block notice on his user page would have prevented this double block. Anyway, I've noticed and I appreciate your fight against the vandals. JoJan 19:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Quickie

Hey, could you delete Pokémon Kid real quick? It's a redirect blocking the move of Pokèmon Kid to the right name (note the accent). Obli (Talk)^? 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, that worked without deleting the redirect, I had no idea I could do that :o Obli (Talk)^? 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gators222

Got your message. Is it possible for you to repeat what was said in the e-mails on my talk page? It might lead me to a more correct choice. Moe ε 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail just says to look at what he wrote on his talk page. -- Curps 02:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

While I believe he wants to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I would not unblock his previous accounts. As of right now, his image on Wikipedia is in ruins. But I would however like for him to restart under a new account. After he has made the account, allow him to confirm this by contacting either you or me. After that, he should be allowed to freely edit Wikipedia again.

But, I would like a CheckUser run on him in a months time of him recreating his account to make sure he hasn't created anymore accounts to abuse users with. Although I believe everyone deserves a second chance, if he is blocked again for abusive socks (under his new account) he should be permanently blocked. Moe ε 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I cross-posted this message at Gators222's talk page. I told him he was free to make another account. Moe ε 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I did!

Thanks for the laugh =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:AvengerRSPW

I am in the process of leaving a note at WP:ANI, but User:AvengerRSPW seems to have been fired up again to cause trouble, and impersonate me on User_talk:TruthCrusader. - Chadbryant 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Help mediate the List of sovereign states

A revert war is erupting in theList_of_sovereign_states section. I've made one revert and will only dare to make one more as I do not want to strike out. My evolved argument is that the introduction and the footnote should explain enough about unusual circumstances surounding a state and that the list should only be in alphabetical order. I side with User:Jiang over the issue even though our beliefs aren't quite the same. Allentchang 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Galerius

Thanks for the revert. Strange, though. I only took out a portion of one sentence, and none of the other material. I'll try to be more careful in the future.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TedE (talk • contribs) . 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hi. Would you mind using your bot to block all the IPs at User:Guanaco/open proxies? All of them were found to be open proxies as of February 22. Thanks. —Guanaco 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jwissick

User:Jwissick has quitted the English Wikipedia in the last 2 days. He said he won't be back either. His last request is to block his account, if necessary; see his user page. So go ahead and block him indefinitely. adnghiem501 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like he requested a block, just stated that he didn't care if he was blocked. Sometimes people who react strongly in this way do come back, and sometimes they don't, but I don't think there's a need for a block on the basis of what he wrote on his user page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) . 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a block I've made?

Hi, Curps. I refreshed my watchlist, and saw a change to WP:RFCU. When I looked at the diff, I saw Stanley Adams had removed a request. I couldn't see any reason for that, so I looked at his other contributions, which seemed to be removal of Jason Gastrich sockpuppet templates from various user pages. In two cases, I saw that you had been the last person to edit those user pages. I decided that Stanley Adams is a sock for Jason Gastrich, so I so I blocked him. I then rolled back his edits and decorated his user page. However, I have never heard of Jason Gastrich, and I haven't a clue what all this is about, so I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look and see if I've done the right thing, and if not, unblock him. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear it's the same guy. -- Curps 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Schreiber

I notice that this article, that you reverted a couple of days ago, has been vandalized again by 204.57.104.6. Perhaps you could consider putting another block on this address. Thanks MNewnham 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not clearcut vandalism, he's mostly just removing the stub tag. I restored it, with an edit summary comment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) . 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Punk'd "irrelevant"?

I'm in the middle of a dispute with backburner001 over the Punk'd reference at Lindsay Lohan. This user says it's irrelevant. I laid out the case for its relevance—with a rewrite for clarity—and he deleted it again. His response: "I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before." (Essentially, "You think it should stay? Prove it to me and me alone," which sounds awfully close to self-appointed WikiGodhood, but I've been called dramatic already. More on point, "working together" to this editor means he deletes it, but someone else has to "fix" it.) This user's page includes as a goal, "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content", but a quick look at his edit history is telling: on 30 January, he removed from WP:MOS a "reference to naming conventions for Mormonism"; on 19 February, he deleted "2 paragraphs" from Hiram College "to keep concise". Since then, every deletion of material has been a Punk'd reference, from Lindsay Lohan, Avril Lavigne, Jena Malone, Beyoncé Knowles, Mandy Moore, Chris Klein (actor) and Proof (rapper). After we blasted each other's antagonism (real or imagined), I threatened him with a WP:3RR war and mutual blocking, and backburner001 then agreed to stop removing the reference pending the discussion that results from my Request for Comment. No matter the outcome, your input would be very much appreciated. RadioKirk talk to me 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is fundamentally a content dispute, it's not really any clearcut vandalism on his part. I'm not really a mediator, you could try to contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee if you ever feel that direct discussions can't make any further progress. -- Curps 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

K thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is fundamentally a content dispute. Thanks for recognizing that. -- backburner001 07:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I did not know where to post the proposal. So I figured that since the issue was about editing I would post it on the Editing discussion board. Sorry.

Second, it may have been proposed before, but I still think it is a good idea. Since I'm new here I did not know about previous proposals of this nature. Thus I amke my poropsal and stick with it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again(Steve 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page, man you're fast. New users are so cute. Monkeyman^(talk) 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, its Gators222, as you requested

I am letting yall know i made a new account. Thank you.--Slipknot222 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

will do

I'm gettin all the other boxes and tricks off my other account.--Slipknot222 04:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism / bot

I'm seeing a bunch of edits from User:Curps user and its companion user User:Dieseldrinker. In the revision history of pages such as Kadochnikov's Systema there are edit comments like:

Kadochnikov's Systema on 41954 wheels moved to Kadochnikov's Systema

Without any actual changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sysy (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

These are page move revisions. They show whenever the page is moved. In this case, it's Curps fixing a vandal's page move. --cesarb 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As CesarB pointed out, Dieseldrinker was a pagemove vandal account last August, changing page titles to "on wheels". It was blocked and a number of users participated in changing the page titles back. -- Curps 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. fast... very fast!

Wow.. How did you revert 63.215.76.3 addition to Bose Headphone Family that fast? I mean that was really quick, only 6 min! It was such a minor change having 63.215.76.3 adding "I have Bose Headphones. They are very comfortable and give excellent sound." I thought that I was the only one watching this page. Thanks for the quick catch.

What do you think of the page? It's not fully finished but I think that it is much better than when I found it... Yes I guess that is minor gloating =:D

Hope to see you around again! UKPhoenix79 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well its nice to know that you were watching! Thanks again! UKPhoenix79 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me please

Can you unblock Family Guy Guy?

OK, it's unblocked. -- Curps 07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User Pages

Editing user pages is not vandalism!!! Luka Jačov 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Knock-knock...explain me how changing user's pages is wikipedia's offence! especially when User didnt made complaint! Regards! Luka Jačov 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The user has not complained yet because (s)he has been inactive since 13 February. What you're doing amounts to vandalism; if (s)he wanted to treat Serbo-Croatian as one language, (s)he'd have done so. Instead, (s)he used three different boxes, and it is very likely (s)he wants to keep it that way. Please refrain from imposing your POV on other people's user pages. Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 18:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant.

Can you look into this account? With the almost-identical-to-mine username and the edit history, I highly suspect it is a "DickWitham" sock, or the latest sock of User:TruthCrusader, who has been lashing out since his RFA against me isn't being taken very seriously. - Chadbryant 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about User:TruthCrusader "lashing out" at you are unwarranted and paranoid at best. I would suggest you refrain from making such accusations as they could be construed as personal attacks; or, given your history of behavior on Wikipedia, as motivations more to your own than others. --Eat At Joes 04:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the user was an imposter. I've just checked the block log for this. And I've placed {{impostor}} to the imposter's user page. I am sorry about it. adnghiem501 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:BBIH

Unblock this user and I will stop trolling with sock accounts.TEMPLATE 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one that placed that block. What's your real reason for trolling anyway? -- Curps 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My final good-byes

Hello Curps. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. I personally want to thank you for helping out with Mcfly85 and his socks, it's great what your doing to help Wikipedia, your a true saint. Moe ε 05:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I left you a note and I see others did too, glad you changed your mind. -- Curps 23:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Donnareddingmains

People seem to have stopped adding block notices to user/talk pages when they block users; I feel a bit foolish now for adding a warning half an hour after this user was blocked. Could you remove my warning and add something to the effect that the user is blocked? Thanks!

This user is a sockpuppet of a repeat vandal. Leaving a message for them on their talk page is a waste of time; they'll ignore it and probably won't even read it. To see if a user has been blocked before, you can go to their user contributions page and click on the "Block log" link near the top of the page next to their user name. -- Curps 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Zerowikipedia

Yesterday I came across this new user in Special:Log/newusers. My first thought was to give an indefinite block on this username, because of the copyright on the name Wikipedia. But looking into the guidelines of Wikipedia:Username I couldn't find a valid reason to call this an inappropriate username. Up to now, there hasn't been any contribution from this user. What do you think ? Could this be a sockpuppet or just a prank ? In my opinion, a indefinite block would be the right solution, forcing him/her to choose a more appropriate username. JoJan 15:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, the name seems to be OK, it doesn't really signal some hostile intent as far as I can tell, and doesn't try to impersonate any official Wikipedia role. As you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a ban on names incorporating the word Wikipedia in user names for copyright or trademark reasons. -- Curps 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Award

File:Chuck-star.png

Some tired admins count sheep. Curps counts range blocks.

For being a true wiki-superhero, thanks. — Feb. 28, '06 [23:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Heh

The squidward vandal has written this[5], and I thought you might get a kick out of the fact he calls you a super vandal. :D By the way, could you archive your talk page? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I archived, thanks for the reminder. -- Curps 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Eat At Joes

This user is quite obviously another "DickWitham" sock, and is on a rampage in regards to my talk page. - Chadbryant 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I find his motivations to be valid enough to warrant a discussion on the topic, at the very least. You have called this both "harrassment" and then "vandalism." You need to make up your mind on which it is, but I can see how you would be having difficulty doing so since it is neither one. You are only removing my comments from your talk page because THEY DISAGREE WITH YOURS. I am more than willing to drop this and let it go and let you look like the childish and immature person you have been coming across; however, I do not think I can do so without administrative help. Not because I am "harrassing" or "vandalising" your talk page, but because I am disgusted with how you are warping the definition of both those terms as they pertain to Wikipedia for your own selfish and childish gain. --Eat At Joes 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy block

Can you avoid blocking Joshbuddy, hes testing an auto squidward revert bot and is not a vandal by any means. Thanks -- Tawker 07:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anti-squidward bot is now installed and tested, it should stop squidward in it's tracks -- Tawker 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bota47 block

Hi, you blocked Bota47 earlier today. The owner of the bot (cs:Wikipedista:Li-sung) contacted me on IRC, asking about the block. It looks to me that the bot screwed up and blanked everything but the interwiki links on Hamas one time. It seems odd that you'd block it for one vandalism though, so I thought I'd ask first. :) Additionally, it looks like it's running without being listed on WP:BOT. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did leave a message at en:User talk:Li-sung, I haven't heard back from him. A block is a necessary precaution in the case of a malfunctioning bot. In this case, "indefinite" doesn't really mean "infinite", it just means that it shouldn't automatically expire based on some fixed cooling-off period as with a human vandal; rather, the source of the problem needs to be identified. -- Curps 22:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I noticed problem with bot. You can unblock him, please. --Li-sung 00:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. -- Curps 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman

FYI: I blocked User:Mir_Harven for 3RR on Franjo Tuđman which I note you've protected. I know no more about it... William M. Connolley 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

60.225.200.50

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Funny how CambridgeBayWeather can be a sockpuppet of me when we've never crossed paths before. :-D As you are probably aware, I've tagged as sockpuppets of User:Licinius the following editors: User:60.225.200.50, User:60.225.202.61, User:J is me and User:The man from OZ. (I suspect there are more.) This is a result of his/her/their conduct at Talk:Football, where J is me admitted that they "use the same computer". Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

I created Tawkerbot2, its not an imposter :) -- Tawker 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Tawker 10:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:PseudoSudo

Was testing the anti-squidward bot, could you unblock please -- Tawker 14:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'm going to do one test using account Tawker test of anti-squidward on my own user page to demo the bot to someone -- Tawker 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to join us on IRC?

) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21

01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I never use IRC. -- Curps 04:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Squidward

Your bot is only blocking these open proxies for 24 hours. Can you fix this? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 01:15

A few of them seem to be botnet zombies rather than open proxies. I guess it doesn't matter, if we only block temporarily they're used again in the next attack. -- Curps 04:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the thing to do is block all indefinitely on sight, then, maybe 15 min. after the bullshit stops, go back, check all the IPs to see if somebody else has issued short blocks, and fix any block conflicts. — Mar. 6, '06 [10:18] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Userpage vandalism

Dear Curps. I'm contacting you because you had already reverted some vandalism on my page before (how you found it, I do not know). Anyway, someone with IP 82.38.207.1 has been vandalizing my page repeatedly (and anonymously). Is there anything you can do about it? Cheers. Edward Grefenstette 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, we use "Recent changes" to monitor changes. I see that particular IP has vandalized twice in the last four days, if the problem persists there may be a couple of things we can try. -- Curps 05:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting vandalized some more. Is there no way we can protect the page so only registered users can edit it? Edward Grefenstette 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia

This user was blocked by Freakofnurture, Ixfd64, and you. He has contacted me and stated he didn't choose the username with ill intent, and wishes to contribute. I am contacting all three of you to determine if there is indeed strong consensus that this name is inappropriate. Please respond on my talk page so all responses are in one place. Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My IP being blocked

I often use 210.0.201.213 to contribute to Wikipedia. Please check the IP user history and consider unblock my IP. Thank you.--Hello World! 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an open proxy, which has been troublesome to us in the past. I'll let a developer know and see if there's anything that can be done, can't promise anything though. -- Curps 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the IP of the gateway in my workplace.--Hello World! 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

24.71.223.140

Apparently you autoblocked an administrator indefinitely today. His IP is 24.71.223.140 (23skidoo). He claimed the "Email this user" is not working for you or maybe he couldn't use it because he was blocked - I don't know. I tried to unblock the IP, but I can't find it in the block logs. Please investigate this. K1Bond007 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, my e-mail is working fine. I doubt that blocked users are prevented from using e-mail, that would defeat the whole purpose of e-mail. I have not received any e-mail from him. As far as I know, if a vandal username is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock isn't indefinite, that wouldn't make sense.

From the block log, this particular IP has been a very frequent source of vandalism and has been blocked explicitly (ie, not as an autoblock) 10 or more times.

The whole issue of autoblocks and collateral damage is a festering mess, and the only people who can do anything to change this are developers. I will let Tim Starling know about this IP to see if he can do something about it. -- Curps 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have no idea about the email feature. Perhaps you have to enable it (see message that is on the watchlist??) Thanks for looking into this though. K1Bond007 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been getting e-mail from other users, and already did the e-mail confirmation procedure. -- Curps 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks from me as well. I'm puzzled about the e-mail thing. I just tried it again and received a "No Send Address" error suggesting I am not logged in -- yet I clearly am. Maybe a preference got corrupted. I can't seem to use the function at all, yet it worked fine a few days ago. Anyway, the problem with my IP number is, due to the configuration of my ISP, it cannot be changed unless I purchase a new modem (believe me, I've asked my ISP on this). It is a concern that one of these days the IP will be permabanned because of the idiots who use it to vandalise. My big issue here is that one of the "selling points" of Wikipedia registration is you're supposed to avoid this collateral damage, or so I understood. If TPTB could only find a way to separate registered accounts from their IP addresses this sort of thing could be avoided... 23skidoo 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A small note on email validation: the email sender must also validate the email, not just the receiver. --cesarb 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at Macedonia (region)

There has been abusive sockpuppets at the article mentioned above. He has been making personal attacks, racial remarks and being uncivil towards anyone with a differant viewpoint than himself.

• Andropolus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Macedonian876 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Andropolus even admitted to being Macedonian876 cited here This is also one of his many offensive remarks he has made. Can you please rid us of these socks? Moe ε 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

indefinite block of User:TheBobT

You may want to comment on this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:TheBobT. Kaldari 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets at a Public School

Hi, I am a Wikipedia User who uses a public high schools IP address, and "sockpuppet soldiers" are being blocked along with the rest of the school and some vandal named ElRyoGuy. If you don't mind, please leave the vandals on my IP address to me, so I don't get blocked along with them. It gets frustrating being autoblocked because of sock puppets. DuctoMan 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Help blocking

Hey, can you please tell me how to block a user who has been vandalizing a few pages. His IP is 83.131.245.253 Thanks in advance

seeing as how i was just autoblocked on account of

"hier bot", and the reason given was "fake vandalism bot", it got me thinking, is a fake vandalism bot not better than a real vandalism bot?--64.12.117.5 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please complain to developers about autoblocks, there's nothing I can do about it. -- Curps 23:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Senate bus renaming

Dear Curps,

I noticed we had the same idea for renaming the fuck truck/senate bus article. Is it possible to combine our two polls into one? Let me know what you think. Isopropyl 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your wish to use requested moves, but I think this is a Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. Anyhow, I think it's better if we work together and try to incoporate our polls. Isopropyl 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll just delete my poll. :( Isopropyl 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I just changed my poll to a support vote in yours. Cheers! Isopropyl 02:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was I blocked?

Re:User:Forecast:Tonight, Fog.Low 35. Tomorrow:Sunny..High 50.

Yes, the name is silly but why was I blocked without warning? Charlie16 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Silly names are often used for vandalism, so sometimes we block as a precaution. Do you prefer to keep your current name? -- Curps 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CJGB/User:142.32.208.238

CJGB e-mailed me to request an unblock on 142.32.208.238, claiming to be collateral damage. Since the IP is triply blocked by you, User:Chick Bowen, and User:Hall Monitor, I wrote back stating that I'm uncomfortable lifting the block, but I promised to relay his/her request to you. Please review. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

You know sometimes auto-entry works against you, so it was entered in by mistake when "rvv" was all that was supposed to be entered. However, I am glad that you had a chance to come by my talk page and criticize me for a simple mistake. Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pablo-flores

• • 200.123.178.246 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Making Personal Attacks , probably Nkcs or Pablo-flores or OneEuropeanHeart wrote: "ESTE GIL SE LA COME Y LE GUSTA BIEN DURITA POR ATRAS", a very offensive statement in spanish to 200.45.6.10, (please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.45.6.10&oldid=40503654)200.45.6.10 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS results for 200.123.178.246 Generated by www.DNSstuff.com

Location: Argentina [City: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires]

I seems that the person who recently wrote personal attacks related with the Huemul Project page is Nkcs. See contributions of 200.68.127.154. Probably Nkcs or one of its partners logged with this IP after 200.82.18.5 to try to hide his misbehavior. 200.45.6.126 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [6]

200.45.6.126 signning off now. Thanks. 200.45.6.126 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tony Sidaway wrote (both to OneEuropeanHeart and Pablo-flores) "I see no vandalism here". [7]

--200.45.6.58 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver reversion

Thanks; I was just putting notices on Talk:Vancouver and the WikiProject Vancouver page asking what to do; it only happened today so I guess we avoided major screwups; let User:Discwog know he shouldn't do that kind of thing without knowing what he's doing. Skookum1 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Clypebot

Perhaps it would be a good idea to implement a more general (but warning, rather than blocking) version of the curpsbot pagemove heuristic. I'd suggest that any user (mature or not) performing any actions at a high rate for a sustained period (say 20 edits per minute for more than three minutes) is at least worthy of investigation (other, naturally, that licenced bots themselves). I'd propose said bot ran as a dedicated, unpriviliged user, and that it logged its alerts either to AN/I or a dedicated "unusual user activity log" page. And (cheekily) can I sugges Clypebot as its name, "clype" being the Scots word for "tattletail" :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jobe6

I just saw on AN/I you remarked that sometimes known, prolific users go bad or get hijacked, and this user was blocked for page moves. Do we know if he/she was hijacked? It's sad, and a bit scary. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so (but that's secondhand information), I think it was discussed earlier on AN or AN/I. -- Curps 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert!

I accidentally reverted a good faith edit on the main page article back to an edit by that persistent vandal and you autoblocked for me - ESkog handled the unblocking though. I'd just like to apologize for the mistake, so sorry for troubling you! Cowman^Talk 01:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for that. -- Curps 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Indeed, it was an accidental reversion to vandalism (just like Cowman109 above, it seems). Thanks for unblocking me, and thanks for your work in exterminating the vermin, err, vandals. Cain 02:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Please take more care in reverting vandalism: you missed three bits of vandalism in your revert or William Harvey. Semiconscious • talk 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You have me blocked what's the deal.

You have me blocked. I don't think it's me you're after. I am a serious user who adds nothing but serious content to this encyclopedia. Please unblock immediately. Hokeman 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your username has not been blocked. You have probably been affected by an "autoblock" or an IP range block, particularly if you happen to use AOL. Please complain to Wikipedia developers about such blocks affecting registered users in good standing; they are the only ones who can modify the Wikipedia software. -- Curps 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the best solution of all. I just sent them an e-mail stating that my $250 contribution check to Wiki is going to sit on top of my dresser - until they fix the problem. Nothing pisses me off more than to create something wonderful, have it autoblocked, and then when I hit the back button on the browser- the page has expired. Hokeman 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mindlewood

I see that this was created by the infamous "North Carolina" vandal. he msut have also been behind "The Sherries" last night.

Re: Hello

Please stop adding {{reqphoto}} tags all over the place, including articles where it makes no sense (eg, Red tape, which is an abstract metaphor and not a physical object).

In all your various incarnations, you've had numerous requests to stop various unproductive behavior. In all the edits you've made under various names, very few of them can really be considered to be aimed towards the fundamental reason we're all here, namely to create an encyclopedia. Please try to focus on that, not asking unfocused questions in talk pages, creating advocacy userboxes that might be considered divisive, creating redirects that will see little or no actual use, and indiscriminately adding various tags to various articles. And please don't harass administrators such as FreplySpang or MarkSweep. -- Curps 02:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's still OK to add reqphoto tags to articles about physical objects.

In terms of productivity, I've even created brand new articles, which are rather useful. Some users show lists of articles they've created. Maybe I should put together such a list as well. I've gotta remember what all my created articles were first.

I saw your edit history, and you've reverted my reqphotos for cities and a person. They aren't abstract , and I'd understand what you mean when you tell me not to add reqphoto tags to abstractive articles. It also ought to be OK to add reqphoto tags to website articles, because on many of those, there are screenshots of websites posted there.

By the way, how did you first discover my newest screenname of Shultz III? Did you happen by an article's edit history and see my name there?--Shultz III 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered that a Lomn told me to place reqphoto and certain other tags onto the talk pages of the articles. I ought to remember that. If placing them on talk pages is ok with Lomn, I assume it's ok with you too. --Shultz III 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

hello Curps, quite a time ,thats me Desertsky HES is there any possibility contact you by private e-mail ? Desertsky Mrach 11, 2006

WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

71.127.155.6

Hallaluja! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

tip

You might update your code to also catch a seemingly common misspelling, see [8]. — Mar. 12, '06 [09:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64

Also regarding username blocks, I would like to inform you of an RFC I've filed which may be of significant concern to you, the basis of which you are eminently fit to certify. Thank you in advance. — Mar. 12, '06 [14:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Frequent Impostor Target- Why?

So far, you've appeared to have been imposted 469 times, as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Imposters_of_Curps

Why should they target you? Despite some disagreements and whatever else, you're overall a good admin. Your bot works quickly against vandalisms and errors, and you keep a keen, sharp eye in as many places on WP as you can.

I'd rather have vandals/trolls impost me rather than you. How do I divert these users to target me this way instead? You deserve to work in peace. I am willing to take their flak and be a Wikipedian Shield. --Shultz III 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Many are WoW, and many others appear to be another person who just doesn't like Curps that made a lot of accounts. I don't think Curps really minds- his bot blocks them before anyone ever sees them (except in the IRC channel, but Curps doesn't go in there). --Rory096 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

i'd guess most of them are people curps has blocked in the past. As one of the most active vandal/imposter fighters on wikipedia its natural that plenty of those people are going to target him. Plugwash 20:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess it's because he tends to block a lot of impostor accounts very quickly; as a retaliation, the impostor uses him as the next target. --cesarb 23:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

24.127.159.156

24.127.159.156 (talk • contribs) seems to be devoted entirely to vandalizing Barney-related pages. Will you consider a rather lengthy block? Thank you. John Reid 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I investigated and have applied a block. -- Curps 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't think of a more worthwhile target, but... John Reid 03:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

70.28.45.28

I've unblocked this IP address because it was User:Joshbuddy testing Tawkerbot2--Shanel 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)