User talk:Curps/archive24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please unblock me. I do not of that user name. I think my computer was hacked.

If you can post here, you're not blocked. -- Curps 08:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Template Delete[edit]

Why was the template "Pornagraphy" Deleted? It's need for creation was discussed on the "Softcore" page, because of the innapropriate imagery. Kashami 19:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The page has no history on "frederic" - about a months worth. Some people just decided one day to put it on "frederic" rather than "frédéric" where it belongs for some reason. Also it isn't allowed... there is already a page there... but if you could move it for me that would be great.

hey curps[edit]

how you doin buddy, still keepin it real, hope you are, things tough out on the wiki, shits changed since we came up


Antagonizing vandals only provokes them, try being nice and not simply applying infinite block status to everyone. Ever wonder why there ae so many people in your ‘imposter of curps’ file? Because you sir are just as much of a bully as any vandal could ever be. It does say on the wikipedia vandal site “being nice is a nice way to be” I am sure I will get blocked for this as it seems you have little tolerance for any ctiticism of yourself.

-the master vandal

This user does maintain a policy of annihilation for vandals.


Leigh Brackett articles[edit]


Stylistically, your planet articles (Mars, etc) are not written in a way that clearly distinguishes fact and fiction. In fact, they seem to intentionally imitate the non-fiction articles about Mars, etc. This creates a certain confusion. These should probably be written more like, say, Barsoom or Red Mars/Blue Mars/Green Mars. -- Curps 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you seem to have written the articles as though they were non-fiction topics taken from some fictional encyclopedia, whereas they really should read like fiction topics in a non-fictional encyclopedia (Wikipedia). -- Curps 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think a better comparison would be articles such as Arrakis or Tatooine? Many of the articles discussing fictional "worlds" (Dune, Star Wars, Narnia, etc.) are primarily discussions of them on their own fictional "plane". I agree that it would be helpful to have a note at the top of each article stating clearly that the article refers to a fictional variety of the planet and not to the real, astronomical planet, and that the articles should not be used for scientific information.RandomCritic 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
These articles are also all very much in the process of being written, by the way. As they progress, they are certainly going to diverge more strongly from their factual templates. However, when you are writing about fictional analogues of real worlds, there is always going to be some resemblance. RandomCritic 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please revert my user space to what it was before. Voporak

Alkivar and cility[edit]

User Alkivar is really pissing people off. He deletes a ton of comments from his damn discussion page (that aren't vandalism) and wipes edit histories all the time to prevent there from being fingerprints of his shit that he does. Chocolatecake 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible for an admin to wipe edit histories except by completely deleting a page (and even then the edit history is still available for other admins to see). You could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which could include Wikipedia:Requests for comments if you feel you have a concern. However, you'd need to provide considerably more detail and links to the edits in question (ie, actual diffs). -- Curps 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Note this is an editor whos sole contributions is this post on your talk page. Most likely its a person i've blocked. Only edit histories i've purged have been on Oklahoma Christian University because the edit summaries are like "I fucked your momma". I do not archive my talk page... thats why we have a history function.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Alkivar has perfectly demonstrated is inability to be an administrator. Curps, I direct you to brassiere. Look at the talk page. Now answer these questions. Was Alkivar's adding the picture back appropriate? Was his block appropriate? Was his removal of comments appropriate? Those first two questions could possibly go either way, but there was absolutely no reason to remove the comments on the brassiere talk page. Why is his continued abusive behavior allowed? And why not look at some of the comments he removed from his discussion page? Several of them are comments asking him to be civil or other minor complaints. He removed those comments with insulting edit summaries. And why did he protect his discussion page? No one vandalized it.
and once again you commit abusive sockpuppetry... indef blocked.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 10:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
That's sloppy logic and an inappropriate attitude for a Wikipedia administrator. "Two wrongs" don't make a right. Just because a user might be a sockpuppet doesn't allow you sweeping ability to act in an abusive manner. I saw that you lost several arguments with people on the Oklahoma Christian University page, and you tried to sprotect and history blank your way out of that one. Now with this silly braissere thing, you're behaving in the same way. You also repeatedly break the policy of not feeding the trolls by antagonizing the CapnCrack sockpuppets. And if you were as good at marking them as you claim to be on your user page, you'd note that there are nearly 100 other CapnCrack sockpuppets that can be located by doing a "Capn" search and "Crack" search on the block log. But that's for another day. In the meantime, nobody cares if you want to add nasty pictures to your user page, but there's no excuse for you repeatedly adding that other nasty and childish picture to the brassiere page. Crushcans 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Plese unblock[edit]

to whom it may concern,

Hello my ip address is blocked because a user named master vandal apparently was on this computer before i.I am in a computer lab so it is most likely possible. however I wanted to know if my ip address could be unblocked as that individual is no longer on this computer. thank you

- Mike The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike green (talk • contribs) .

As far as I can see, there is no autoblock on the IP address, or perhaps it has already been cleared. If you still have trouble, perhaps you could post the exact message you get when you see a "blocked" message. -- Curps 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems you're the vandal. You're blocked. -- Curps 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I was just about to report the Conrad set for vandalism, you just saved me a request :) Tawker 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock[edit]

Please unblock the IP address . You blocked it awhile back, and it appears to be permanent. You said it was a proxy server, but, in actuality, it is a public school that had a few trouble-makers. Thanks, Al-Kadafi 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a record of this IP address being blocked. Can you please provide more information about the exact block message you received? -- Curps 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, odd. I'll tell you tomorrow, since I can't get back into the school right now. Al-Kadafi 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, this IP address doesn't seem to have been directly blocked as far I can tell, but may have been affected by a so-called "autoblock" placed on a registered username. That's why it would be very helpful if you could provide the exact message that displays when you get a block notification. -- Curps 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the blocked IP address is . It said the IP address was blocked because it was believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. I am very sorry for all the confusion, I mistyped the IP in my original request for an unblock.
OK, I have unblocked this address now. However, from the contribution history I can see that there was some vandalism from this IP address earlier, so it is possible that that it may get blocked temporarily by other administrators (or even myself) in the future at various times (this would likely be only for short periods though). -- Curps 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks a lot.

you ban too quickly[edit]

I have made 2 accounts on wikipedia so far. I don't wanna register and I only made them so I could make pages and upload images. You blocked both of them permanently before I had a chance to make even 1 single edit. They weren't offensive names or anything, one was something around the lines of "i hate registration" and the other was "stop blocking me." Please be more cautious and see if they really are bad faith before instantly blocking them... 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can be more specific about the exact names of the accounts, I could perhaps discuss why they were blocked. I don't believe I ever blocked a name like "i hate registration". -- Curps 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock[edit]

Please block ShadowPuppet who is making the Tricycle magazine paged ludicrous advertising. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enkido (talk • contribs) .

You blanked that entire page, which is a form of vandalism. Later, you edited that page to make accusations of "malfeasance"... unfortunately, this is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which means articles should be written neutrally to stick to only facts that can generally be agreed upon, rather than espousing any one particular point of view.
By the way, your title say "Please Unblock" but I don't think I blocked anyone with regard to that article. -- Curps 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will go back and be as nuetral as possible, and I am sorry. But the conduct of ShadowPuppet is ridiculous. I did not put up the Tricycle: The Buddhist Review originally, which was text from their website that was all self-congratulatory. The story about the magazine MUST include its fundraising misdeeds, documented in Federal filings, for the benefit of prospective contributors to this non-profit entity. Please keep me unblocked and repremand ShadowPuppet!! -- Enkido 2/3/06 1:00 PacTime

Unwanted Change[edit]

Please revert my user space to what it was before. Voporak

Obstructing integrity of Camp Massad[edit]

Please do something about the IP because they are maliciously editing the Camp Massad page with inaccurate, unimportant or mean spirited things towards other people.


Why did you block me? I seriously thought my computer was being hacked, it was a simple mistake. 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


If you are not already aware of it, I urge to join the m:Toolserver. Hats off to you for your vandalism fighting. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


A a supplement to expanded use of Checkuser (or alternative if it's vetoed by the powers-that-be), how about Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#.22Rip.22ping and ToSsing major .28Willy-style.29 vandals? -- Curps 05:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've given up on all that. On that topic: since you already run a block bot, would you like to take over supporting the POPbot blocks? I've given up on popbot too, but it seems like a bit of a waste to just unblock them all again, so if you'd be willing to handle the questions and complaints or know someone who would be, that would be nice. --fvw* 22:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit[edit]

Although I am on a "wiki-vacation", Ill make you an exeption. You have been given a few barnstars for fighting vandalism so far, that is of course less than the level of commendation you should recieve. You are doing one hell of a job in handling the apathy of vandals. Most recent supertroll idiocity is a shining example of your efforts.

I am here to notify you of a Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit which you may find useful. --Cool Cat Talk 16:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Heck, that was fast... 01313 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Unicode chart templates[edit]

I wonder if you would be OK if I tagged (or even all) some of these for deletion. I have been tweaking "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)" which I think is pretty excellent, and in parallel I have noticed that there seem to be obsolete versions of each table template, specifying the actual font (see here for a full list). I don't think we actually need these now, so should we delete the redundant ones or REDIRECT? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unicodify bot[edit]

Hi, is the code of your bot available? I would like to try it out on the Dutch wikipedia. Thanks, – gpvos (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia position[edit]

You stated that it might be a good idea to consider a full-time paid position in the Wikimedia foundation that deals with ISPs' Abuse departments to counteract vandalism for the next fundraising drive. I can't find the edit where you made the proposal at most detail. Do you mind finding that diff, or better, start a Open letter to the board about that? Titoxd(?!?) 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is something that our legal dept needs to handle. If and when we hire somebody to handle that sort of thing is an open matter. Of more immediate importance is the hiring of another developer and then an experienced executive assistant to take over from Danny Wool so he can concentrate on grant writing (he is currently our interim executive assistant). A letter to the board will be much less effective than participating in the budgeting process for next year. See meta:Finance Department. --mav 19:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not saying those are not important, but it definitely is something that needs to be done sooner than later. [This is the diff in which he described in detail his proposal. Titoxd(?!?) 17:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unicodify source[edit]

I'm wondering if you'd make the source of your Unicodify bot available? I'm interested in running it on a different wikipedia to change all the interwiki links to proper Unicode characters. Thanks. DHN 08:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Block bot[edit]

Hi there Curps. I was wondering if you would be willing to share any information on your block bot which I read about in the admin noticeboard archives. I'm Tom from the Homestar Runner Wiki and we've been having some trouble with a vandalbot, which I know you are at least aware of. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- TomPreuss 04:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand your reasoning. I'm really only interested in the blocking functionality though. Would it be possible to email me just that portion of the code? If so, just send it to Thanks. -- TomPreuss 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid physical characteristics[edit]

Hi Curps, I've just created a page with the cumbersome title Standard asteroid physical characteristics linked to from Template:Minor Planet, which tries to be a reference explaining where physical data comes from for run-of-the-mill generic asteroids. This issue has been bugging me for ages. I've put up what I have been able to surmise, but I'm hoping to bait those (like You) who have been active among the asteroids, and probably know more about this. Deuar 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention guidelines[edit]

Hi Curps!

I'm interested in updating our naming convention guidelines to more clearly reflect the current opinions of Wikipedians and the present reality of article locations. I think we've been doing some good work on the use English guideline lately and that your additions there have been helpful. I'm wondering whether specifying the result of that poll we had with so much precision is the thing to do - especially since the vote count includes an anonymous user and at least one sockpuppet (User:No Account).

Another guideline which often comes up on naming disputes is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which I think needs updating. Apart from the minor improvements we've been working on I think that it needs to specify more clearly that it does not cover the case of diacritics use. It would also be nice to have more examples of where Wikipedians have decided that other considerations than "common use" are more important - fixed-wing aircraft for example.

Currently not many people are paying attention to that guideline and I think it would help to have more. If you can spare a moment your participation would be appreciated. - Haukur 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unicodification batch ready[edit]

There's another batch for Curpsbot-unicodify at Wikipedia:Bad links/encoded1, if you're interested. Thanks! -- Beland 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

new template for page-move (automatic) blocks[edit]

I've created the template {{autoblock-moves}} for notifying users who have been automatically blocked due to large numbers of page moves. You might find it helpful! --Ixfd64 19:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


This may be rude, but do you ever answer your messages? (I left three and never got a word). Anyway, Happy New Year. I hope all is well with you. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for reverting. God you were fast! Bonaparte talk 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An heads up[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Minor planets. H.N.Y. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:BGC on new revert spree[edit]

User:BGC has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically delete all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. Monicasdude 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Can I just nudge you gently in the direction of listing your protections (e.g. French Revolution, and others) at WP:PP. It makes keeping track of things easier. Thanks. -Splashtalk 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Ottawa help[edit]

Hey Curps, I saw how you locked the University of Ottawa page and I'm pleased. I was hoping that you can help me out. Can you post your views on the University of Ottawa talk page. User Bearcat has also pointed out that Ardenn has no real proof to any of his claims, he's been lanching personal attacks (swearing and re-taging the article in dispute after he already un-taged it himself.) Also, Karmafist keeps on following me to other wikipedia pages and it's getting annoying. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Anakinskywalker 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please help us Curps! Tt seems now that Karmafist and Ardenn have now left the discussion about the page in dispute, except for Hipocrite. I have asked him to provide a description with sources again, and again,, but he continues just to Spin everything, and is not helping resolve the dispute whatsoever. This exact same issue has already been resolved months ago, and between 5 parties if I can remember.

So even though multiple parties went through the process of solving the exact same dispute months ago, I told Hipocrite just simply to prove his case with a description and sources, but he keeps on changing what he wants to modify in the dispute. First he claimed it was "Ad copy", then he change his mind and claimed it was "Spin", etc., with the article, and saying things like:

"There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

Now we are left with 4 people. Joshuapaquin, Bearcat, and Me, Anakinskywalker, which have tried to explain the faults around his theories and lack of evidence. Then the last person is Hipocrite, who says "There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof. Hipocrite" and, he is constantly changing his mind over what he is claiming is false.

As I have said earlier, multiple parties have negotiated and settled the exact same dispute months ago, and since he is constantly changing what he claims is false with the article and has not proved his claim successfully, I am hoping either you can deem the dispute to be settled or settle it for us, because this dispute is going nowhere Please help us, thanks again.

Anakinskywalker 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for CheckUser permissions[edit]

Would you have any objection to me nominating you for CheckUser permissions [1] at meta? I see no reason why someone such as yourself shouldn't be given the ability to better prevent vandalism on the English Wikipedia. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

According to m:CheckUser_Policy#Access, the Arbitration Committee decides this and only then do they list it at m:Requests for permissions. So you'd have to sound them out (and maybe wait for the new ArbCom to be selected). Checkuser would obviously be useful, I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered to me, but there isn't any precedent so there would likely be opposition from some quarters. I wouldn't actively seek this, but if the ArbCom thought it would be a good idea I'd accept it. -- Curps 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Understandably, there does not appear to be a formal area where such an appeal can be made to the Arbitration Committee. I am afraid that my time here may be too short to create such a process, but I will do my best and request that a fellow respected colleague assist me and follow through with my appeal during my impending absence. Hall Monitor 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Email address[edit]

Hi Curps, someone was hit by an IP autoblock from another user you banned, and he could not contact you because you don't appear to have an email address entered. Could you add in your email address please? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Curps, I'd like to reiterate this request. Given the number of blocks you do, I think that allowing you to be emailed will help in case your blocks hit other users due to dynamic IPs, etc. would help in resolving the issue as you're probably the best person to judge about whether the block has hit another user. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Way[edit]

The Gerard Way article has been semi-protected again. The past 500 edits by anonymous contributors have all been vandalism in one form or another. Please add this article to your bot. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been nominated for CheckUser[edit]

Please make a note that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Curps is now live. Hall Monitor 18:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave this up to the discretion of the ArbCom. The post-election ArbCom will need to decide whether to extend checkuser to their own newly elected members, and if they wish to extend checkuser to any non-ArbCom users they could take up the issue at that time. -- Curps 20:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Setting up the email[edit]

Hi Curps. I came here via R.Koot's talk page, but what attracted my attention is that you indeed don't have the email set up, so users can't email you. I think it would be important if you have indeed email set up, especially that you give indefinite blocks every now and then. :) In that case, what's a blocked user got to do? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. I just got caught up in an IP autoblock from a joke account I had previously created, and had no way to contact you for an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

GNAA WOB idea[edit]

You know, why not just comment on some of the items in the queue on the WOB page? It would help and be a lot more productive then this and you could help clean up some articles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, more productive than what, exactly? What are you referring to?
I've already commented about The Volokh Conspiracy at WP:AN, where Timecop has already indicated his intention to go ahead with an Afd. Do you imagine that the GNAA cares about Alexa ratings? -- Curps 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thus far, the members of the GNAA participating in the "war on blogs" have acted entirely within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, with many Wikipedia editors supporting their efforts, and have in fact cited alexa ratings on more than one occasion. Again, please assume good faith. As an administrator, you shouldn't have to continually be reminded of this. Proto t c 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The GNAA's reputation and notoriety precedes it. Because of this past history, wariness is appropriate. Assuming good faith does not mean pretending past bad faith never happened. If for once the GNAA is actually trying to do something positive and has nothing to hide, you should welcome scrutiny instead of protesting noisily about it. Your advertised agenda indicates that you will now be moving on from more obscure blogs and attempting to target more notable ones, and this combined with party-line systematic bloc voting by (in some cases) apparent meatpuppets is valid grounds for concern. By the way, a condescending tone is not really compatible with Wikipedia:Civility. -- Curps 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Wariness is good, and I personally have asked admins to re-review descisions in a few of these afds as well (including podcast alley etc.) but I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. For example, the GNAA may very well be trying to sneak a couple past, but EVEN IF THEY DO they don't even have admin tools like you and I do so if they get overly disruptive I can just speedy keep the afd and/or block them. However, up until now the war on blogs has been going on for a while and so far has been proven to be a mostly good-faith cleanup project, and is definately following policy and in fact timecop is taken the criticisms seriously and improving afd nominations and so-forth. So right now, even if we wanted to we couldn't do anything about the percieved future problems. Proto is a great guy who I thought was an admin (I just checked yesterday realizing he wasn't), and both of us are watching it rather closely, so you shouldn't feel the need to worry about it to the point where your finger is on the rollback button. So, scrutiny is good but I think keeping in mind this thing like a slightly disruptive vote bloc compaign rather than a GNAA initiative is good. Oh, and I appreciate you watching this as well too as two admin eyes (minus RC patrollers) is good too. About the queue I just meant that commenting on one of those will most likely prevent it from getting afded mistakenly or otherwise and thus save time and energy. WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


You're right, I hadn't noticed that. Well I'm skeptical, but willing to let it be and see if he has stopped. I'll keep an eye on him, then. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Guehene and Cassiopeia[edit]

Dear Curps, sorry for the trouble: I am User:Guehene. I checked that user Cassiopeia did not exist before creating it. Now, I would like to transfert my user Guehene to Cassiopeia (which I did) and then login as Cassiopeia, but my password does not work and I don't receive new password by e-mail. I hope I did not usurped someone else's user??? If I did, that was pure mistake. (I really checked before moving if user Cassiopeia existed...) Could you clarify the situation and help me, please? --Cassiopeia 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, User:Cassiopeia does exist and made some contributions back in August, as you can see by viewing Special:Contributions/Cassiopeia. There was no user page for this user, but that's not the same as the user not existing. Unfortunately, this means the username is already taken and isn't available for you to use.
In general, to see if user "XYZ" exists, go to User:XYZ and see if there is a "User Contributions" link in the toolbox (left-hand side of the page in the default skin). If there is one, then the username is already registered. -- Curps 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Curps, oh, I'm sorry! Thanks for the tip, I'll be more careful in the future. --Yann 15:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hi. You deleted Image:Image-100.jpg, when it was under a different name, for the patent privacy problems it antecedents. It's since been reuploaded and repeatedly added to pedophilia advocacy without discussions by new users. Could you kill it again? // paroxysm (n) 04:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow[edit]

I didn't know how else to deal with this guy... he hounds me and follows my edits, just because I voted to delate a page he created. HELP!!! How do I get rid of him? Can you talk to him, please. Thank you in advance. Dyslexic agnostic 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Check his user page... all he does, virtually, is send me nasty messages on how I don't know anything. Dyslexic agnostic 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


thank for you help! dyslexic already admited in my talk page he doesn't know about the issues he usually blind reverts whenever I edit: About you being a fan of Batman:TAS and JLU... I have actually never seen an episode of either. I will try though soon. Dyslexic agnostic 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC) We need you back, T! Dyslexic agnostic 12:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) He is kind of following me; he blind reverts every single article in my watch list, which I have way before I met him. If you care, you can check those pages history and my user name is going to be there first for sure. But, it's ok, I realized that for whatever reason, nobody is going to help me put a stop to his harassment. Thanks anyway--T for Trouble-maker 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an Picture Vote[edit]

You have expressed your views several times throughout the discussion of the Qur'an picture. However, you still have not voted in the straw poll. Please vote in the straw poll to make your position official. Thanks. joturner 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did vote. [2]
Oh okay... I didn't see that. joturner 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List of warez groups[edit]

Hi there. Could you explain please why you re-sprotected this despite the article having received only one, good, non-sock edit in the few hours during which it was unprotected? There is no reason that I can see.

Take a closer look. There were two edits, and the first was by User:Kaiser Wilhelm, a Dicky Robert sock. This is an extremely persistent linkspammer who also constantly harasses User:Alkivar. That "alqaeda" external link was also being added to the featured article of the day a couple of days ago by a parade of sockpuppets. -- Curps 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make the connection between the earlier edits and that one. Still, a single bad edit is hardly grounds for days of reprotection.

On a related note, I've noticed you very frequently leave articles in a protected state for many days, showing no sign of intending to unprotect them. Why is this? -Splashtalk 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed you very frequently unprotect sprotected articles regardless of whether the problem that required protection has in fact gone away. I'm not even sure whether you investigate the edit history to see what prompted the protection (the "List of warez groups" example suggests not), or monitor the article afterward to see if the problem has resumed.
I do not routinely monitor articles afterwards, no. I figure that, when I come across an article that has been protected for nearly a week, the average teenager has cleared off. I think they probably cleared off about 10 minutes after the protection was applied, most of the time. When I'm aware of some other problem, like with e.g. the Brady Bunch articles, I leave them alone for much longer. -Splashtalk 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess we have different points of view on when to apply sprotection and how long to apply it. When I go to review pages I've protected earlier, I often find that the page has already been unprotected sooner than I would have, often by you or Woohookitty, as part of systematic unprotection. I've almost come to count on this. It can be a little difficult to keep track of everything that's pending though, it would be nice if the Mediawiki software offered some kind of mechanism similar to "you have new messages" to remind about ongoing protection and similar issues. -- Curps 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have come to presume that articles protected by you are probably going to go past their unprotect-by date. We agree it should be applied to deal with vandalism, we just disagree on how long it takes to dispel the average vandal. I figure that we should treat any protection the same as full protection. I presume we wouldn't have left a random article protected for a week because of a spate of vandalism one evening. Twenty-four hours is usually enough to give it a go. It can be reapplied quickly if they are lying in wait. -Splashtalk 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps can you please reprotect the List of warez groups article, that same vandal is back again. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Curps, sorry to bug you but could you weigh in on this when you get a chance? It is probably a delete but I really want to make sure the GNAA isn't deleting anything good as part of the war on blogs :). Also, a big wikihug because it sounds like you need one :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that one... first of all, it's spelled "Chiens sans frontières", so it's no wonder they hardly found any Google hits. On the other hand, the blog's URL does indeed seem to be defunct. -- Curps 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


There has been a vandal at my talk page. (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

Can you block him, he keep on adding the "You have been blocked message there again and again and it's really annoying. SWD316 talk to me 03:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Good call. SP is for vandalism only. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Just to let you know, in case you didn't: Rovoam was the name of the vandal who used to torment User:Tabib last year. His accounts and socks are blockable on sight by arbcom order (the arbcom case Baku Ibne et al). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

DOn't you think?[edit]

Don't you think it's a bit extreame to block the entire AOL IP range every time some moron vandalizes George Bush?-- 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I haven't vandalized anything. I do use AOL, though. Did you block the dynamic IP address or something? If so, you're not supposed to do that . . . --Wiggins2 07:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL puts vandals and non-vandals on the same IP. It's unavoidable that you get messages intended for another user. -- Curps 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Just curious:

  • 01:26, 21 January 2006 Curps blocked "User:Dоn't blосk mе!" with an expiry time of indefinite (confusing username, Cyrillic spoofing Latin letters)
  • 01:26, 21 January 2006 Curps blocked "User:Unblосk mе!" with an expiry time of indefinite (confusing username, Cyrillic spoofing Latin letters)

I'm lost. Where's the cyrillic? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"User:D.n't bl..k m.!"
"User:Unbl..k m.!"
Dots represent Cyrillic letters. -- Curps 01:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So how (or why) does the log display "User:Dоn't blосk mе!" instead of "User:D.n't bl..k m.!" or its cyrillic equivalent? Bug? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It does display the Cyrillic characters. Compare Latin:
o c e
And Cyrillic:
о с е
In many fonts, the glyphs are quite similar or may even be identical. -- Curps 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, Ok. So if they look identical, how do you tell them apart? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mouseover User:Dоn't blосk mе! or click on it, you see
So that tells you right away that those aren't ASCII letters. -- Curps 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, mouseover isn't enough; for instance, on my browser (Mozilla Firefox 1.5) it showsоn't blосk mе!&action=edit on the status bar, and User:Dоn't blосk mе! on the tooltip. The difference is only visible on the URL bar after clicking, where it appears in its full percent-escaped glory. --cesarb 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it now. Thanks Curps (and Cesar)! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

block anon?[edit]

There is an anon: (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

that was vandalizing. I posted a message at his talk page and he removed it. I readded it, in addition to saying to please not blank his talk page, he continually removes it. Can you give him a short block? SWD316 talk to me 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User note...[edit]

Might keep an eye on WOW: User:WhiteOwlWho. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Email address[edit]

Hello Curps. Please enabl you email address. As you are blocking users, you need to provide a way for users to contact you in the event of a blocking dispute. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Curps, I am the author of VandalCountBot, and I just wanted to make you aware of what is going on, so I hopefully won't get blocked again :-)

I have applied for permission to use my bot on WP at WT:B WT: Vandal Count Bot, and I have receved some comments on it. After seeing that other users had done test runs before full approval, I decided to make one test pass with my bot, only to find out that the username had been blocked, and my IP as a result.

The description on the WT:B page, as well as on the Bots userpage: User:VandalCountBot explain it's activity, and I assure you it does no harm. The admins in the CVU channel on IRC helped me sort this out, but I wanted you to be aware of what was going on.

If you have any questions about what my bot is doing, the tests it's running, or if you just want me to stop, let me know :-) --Lightdarkness 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see someone has already unblocked it. -- Curps 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am posting in response to the block of I.P. address, who also has an account named user:holocron. He has asked me to give you this message: I just wanted to see how quickly you guys would respond!!! Please unblock me!! You can see how many vandals I've taken care of in the past! Almost 40, that's in 1 week. Please unblock me! I've never vandalized any pages with my Holocron account.

WP:AGF vandal[edit]

Another one, it seems. Is this something we should have a checkuser done for and get their IP blocked? —Locke Coletc 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


I am requesting for the permanent block of §. --§ 01:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper's birthday[edit]

this is interesting:

april 30

parliament of canada

april 20

ns herald



There seems to be a fair amount of uncertainty over the official date. The Parliament link, that you brought to my attention, is (hopefully?) the most reliable source. --Valve 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mozilla_Firefox.png[edit]

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mozilla_Firefox.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete history?[edit]

Can you please delete my talk page and user page's history? (Oahc 12:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

I deleted the user page history. I'm not sure about the talk page, various users have left messages there. -- Curps 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor an put a template on my user page? I don't want anyone to edit my userpage. (Oahc 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

The trouble is, this would also block you yourself from editing it. -- Curps 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Pedophile activism[edit]

Hi, I'm messaging you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia I'm not an expert on subject or article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

==New User==--Holocron 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

user: Pinky on the wheels!, I'm not sure what to do about this. I just thought you should know. Also another user called user: Canadian adult sex toy or user: Canadian sex toy, something like that; has links to sex and porn websites right on his user page.

Hi, Curps[edit]

Hey, how are you? I just noticed [3]...thank you so much. (I'm so proud I've had my first impersonator!...although, this makes it not so important anymore. Thanks anyway, and see you around!--ViolinGirl 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Curps 09:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey man can you help me? User:zanimum and his sockpuppet have added fair use images to their user page but vandalised my user page for doig so. This is the message they leave. Please block them Ferall 05:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


User:zanimum has been using fair use images on HIS userpage but reverting other's fair use images. He should be chucked out as an editor 10:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ferall, Kooorooo, Zanimum2, and Booren are all sockpuppets of Batzaroo. Bat refused to stop reuploading fair use images exclusively for his userpage. They violate Wikipedia's fair use policies 2/7/8/9. I removed the fair use of my page since, I failed to notice they were there. Also my fair use images were actually used in articles, whereas his were excusively on his userpage. -- user:zanimum


I got him :) Raul654 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal warning toolbox[edit]

I'd be interested in your feedback on some javascript tools for the toolbox designed to make it quick and easy to add warning messages to vandals' talk pages. See User:Kbh3rd/Vandal warning toolbox. I've found it very useful for my own use. Is there not something better already available? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Should I make this widely available, and if so, how? Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 10:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hereby award you the barnstar of humor. Thanks for banning me in the crossfire of a huge IP range all those times! 2 more makes 10!

My IP blocked indefinitly[edit]

I dont use the "user:Anticommunist" (not my user). My really IP is blocked indefinitly. Stop the indefinitly blocking, the contributes is not my own vandalism. Otherwise, i try to sue Wikimedia Foundation and try to DDoS Wikimedia servers. / 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for fixing the vandalism on my user page.--Holocron 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page! What a bother. --W.marsh 21:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I think he needs more than 24 hours.. He has made some violent threats. [4] [5] Jwissick(t)(c) 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is unlikely to be a static IP address, and there is no prior history of contributions, so 24 hours seems about right. Regarding the nasty threats, WHOIS shows this is "Bell Canada, Toronto", so it's a matter to take up with the ISP if you want to go that route, however a longer IP block is unlikely to be of much use. -- Curps 02:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a static IP. This same guy has been threatening me for quite a while, all from different IPs--see my user page history for the details. I'm not sure what to do--I'd certainly appreciate your advice, Curps. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the contact info for the people in charge of this IP range as per WHOIS is:

RTechHandle: MK1209-ARIN
RTechName:   Khalid, Mohammad 
RTechPhone:  +1-800-450-7771

OrgTechHandle: SYSAD1-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Sys Admin 
OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-565-0567

You could provide them with the following list of timestamps and IP addresses, and they should be able to identify their client. I doubt they'd reveal the name to you, but they should at least be expected to give that client a warning, if not drop them as a client. I suppose contacting the police is an option, from Google I see there's an "Ontario Provincial Police"

  • 21:03 EST, 25 January 2006
  • 14:53 EST, 14 January 2006
  • 21:18 EST, 31 December 2005
  • 21:07 EST, 31 December 2005
  • 21:01 EST, 31 December 2005
Thanks, Curps. I'll contact the ISP. Chick Bowen 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I have a two (totally hypothetical) questions regarding checkuser access. (1) If offered checkuser access, would you accept it? (2) Do you feel you are technically competent to use it? Raul654 02:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Raul654 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, See earlier on this same talk page... Hall Monitor tried to start a "Request for Checkuser" nomination a couple of weeks ago here and here and here, although naturally such a process doesn't actually exist. At the time, I did indicate that I wouldn't turn down checkuser if the Arbcom offered it to me and that's still true. I've used ARIN, RIPE, APNIC whois and traceroute in the past, but would probably do more a little more reading and research to ensure I'm fully up to speed. Hypothetically of course. -- Curps 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - as a prerequisite for getting checkuser, would you be willing to specify an email address with your user account in your account settings? (so that the email-this-user works) Raul654 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(Still waiting for an answer) Raul654 02:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush[edit]

We can't measure the level of vandalism if you semi-protect for a single incident of vandalism. Semi-protection is only for heavily vandalized articles. Would you consider unprotecting this again for a few hours? Progress so far is very encouraging given the level of vandalism prior to protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I just got this message via the helpDesk:

I'm a rapper in LA and signed up for Wikipedia using my stage name --
Niggawhut, which was deemed offensive by your site. I understand that and
would like to delete that name, have my IP address unblocked and sign up
with my real name. But the process seems to just lead to more links and
boxes full of descriptive procedure without leading me to the steps to re-do
my sign up. Can someone help me out here?

On checking the log I see:

17:30, 26 January 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked #87132 (expires 17:30, 27 January 2006)
(Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Niggawhut". The reason 
given for Niggawhut's block is: "{{UsernameBlock}}".)

It looks like he's trying to re-up with a better name, but he gets autoblocked each time he tries. Can you take a look at this and get back to me so I can talk him through signing up with a more acceptable user name, please? --HelpRing 07:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Ipblocklist and there don't seem to be any current autoblocks on that username. Perhaps someone else has already removed an autoblock? -- Curps 07:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks like this is the case. I'll inform the customer. --HelpRing 08:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be unaware why I was stessed enough to vandalise Wikipedia to get myself blocked. While this is not an excuse it may shed light on the nature of the nature of the thing.

First thning see: User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. This shows MARMOT spoofing my ip and getting me blocked.

MARMOT is a vandal. He vandalised your userpage as well as mine by using (spoofing) my ip.

I was banned of from #wikipedia when I requested the removal of a person I identified as marmot. This is like one getting blocked for requesting a block on marmot on wikipedia.

While I do not expect/pledge you to chage your vote on my RfA, I hope you dont mind this post. --Cool CatTalk|@ 10:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the case. MARMOT found a fantastically clever hole in Mediawiki to try to fuck Cool Cat up. The feelings of those of us chasing him are a mix of admiration and disgust - David Gerard 14:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please email[edit]

There's a matter you'll find most helpful the AC is discussing - I urge you to set up your Wikipedia email! Please email me at dgerard at gmail dot com for more :-) - David Gerard 13:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with David - please set up an email address (trust us). Raul654 15:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If privacy, viruses, or mailbombing/spamming is a concern, please give consideration to creating a Google account. It is almost as easy as registering with Wikipedia, and provides provides excellent defense against spam and viruses. ;-) By establishing a few basic filters to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, you could be well on your way here. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, I'll give it a try sometime this weekend. -- Curps 22:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! Raul654 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You asked about an "access code" - they don't work like that. Instead, they send an invitation to an existing email account ... If you like, I'll send one to myself (at another account) and give you the password on IRC when I catch you there - David Gerard 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. -- Curps 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


You may want to check the contrib history for User:Cainman - it's the same troublemaker as the other four dozen "Dink" socks, except this time he's recruited another user (User:Tv316) to help him cause trouble. - Chadbryant 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back once again as User:Ooga Booga Boo. - Chadbryant 15:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He's now vandalizing and causing trouble as User: - Chadbryant 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And now as User: - it appears that he isn't even bothering with registering an account anymore, and just dials back in to his rural ISP every time he's blocked. - Chadbryant 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if you would quit removing comments from the Talk Page of WWE Undisputed Championship because you disagree with them? You give false claims of "vandalism," yet there is none per Wikipedia definition. I only place the remarks back in that you delete. In point of fact, YOUR removal of the comments is vandalism as Wikipedia defines the definition. I do have a beef with you, yes. I admit it. I dislike you. You're a douchebag. But I am not "attacking" you (as Curps has defined it) when I place the comments back in. I am merely taking care of business in regards to that talk page. Wikipedia user tv316 has told you about this, Curps has even told you about this, but yet you continue to not listen to anyone. This is not even an isolated incident -- you have done this to on at least five occassions. If you do not like me posting, or have a problem with what I place in, then either put it on the talk page of whatever account or IP I am using or stop whining and shut up. Your pathetic kindergarten-like tactics of running to Curps everytime I do something you don't like is just fucking sad. -- 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And our diminutive pal is now uploading harsssing material and defacing talk pages as User:Chad Arbuckle. - Chadbryant 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Diminutive pal" is a personal attack -- but then again you are no stranger to the violation of rules on Wikipedia. As for "Chad Arbuckle?" Once again you are incorrect. The user is not me. -- 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Alex Cain has returned once again as User:Eat At Joes. - Chadbryant 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL, does everyone have to be Cain in your eyes? Why did you not mention to Curps the fact that you are re-adding personal attacks on Talk:Death Valley Driver Video Review which I am/have removed/removing because they ARE personal attacks? Why are you not mentioning that you have been blocked for 24 hours twice in less than a week due to similar behavior? Please stop this, it is most undignified for a man of your girth, er, stature. --Eat At Joes 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
At some point, you'll have to take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which includes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration as a last resort. -- Curps 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Except that Mr. Cain has no grounds for requesting arbitration or dispute resolution - his entire presence here is only to harass myself and anyone else who defends Wikipedia from his antics. He's been told numerous times to use the proper channels to defend his (indefensible) stance, and he refuses to do so.
Believe me when I say that I'm as sick of it as anyone else here - I'd much rather be noted for my contributions to Wikipedia, than as the unfortunate victim/target of obsession of someone who has created over 130 sockpuppets. - Chadbryant 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could take him to arbitration instead. However, it's best to enter arbitration with clean hands, so be careful about engaging in 3RR or any retaliatory personal attacks. -- Curps 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need to - Mr. Cain's actions here over the past year speak volumes regarding his intentions and motives, and as long as capable & cognitive admins see him for what he is and block him as soon as he starts causing trouble under a new sock, that's the most relief anyone can really hope for. - Chadbryant 03:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
here over the past year speak volumes regarding his intentions and motives. Now THIS is fucking funny. Ask Mr. Bryant why he was blocked twice in less than two weeks. Ask him why he continued to re-add his personal attacks into a talk page after they were removed for being personal attacks. Ask him why he continues to insist on using someone's "real name" despite no evidence to the contrary. Ask him why he has an almost insane drive to place sockpuppet tags on user entries as if he owned the place yet if someone does the same to him he considers it "vandalism" or "libel." Ask, hell, you get the idea. --Eat At Joes 03:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with arbitration is that Mr. Bryant knows that there is grounds for requesting arbitration AND dispute resolution. He knows it. He will lie about knowing it (as shown above) but he knows it. However, ACCEPTING it or RESOLVING it is another matter entirely. As I told tv316, Chad has the emotional maturity of a toddler, and I believe tv316 would agree with me in this assumption after everything he has personally seen and witnessed.
Now, as for Mr. Bryant wanting to be "noted for his contributions," maybe he should ask himself why he has been blocked for 24 hours twice in under two weeks? Why he attacks another user simply for their handle, and why he continues to violate Wikipedia policy by re-adding personal attacks and personal insults after they are deleted off of Wikipedia pages? Why he continues to violate Wikipedia policy by bringing up the alleged "real name" of someone else (despite no evidence to the contrary)? If he truly wanted to be known for his contributions, he would not have done any of this.
Mediation is voluntary, arbitration isn't. The only people who decide whether to accept a case for arbitration are the members of the Arbitration Committee. If the Arbitration Committee accepts a case, then arbitration takes place and it's binding on both parties. The past conduct of both parties is scrutinized (anyone can present evidence, including third parties) and personal attacks are viewed rather dimly. The Arb Com can decide to ban a particular user for a certain period of time, which means that any contributions by that user (and his sockpuppets) can be reverted on sight. -- Curps 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In Chad's case, arbitration SHOULDN'T be voluntary, but as I said -- he would lose the case if it were to occur, and he is quite aware of this. His behavior on here speaks volumes, and most recently is telling of his paranoid viewpoint and immature social skills. As for things being reverted on site, even you -- with your own biasedness in this matter -- should begin to realize that Chad's flagrant misuse of the "DickWitham" tag is bordering on the insane by now. --Eat At Joes 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the sockpuppet tags are entirely accurate. "Sockpuppet" is not some kind of insult... it's simply Wikipedia jargon for a duplicate account used by the same person. You have used hundreds of duplicate accounts and at times have openly discussed this, yet you still insist on reflexively removing the sockpuppet tags for some reason, apparently for no other reason than the fact that Chad Bryant was the one who originally put many of them there. -- Curps 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are so confident that Chad Bryant would lose the case, and you harbor fantasies of him being banned for six months as you have posted recent in the administrator noticeboards, then I can't imagine why you are refraining from asking for arbitration. Given the length of time this dispute has been going on and the amount of disruption involved, I think the Arb Com would very likely accept it. So what are you waiting for? -- Curps 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Eat At Joes is once again attempting to start trouble by removing valid sockpuppet tags from his previous identities and reverting Professional wrestling slang to include non-encyclopedic commentary. - Chadbryant 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Chadbryant is once again whining and making baseless paranoid accusations while attempting to start trouble by placing sockpuppet tags on accounts, a behavior which he was told months ago by Wikipedia administrators to stop. The "non-encyclopedic commentary" IS encyclopedic; Chad dislikes the person mentioned (Scott Keith) and as a result is attempting to keep Mr. Keith's name out of the article entry. In a nutshell, he's making it personal but trying his damndest to make it look like he is not by hiding under the guise of "non-encyclopedic commentary." This is foolish at best, laughable at worst.--Eat At Joes 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've never had any problem with Scott, as I've known him for several years because of his presence on RSPW, and we've exchanged many e-mails and even a few wrestling tapes. However, his commentary (or someone's interpretation of it) is not encyclopedic, and I think that even you are aware of that fact. You are also once again attempting to depopulate the "DickWitham" category to hide evidence of your past transgressions, and that alone should be grounds for yet another infinite block on one of your accounts, which after over 135 accounts, you should be used to by now. - Chadbryant 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't believe you when you say you have no problem with Scott. I've seen your behavior on here, and I've seen it on RSPW. I would point out on RSPW where your attitude could or could not be proven or disproven in how you view Mr. Keith; however, you seem to have to feel the need to have your comments removed from archival postings, so this would be impossible.
My personal feelings say this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I've seen what you have done in the article and how you've brought your behavior and feelings from the newsgroup into there. Therefore when I see you doing something that could be construed as similar behavior it raises numerous red flags as warning signals. If you can somehow prove that this is not the case, then fine, I'll leave well enough alone. But when I see you editing an article that has RSPW connotations, I'm sorry but I just cannot trust you at your word alone. There has been too many examples that your word in regards to such circumstances may not be reliable. Any e-mails or wrestling tapes you have exchanged between the two of you is irrelevant; Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin were the best of friends until a breakup caused them not to see each other as a team for years. Behavior before and behavior after are two completely different things. YOUR behavior, current, has displayed to me that you are simply incapable of leaving RSPW out of an entry when it becomes time for this to happen.
As for the rest of your laughable sockpuppet accusations, please leave the paranoia out of this, thanks. I also do not see how those remarks have anything to do with the entry in question. --Eat At Joes 05:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that I am not techncally part of this debate, but I have a suggestion that might solve this probelm. I suggest that the page in question be locked so that only administrators can edit it. I have seen pages locked before and it seems to work well. This debate would the be terminated because neither could edit the page. (Steve 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

My Talk Page[edit]

Why did you remove comments from my talk page? And despite what lies Chad may be saying, he's not recruiting me for anything. I've been trying to defend myself from Chad's personal and childish attacks on me. He keeps acting like those internet trolls he accuses everyone else of being. tv316 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

After looking at one of his talk page contributions [6] I just reverted a few more of his talk page contributions without further ado.
User:Cainman was yet another sockpuppet of the same user who keeps coming back and starting the same nonsense all over again, mostly targeting Chad Bryant, usually petty insults and vandalism. As far as I can tell, that's all he does here, no actual contributions of any kind. Weeks earlier I tried talking to him and suggesting he sort out whatever his dispute is with Chad Bryant by using the usual Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mechanisms including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, but he never followed through, and never stopped the petty vandalism long enough to avoid getting blocked. Even though he created dozens of sockpuppets one after another, who would make the same edits and pick up right where the last one left off, he kept trying to deny that these were sockpuppets and insisted that there was no proof... even though he created sockpuppets with names like User:CHadbryant and in other places contradicted himself by referring to earlier sockpuppets using the pronoun "I". He was warned repeatedly about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is an official policy, but he just can't seem to stop with the petty personal attacks for even a few hours. The example cited in the above link is typical.
I'm not relying on Chad Bryant's word, I just look at the edits made by the Cain socks and block as per the usual rules against vandalism and personal attacks. After all this time, I still have no idea what the dispute is all about and I don't particularly care. If you guys have some legitimate quarrel with Chad Bryant, take it to dispute resolution or requests for arbitration and let them sort it out. I don't follow wrestling or the wrestling newsgroups and I don't care what history any of you folks have outside of Wikipedia; Wikipedia isn't a school playground for "Cainman" to carry on childish vendettas. -- Curps 07:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On a quick note, you are quick to sound off about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but Mr.Bryant is permitted to have one on his discussion page that, everytime someone removes it and points out it is against Wiki policy he r/v's claiming vadalism. There seems to be a double standard. As someone who is frequently targeted by Mr.Bryant (who for some reason thinks he knows my real name and posts it all over Wiki), I am merely trying to ensure there is NO exception to the rules for either Mr.Cain or Mr.Bryant. --TruthCrusader
We have no jurisdiction over external websites nor any control over their content, and placing of an external link does not fit the definition of personal attacks as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks (you did actually read that page?). Unless the link was spam or child porn etc. we tend to leave external links alone. If you have a problem with the external link, take it through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It's been months since I suggested to "Cainman" to go through dispute resolution (which ultimately ends up in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration if no earlier resolution can be found) but he hasn't done so. In the meantime, he simply can't seem to control his verbal incontinence: nearly every talk page posting he makes contains some kind of childish schoolyard insult directed at someone. The "no personal attacks" official policy was explained to him over and over again, but he ignores it and gets blocked. That's all. -- Curps 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have read the page and I don't care for your condescending attitude. The website linked is to a FAQ about "Alex Cain" that Mr.Bryant helped create and which is full of lies, distortions, and general bullshit.(Though he will forever claim they are true) The mere presence of the link on Mr.Bryant's talk page is only serving to fuel Cain's demented attitude. I'm not in any way defending for, or sticking up for, Alex, whom I also find to be selfish, childish, and a total a**hole, but I AM concerned that there seems to be a double standard with regards to the link to the FAQ of Alex on Mr.Bryant's talk page.

I know for a FACT there is also a Chad Bryant FAQ on the Internet that was created in response to the Alex Cain FAQ. I guess I can post that link on MY talk page correct? And when Chad Bryant comes screaming to have it taken down and me banned will you also stick up for me as well? Its just a hypothetical question.

These two have been flaming each other for almost a decade. They have harrassed, stalked, insulted, and threatened each other to degrees you can't even imagine. Neither of them are innocent. I will not take this to arbitration, as that logically should be Cain's duty. I sincerely believe the link is in violation of the no attacks rule. TruthCrusader

I don't see why the two cases would be different, unless the "Chad Bryant FAQ" contained some kind of extreme or illegal content or revealed personal information (like phone, address, SSN, etc). External links can be routinely removed from article pages if they're spam or just unsuitable, but not often from user talk pages or user pages.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, back up here. So you're saying that Chad's external link to the bullshit FAQ he obsessed, excuse me, wrote over me is okay? Do you see the personal information revealed? Do you even see ANY of that shit? It's obvious that it's only there as a link because of Chad's hatred and deep obsession over my person. I object to your comments, and find them quite shallow. -- Cainman AKA Alex Cain AKA -- 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Wikipedia:No personal attacks makes no mention of external links, but it most definitely does cover schoolyard insults like "douchebag" or anything similar posted on the pages of Wikipedia itself. From what I see, only Cain is doing that, and taking action when he does that (over and over again, for months, despite having the official policy explained to him repeatedly) is not "sticking up for Chad" or taking sides as you imply.
Then do tell me what one is supposed to do when Mr. Bryant vandalizes user pages with the sockpuppet template? He has been told in the past not to do this as it only serves for agitation and continuation of all of this. -- 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As always, you did it again: [7]. And then you ask why you keep getting blocked. You create obvious sockpuppets like User:CHadbryant and then when Chad Bryant puts a sockpuppet tag on it [8] you revert [9] and preposterously insist that it's not a sockpuppet [10]. And so it goes, for months. -- Curps 03:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Arbitration Committee were to rule that the external link to the Cain FAQ should be removed, that would be different. They have the power to be creative in their decision-making. As for ordinary admins, however, we can't really go out on a limb and invent our own policies.
Funny...with your "sockpuppet used abusively" blocks, I would say that this is exactly what you have done. -- 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Any feuding that might be occurring outside of Wikipedia really isn't something that admins have any jurisdiction over. -- Curps 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Even though the FAQ is not about me, and I do NOT support Cain, is it still permissable for me to bring up this matter for arbitration or is it the sole responsibility of the person being defamed? TruthCrusader
I think you could still bring it. But I'd have to caution you that, as described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, arbitration is considered a last resort. The Arb Com asks for evidence that previous attempts to resolve the dispute have failed. There are various steps described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution including Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you skip these steps and take it directly to arbitration, there's a better than average chance that the Arb Com will refuse to take the case. If the Arb Com accepts the case, they usually examine the totality of all the parties' actions that are submitted as evidence by both sides (and third parties), so Cain's actions would come under scrutiny as well.
So you might want to try contacting the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, or its chair User:Redwolf24 first. But it's up to you. -- Curps 09:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. I will proceed accordingly. TruthCrusader
You could proceed by calling the Salt Lake City police on Chad again. I would love to read the report of the sheriff deputies removing him from an ACW event again. That last time was funny as hell! -- 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting whatever it was that was done to the HTML picture :) --Alf melmac 21:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


hi curps, last week you blocked (talk · contribs) due to vandalism. I just want to point out that this is the ip used by a whole school, so please take that into account when blocking! i couldn't edit for a day. perhaps you could try a shorter block first next time this comes up? I understand the issues this causes and fully support your constant struggle against vandalism here at wikipedia, so do what you gotta do, i won't object. I just get sad when i can't edit . . . thanks a lot. --Heah talk 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL related blocks[edit]

Please be aware that IP numbers used by AOL are not static, but rotate between multiple users. Every time these IP numbers are blocked, you will impact innocent editors. And, it is likely, that your vandal has simply moved on. This problems is addressed by having "a list" of numbers which should not be blocked by administrators for any length of time. However, blocking innocent users is still a problem and impacts me regularly. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for the long history. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your IP address is Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Curps. The reason given is: vandalism

I'm aware of the above. We're aware of AOL IP ranges, their rotation of IPs, and generally try to keep AOL blocks short (note however, the length of autoblocks is not under any administrator's control; we don't even have any way of knowing whether any particular registered user is on AOL or not). The problem is that by rotating IPs, AOL causes every IP address to be shared by vandals and non-vandals. When there is a vandalism spree by an AOL user (like today's "penis" vandalism), the blocks and autoblocks obviously affect other users. I'd like to see some mechanism whereby long-standing registered users such as yourself would have immunity from IP-based blocks. However, as things currently stand, the combination of AOL's IP allocation policies and the Wikimedia software's autoblocking functionality makes AOL a less than ideal platform for editing Wikipedia. -- Curps 07:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a case of deja vu. Hall Monitor 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the revert on my Talk page. – gRegor 05:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I was going to perma block but hit the 24 hours by mistake. I see you did get them as well but I think my shorter block will override yours. Sorry about that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be blocked from SOME sites, but not all.[edit]

This happens alot to my address, always under someone elses claims that You were the one who blocked my ip address this time, so I thought you might be able to explain why. thanksPickelbarrel 14:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From your description, it seems you are probably an AOL user. This is a side-effect of AOL's policy of rotating IP addresses (putting vandals and non-vandals on the same set of multiple IP addresses) as well as the Mediawiki software's autoblocking. So far no good solution has been found. -- Curps 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


This User: had been regularly vadalizing Palmer Trinity School and could very well be creating sockpuppets: User:Willywonka2000 and User:Ihatewiki2. Thanks in advance for your help. PJM 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Batman returns?OR NOT?[edit]

Unblock me,I am Batzarro. I did not vandaliza,I was just using a sandbox. I forgot to press alt +p and pressed alt+s.

I have contributed a massive list of martial arts. I did so much work,editing marvel comics characters. I added a category fictional supersoldiers,created so many userboxes,added to dog and martial arts pages.

I admit I am a fan of Ashida Kim!

You were also blocked last year b4 becoming an admin,so why do you begrudge ma man.Wuulf 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That was 3RR, not vandalism. -- Curps 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Patent Nonsense my foot![edit]

Why do you continue to delete my articles? This is NOT patent nonsense! While I am employing some humor, we are a serious group that has been in existense for over 6 months now.

Are you a Wiki-official? Or just another user?

OK, Curps....I get your drift now. I will have to rewrite the entry in a better style. Thanks for explaining.

Amazing Vandals[edit]

You guys are vandals, this will go on, feel free to block all IPs, you cant listen to reason and give justice to Reeves, then this will go on, in due time I will inform many people from IP's around the world to check on this every minute...So u will have to block this site forever!

User:, User:Braaad and User:T`sitra Yel Darb[edit]

In case you were wondering, there is some background on this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Braaad. Spell the last username backwards, and maybe you'll get a clearer picture. McNeight 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A question about AOL autoblocks[edit]

I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User: with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,
the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:'? Or even better,
how about 'blocked User: with an expirey time of 0 minutes',
then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?-- 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what the solution is. As things stand now, with AOL's weird IP allocation and the Mediawiki software's autoblocking, a vandal can carry out a DoS attack on fellow AOL subscribers. There's a similar problem for schools, where all external access often goes through a small number of proxies and where good contributors get shut out because of a small minority of vandals. Really the only solution is some kind of software change, to allow established registered users to have immunity from autoblocks.
Regarding your specific idea, I doubt that unblocking a range block would unblock individual IP autoblocks within that range... I don't think the software does that. After all doing so doesn't unblock individual IP explicit blocks (non-auto) either, as far as I know. -- Curps 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can't batch unblock, perhaps you could just batch block all AOL IPs for a period of 1 second, that way you could overide any existing autoblocks-- 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any idea on how many IP address there is in a single /22? It would completely spam the logs. --cesarb 16:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Don't you think it is time to semi-protect the €2 commemorative coins page? joturner 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


did you revert my info box. I thought it looked nice. :( FireInMySoul 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I reverted back to your version. -- Curps 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

no problem. Yeah thats why i deleted the birth dates for the girls because they already have them in there own pages. :) FireInMySoul 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Please unblock user batzarro,I did not vandalize 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can convince some other admin to unblock you; as it stands, three separate admins have independently decided to block User:Batzarro and no others have seen fit to unblock up to now. -- Curps 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Batzarro about your unblock request. -- Curps 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


why are you reverting the wal-mart page to the vandals edit? There are cited sections that he deleted. You did not read them, please undo your revert and read the sections again. (Gibby 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

See WP:3RR. As for the content, well, one problem is that those sections read a little too much like an essay advocating or arguing in favor of something, and not really like a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia article. Your edit summaries are a bit combative as well. -- Curps 05:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

batzarro again[edit]

User:terence ong may vouch for me(batzarro) Ninjor 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I posted above, I put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard and if any admin sees fit, they could unblock you. You haven't really explained how you managed to "accidentally" commit the exact same vandalism that was done by those anons (and is being done again right now, three times in a row). -- Curps 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason y i ceated sockpuppets in da 1st place was cos zanimum harassed me. I am doing it again 2 get unblocked. I did not vandalize. Did you see my edits:fictional supersoldier. I created so many religion user templates,user jedi and sith are used by many.

I will return Ninjor 06:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I saw that you protected the George Reeves article. Are you aware of the history of the vandal, given here.

Fred Bauder looked into this guy. But he has not been encouraging; he basically said that since the user is using a range of IPs from the Chicago Public Library there is nothing that can be done. Appeals to WP:VIP and WP:ANI (repeated) have brought nothing. I have written to the library but I doubt that they will be able to help.

Is it true that nothing can be done? I would like a nice long one or two-week block on the entire IP range. I'm looking for someone willing to do that.

I don't think it will help. The persons is genuinely demented and obsessive. He has repeatedly sworn to never, ever give up, and I believe him. However, he may lack the resources to move easily to locations other than the library. I think a one or two-week block will not discourage him, but it might.

Will you do this.

[[cc: GregAsche who recently protected the 1998-99 NBA season article from the same person.[edit]

Hi Curps I unblocked this IP, only made one edit and he was warned. I'd like to see if he stops before blocking again. Hope you don't mind! Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked as I use AOL and my IP address is a rotating one. Again, the allegation of vandalism. Sorry, if anyone checks my watchlist, they will see the numerous CONSTRUCTIVE edits that I have made and the articles that I have expanded upon. Something has to be done before the administrators automatically penalize AOL members who have registered here. I am beginning to believe some of the bad things I hear about wikipedia. PLEASE unblock me! T.E. Goodwin 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of a silly user[edit]

Thanks for blocking User:Violetriga, you are NOT helping Wikipedia! – I hadn't noticed that one! violet/riga (t) 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The block reason is wrong. I wouldn't go with impersonation, but something else. DyslexicEditor 10:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

bot question[edit]

Curps, forgive my ignorance about software, but I'm wondering if there would be a straightforward way to configure one of your various vandal-related bots to seek out images uploaded by indefinitely blocked users. I ask because I just put a bunch of clear copyvios uploaded by Darkgrammer (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) on to IfD, and it seems likely that there are other similar things out there. If it's not feasible I'll ask elsewhere. Thanks, Chick Bowen 01:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You can go to Special:Log/upload and enter "Darkgrammer" in the User field. The results can be found here: [11]. -- Curps 02:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but actually I was wondering if there were a way to find images uploaded by any indefinitely blocked user. Logically, it just seems like many of those would be problematic images. Chick Bowen 02:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I bring this to you attention[edit]

because I know how much you love abusive sockpuppets hiding behind open proxies, and thought you might be willing to block (contribsblock userblock log), I don't really know why this was deleted-- 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Batzarro here, Curps this is for you man; I know i will be blocked but this is my last account. I have run out of em. I kept this for the last but its all i have left.

i vandalised because user zanimum was harassing me too much. Thanks to curps and sjakkalle.

I edited in 12 different countries;

Some other sockpuppet accounts of mine:


and of course; user:

see user: An image i added

before you revert my edits,please make sure user;curps and user:zanimum get my message


Block this(my last account and this is the last you ll ever see of me or my sockpuppets))


I am contacting a few choice editors, meaning you :-), in hoping that you may help me in a suggestion I have. I am proposing that the Special:Listusers page be broken up into Users and indefinantly blocked/vandal accounts. I want to know your input on my suggestion. SWD316 talk to me 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question.[edit]

Hi, I wanted to thank you for catching the vandalism to my userpage (twice!) and reverting it. :) But I did want to ask -- aren't vandals supposed to be warned using the templates at WP:Vandalism before they're blocked? I kind of think that it's only fair to give someone a warning of the consequences before the consequences are delivered. These users might not even realize why they're being blocked; they may not be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Thanks again! Hbackman 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That anon IP was an open proxy, so actually I have now indefinitely blocked it. -- Curps 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, got it. Thanks for the clarification. Hbackman 22:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Trosk[edit]

You indefinetly blocked Trosk and they want to discuss it with you. Could you pop by their talk page explain the block, maybe have a quick discussion with them to put their mind at rest. Thanks, --Commander Keane 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked. -- Curps 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Won't happen again. Trosk 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

help please[edit]

I am new here. I've made an edit to a controversial page. An edit aligned with someon who has been blocked indefinitely. i would like to stay on wikipedia. i fear that I will be blocked indefinitely for my edit in agreement with this editor that has been banned. can you email me at about this. thanks very muchDimes for eyes 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC) aka Linda

You've been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Jonah Ayers. You have reverted several articles to substantially the identical version which was edited by Jonah Ayers, and furthermore you have created two intentional typo re-creations/forks at Wil mcwhon and W.D. Mcwhiny for the deleted article Will McWhinney, Jr.. You have also violated the three-revert rule at WP:3RR. Rather than creating a new account ("sockpuppet"), you should request unblocking of your original Jonah Ayers account (by placing
at User Talk:Jonah Ayers; and rather than create intentional typo versions of a deleted article, you should request re-creation of the deleted article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Curps 03:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Curps[edit]

I'm not adding any more posts to my own RFA, so I'll respond to your comments here. I just plain didn't put two and two together. Do you remember every vote you made six months earlier? The second I realised what the whole thing was about, I removed my name. And it's faintly peculiar that you're using someone else's incivility as an additional argument. That I don't get. Proto t c 07:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "Gay Nigger Association of America" is a particularly (intentionally) jarring name. It's not the sort of name I'd forget. And it would have been prudent to take a look at Timecop's user page before nominating him as a "personal hero"... his signature only has a link to the user page, not to his talk page, so if I ever need to look at his talk page in reply to something he wrote elsewhere, I would click on the userpage link in his signature and then click on the "discussion" tab, viewing the userpage in passing along the way.
Perhaps I should have clarified the point about civility... it's just that an admin should be careful about things like civility and neutrality. In creating the "war on blogs" page, Timecop used quite uncivil language and the campaign seemed designed to "bite" the creators of blog articles as much as actually delete the articles themselves. So, associating yourself with this evidently uncivil person does raise a question of judgement even if you didn't know of the GNAA connection... when I say associating yourself, I don't mean merely participating in the blog article AfDs, as a lot of others did, but specifically naming this uncivil person a "personal hero" though perhaps in jest. Also, you posted to the WP:AN discussion after my post in which I specifically mentioned Timecop's over-the-top warning to me [12]... it's unfortunate you missed that or you might have removed your name from the "personal hero" listing earlier.
In any case, I'd urge you to make a reply on the RfAdm page to clarify things from your point of view. -- Curps 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right - if I had known about Timecop's poor conduct and threats I would have removed my name a lot sooner. I acted in good faith and perhaps I do assume it too much of others. I've self-imposed a ban on replying on my own RFA any further as it was starting to look both whiny and ungracious. Please be reassured that my failure to put 2 and 2 together was just that. Best, Proto t c 10:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I got your note today Curps. I will say that having contacted Proto about this I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt but a disinterested reader coming across the RfA at this point would likely not. It's unfortunate that Proto's good contrib's have been lost and I won't be withdrawing my nom. Cheers, Marskell 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[edit]

This anon, who you just blocked has had many warnings and two blocks this week. I doubt that three hours is going to stop him --DV8 2XL 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, those blocks were nearly two weeks ago, so it might not be the same person. We'll see. -- Curps 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)