User talk:Thorncrag/Archive/Dec 2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Talkback
Message added 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Need help with an abuse report
I found found the Wikipedia abuse report page after a long time of searching. I am one of the editors who have constantly been battling the user 86.143.54.217. This is his latest IP. He has been edit warring, adding gamecruft, original research, and stalking the articles of people who try revert his edits, like yours truly. I have fired off three abuse emails to BT Internet in Britain, to which all his IPs resolve. I finally received an answer, requesting server logs for them to be able to identify the user, but I am not an administrator and frankly, at this point we have tried so many things - He cannot be range-blocked, edit-filters won't work, either, and he does not communicate, so any and all warnings and general communication is ignored. Now, I don't really understand the abuse page. You will see all of his IP addresses in the history pages of his recently edited articles; those are the ones he keeps coming back to force his edits through on, and I seem to be the only one who even bothers at reverting him further at this point. Is it realistic by any stretch of the imagination that I could somehow receive server logs, with time stamps including the time zone in which they were recorded? BT Internet are apparently notoriously hard to contact, and this whole process, however long it might take, could be circumvented if I could just have copies of server logs for each of the times the anonymous edits were made. But given the beaurocracy and indifference encountered so far, I have a feeling that is not going to be possible. Either way, I need help to jump through this latest hoop, and I was hoping you could since you were listed on the abuse response site. Eik Corell (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, the edit log for the user is the server log, at least for the Mediawiki software. If the ISP is requesting the web server logs (i.e. Apache) then that will have to be something provided by the Foundation specifically. That should be un-necessary, as the user contribution log should be all that is needed for an ISP to figure out who was using the IP address at the time the edits were made. At AR we typically provide a comprehensive report for ISPs including all IPs we've confirmed (or at least strongly suspect) were used by the same violator (for instance, see this report as an example for a user with multiple IP addresses.) You may want to file a report for that user and we can prepare a report for the ISP. 02:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Abuse investigation - Brother Rice High School (Chicago)
I see that you are conducting an abuse investigation for IP 207.63.212.2 (talk · contribs), registered to Brother Rice High School (Chicago). This is to let you know that I have just blocked the IP for one year, following steady renewed vandalism after a previous six-month block ended in September. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Archived Thread
Please do not revert me again, The tone of that thread is one that will drive editors to rage quit AR, hence a new slate back on the topic of the revamp is warrented. Please come on IRC and we can discuss this in a more real time manner. If you have insecurities over wether or not people care about AR, then you are more than welcome to leave but don't stall the revamp by consistently raising that jimbo doesn't seem to care. Momentum is our ally in all this, understand that once we have the project moving steadily, then they will take interest. But they will not jump into a project that is currently questioning its own existence. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reverting your capricious archival of a topic has nothing to do with my opinion, your opinion, or anyone else's opinion on the given topic, it has to do with whether one user has the right to arbitrarily archive a topic that is actively being discussed, ostensibly closing its discussion. One does not. I ask that you voluntarily revert your archival as it is contrary to Wikipedia customs and policy which requires that archival be made by consensus. If you do not revert it, it is entirely likely to be reverted by another editor. 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will not revert the archiving. Your not one to point out others Arbitery-ness, so please dont try. Lastly, I think it unlikely anyone will revert, seeing as Netalarm was the one who told me you reverted (via IRC) and PCHS-NJROTC probably will see why I did it, seeing as we go way back at AR. Wether or not ISP's act is irrelavent, wether or not people care about what we do isnt about the revamp. We have a job to do at AR and though it may be thankless, someone has to do it. Cheers «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.