User talk:Curps/archive22

brianmcfa

Please remove your block for IP address 64.12.116.74, it's an AOL address that is preventing me from editing. Also, I believe that administrators should accept e-mail from other users rather than having to resort to a talk page for requests.

AOL puts everyone on the same IP addresses, so vandals and non-vandals are affected by the same blocks. We try to keep AOL blocks relatively short. -- Curps 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

curps

Stop blocking me. You're just abusing your admin privelages. You should be banned. I can see from everyone elses comments that you're not really doing your job. GET A LIFE!

Jcurtis

Could you delete Brooke Berry for me.

Jcurtis

Hi!How are you?How are things going

Not too bad, how are you? Sorry for the delay in replying, things have been busy lately. -- Curps 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG

You blocked my IP for some guy (Popoone45 or something) =( I used account CDarwin. >.< and my additions to articles have been removed.

You may have been affected by what's known as an autoblock. Some ISPs (notably AOL) make multiple users share the same IPs. Regarding your additions to articles being removed, it's hard to tell without knowing which specific edits and articles you are referring to. However, as User:CDarwin you perhaps facetiously added "Intelligent Design" to a list of urban legends and someone reverted that edit, since it does not actually meet the definition of an urban legend. -- Curps 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jcurtis

I would like to announce a coeback and sign a one year contract with Wikipedia.

Jcurtis

Curps, I thank you for everything. Don't erase my username or password but I would lik to announce my retirement from Wikipedia effective 30 minutes later. I think I can help out at my church more like you said.

Jcurtis

Thank you. I want to know morre about you. I'm a sophomore in high school and am a wrestler, track long jumper and a tennis player. In wrestling, I was the freshman team mVP, and in track, I placed third at an JV invitational as a freshman.

Why Do You Keep Blocking My Legitimate Usernames

Hiya Curps. In the past 10 minutes you've permanently blocked two usernames I've created before I've had the chance to use them, Fascism Rules and I Am A Fan Of Nazism. You have not given legitimate reasons for the blocking of these. I did not intend to vandalize anything. Could you please offer an explanation of this behavior? I merely figured that if a neutral encyclopedia tolerates users with explicitly anti-fascist sentiments in their usernames, they should also tolerate users with explicitly pro-fascist sentiments in their usernames. Where does my logic fail? 200.168.39.90 05:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Username regarding potentially offensive or inflammatory usernames. -- Curps 05:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you've blocked my IP because I created the username The Fascΐst Kids Are Alright. This is a neutral encyclopedia. How is it that you can abide names like NazismIsntCool but not my choices? That doesn't seem fair at all. I've perused Wikipedia:Username and there is no way my usernames can be considered inappropriate if NazismIsntCool is appropriate. So it's OK to be one of kind of idealogue, but not another? Is that the message you're sending? Please refrain from blocking my further attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. 81.215.10.113 05:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In principle, you could create "SocialismIsntCool" and that probably wouldn't be considered inflammatory per se, although it might be blocked if it was clearly intended as a spoof or attack on the existing user "NazismIsntCool". Your problem is, in general public opinion in the real world, espousing pro-Nazi or pro-fascist sentiment is considered inflammatory and disparaging such sentiments is not considered inflammatory, and the situation on Wikipedia simply reflects that. -- Curps 05:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But if that's the case, why did you block "AntifascismIsBad"? That was clearly not intended as a spoof or an attack. I would have followed your suggestion exactly, but there is a difference between Socialism is not Antifascism. Anyway, I think tolerating one kind of rhetoric and quashing another in knee-jerk fashion is blatantly POV. 67.180.160.119 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Username blocks are recorded in the block log, which is visible to all admins (and non-admins). If any other admin thinks the block is unwarranted, they could unblock. If that doesn't happen, well, draw your own conclusion. -- Curps 06:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't give me that mealy-mouthed argument. You know as well as I do that few people monitor the block log for inappropriate blocks, and fewer still (if anyone) care enough to unblock people even when they were clearly unjustly banned. If you want to put it to forum-wide vote, that's another matter, but this is unilateral, biased, draconian action. Now you've blocked National Socialist. Have I ever given any indication to you that I might be a vandal? Absolutely not. I really wish you would stop this unbidden attempt to keep an individual whose point of view is different from yours from contributing to Wikipedia. 80.189.221.6 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect, quite a number of admins monitor the block log. And "National Socialist" is an inflammatory username as per Wikipedia:Username. If you wish to call a "forum-wide" vote to try to change existing practice, that's up to you. -- Curps 06:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun

Why did you block my six other accounts, including User:fESTERING hEAD wOUND, after I wrote lengthy articles about each of my nine cats named "Fluffy"? Don't delete Fluffy (cat) (disambigtion) again! And letting the d*rn anti-head wound Mafia to run amok is POV. ALL YOUR MICES AR PWNS L33T AAAAARGH!!!!

PS: C, I wish I could be as amusing as some of your other pen pals. Keep up the good work. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 05:34 Z

Please Explain

So you blocked AntifacsismIsBad prima facie (no pun intended), I see. Now this is ludicrous. You must explain how AntifascismIsBad is unacceptable but NazismIsntCool is. NazismIsntCool states an opposition to a controversial idealogy. AntifascismIsBad does, too. What's the difference? And don't use the "impersonation" argument, because it isn't. I really would like an explanation. 60.50.121.108 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Fash-ism!. I demand a cessation of and an explanation for this hypocrisy. 67.180.160.119 05:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See above. I'm not applying some personal policy, just general Wikipedia practice. If I hadn't blocked them, some other admin would have, fairly rapidly. -- Curps 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not "applying some personal policy", huh? I find it highly bemusing that your talk page is rife with debates over the (so-called) "Yom Kippur War" and Nazist/Nazi. It's obvious you have a vested agenda against Nazi fascists, to which I must object. Anti-fascsist hate has been plaguing the civilized world for too long and I'd like it to stop. I think on a global neutral forum such as this, you must be open to people with viewpoints other than yours. 80.189.221.6 06:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read those discussions. For instance, the issue with "Nazist" is that it's not an English word. -- Curps 06:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop blocking my good-faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. In keeping with your consistent practice, you have blocked me before I even had a chance to make an edit. How is "The Far Right Is Far Out" offensive or inflammatory? What is wrong with you? Why do you interpret such harmless names as inflammatory remarks? Do you have some sort of complex? It's not like I tried calling myself I Hope Your Grandparents Were Gassed To Death In An Auschwitz Oven. 148.235.66.115 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, please enlighten me: how do I call a forum-wide vote to call into question your dubious practices? 148.235.66.115 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You could take a look at Wikipedia:Request for comments. -- Curps 06:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I endorsed the anonymous guy's statement on the RfC. I find it a black hypocrisy to selectively target ideological usernames based on personal political preference. Peace And Love 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for posting to my RfC and my talk page only 3 minutes and 8 minutes, respectively, after registering your account. I'd post a welcome message with useful links to your talk page, but you seem to already know your way around here. I'm glad you were able to pick a suitable non-inflammatory username. -- Curps 22:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking users without giving reasons

Would Curps please explain his blocking of this user? His reason "user ..." [sic] leaves me scratching my head. DrKinsey --02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As Castor Troy said to Dr. Malcolm Walsh: "Take one goddamn guess" [1] -- Curps 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

• First, you may think your motives are obvious; but failing to give reasons still doesn't cut the mustard.
• Second, you blocked this user when the user had made no contributions, still less engaged in any impersonation or vandalism. (I suggest that a user who makes no contributions and has no user page cannot be said to be impersonating another user, because no other wikipedians will encounter him unless they go looking in the lists of users and will then find only a blank page.
• This user and I are one and the same person. After I created this user account, and before you blocked it, I had ample opportunity to contribute, vandalise and impersonate using the account. I deliberately did not do so and have never at any point in time had any intention of doing so. (I even placed a doppelgaenger template on the user page so as to allay any fears of impersonation or other mischief.)
• I had never heard of the other user until just before I created the the user account in question after reading the interesting Wikipedia articles on impersonation and doppelgaengers.
• I doubt very much whether the other user edits primarily using this user account. (I suggest that anyone who thinks he does is naive.)
• I set up the user account in question as an experiment to find out how truly free and democratic Wikipedia is. I wanted to see whether blocking was targeted at users who cause problems for others, or whether it would be used arbitrarily and discriminatorily to protect those at the top of the Wikipedia pile.
• While this is not my name, it is the name of plenty of people in the world, not just one man. (No doubt many of these people also adopt a diminutive.)
• I ask you to unblock this user account and demonstrate that Wikipedia is not a clique structured around nepotism. By all means monitor the account. If you discover any impersonation you will have a reason to block it. DrKinsey 03:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can use the "DrKinsey" account for editing. Don't try to impersonate other users. -- Curps 03:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't presume to tell me what user account I am allowed to use for editing. I don't presume to tell you what user account you are allowed to use for editing.
• I see you haven't read my above words closely. I have explained what I have done, my reasons, and that I haven't impersonated anyone. You are well aware that I have not impersonated anyone. So please don't issue orders to me like "Don't try to impersonate other users." (I might as well issue the same order to you, but I'm not that arrogant.)
• Please address the points I have made above. It is discourteous to respond to calm, rational and detailed remarks (especially those which expressly request or implicitly call for a response) with rude one-liners.
• I look forward to your considered, detailed and courteous reply. (If you wish me to clarify anything, please let me know, and I shall be more than happy to oblige.) DrKinsey 03:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The block of User:Jimbo_Wa1es is valid. Enough said. --HappyCamper 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Curps to get back to me on this. I think that assertions about the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the block should be backed up by analysis and, where appropriate, reference to authority (policies, etc.). Regards, DrKinsey 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't use "Jimbo Wa1es" for editing, nor the Cyrillic-spoofing version either if that was also you. And now that you've created User:CURPS YOU GOD DAMNED FuCKING FUCK BOT STOP TELLing mE WHAT TO DO and User:I'LL CALL MYSELF WHAT EVER GOD DAMNED THING I WANT TO the DrKinsey sock has been blocked too. -- Curps 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps:

• I don't know what a "Cyrillic-spoofing version" is, and I didn't create those user accounts. Why do you assume that it was I? Don't you think that's a bit paranoid? Looking at your talk page, it seems that there are many others whom you have treated in a similarly high-handed way.
• My suspicion is that those responsible for the user accounts which express dissatisfction with you are people whom you have blocked for political/ideological reasons.
• Please check the IP addresses which created the user accounts. You will find that these accounts are nothing to do with me. (If I can provide any information you need I am willing to do so.)
• In our communications so far I have been, if I say so myself, a model of civility. Why should I abandon this approach and seek to antagonise you by creating swear-word user accounts containing your name? I ask that you employ as much politeness, courtesy and consideration in your communications with me as I have done in mine with you.
• After this storm in a teacup is resolved I will return to the issue of my experimental user account. DrKinsey (temporarily known as 220.245.179.130 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Curps,

• You wrote on the blocking page:

"The reason given for DrKinsey's block is: sockpuppet of vandal; impersonation of Jimbo Wales."

• I am still waiting for your response regarding the insulting usernames and the Cyrillic thing. Have you bothered to check the IP addresses associated with all these offences that you allege? (If so, please share this information with me.) Please have the courtesy and fairness too look into this and determine whether in fact there is a possibility that you may have been wrong.
• If you do not respond to inoffensive, reasonable requests like this, other users will have a good basis for considering your blocking behaviour unfair and unjustified. DrKinsey (temporarily 220.245.179.130 11:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)).

You have admitted to creating the User:Jimbo Wa1es impostor account. The preposterous claim that this is somehow a legitimate account for you to use won't magically come true by virtue of being asserted repeatedly with a straight face. Because it's Christmas I have unblocked the DrKinsey sock. Have a nice day. -- Curps 04:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

• Thank you for your limited response, and for unblocking the DrKinsey account.
• I have admitted creating this user account, and I have told you why. I have NOT admitted being an imposter, and I have NOT admitted that this account is an "impostor account" (sic).
• I am pleased that the spirit of Christmas touches even your heart. However, I am not asking you to do me any favours "because it's Christmas." I want you to verify whether your stated basis for blocking DrKinsey and my IP address (supposedly because I created user accounts insulting to you and some Cyrillic thing) was justified. If not, I would ask that you apologise for blocking them. Please tell me what you can find out about the IP addresses which engaged in those objectionable activities. (I would also appreciate it if you could explain exactly what the Cyrillic thing is.)
• You keep calling DrKinsey a "sock". While I have previously encountered this word, and assume it is no compliment, I am not exactly sure what it means. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this.

Happy holiday. DrKinsey 12:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

My previous statement implied that your spelling of "imposter" was incorrect. That assertion was wrong: "impostor" and "imposter" are alternative spellings, and Wikipedia prefers "impostor". I apologise for the suggestion that your writing was at fault. DrKinsey 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

• Could you please reply to my questions about your block of my DrKinsey username?
• If you aren't willing to answer my questions about your block of my DrKinsey username (an attitude which I would obviously consider unreasonable), please tell me what Wikipedia dispute resolution processes are available to assist us in resolving our two disputes. (You obviously know a lot more about Wikipedia than I do.) I have heard of Mediation and something called a Request for Arbitration, but no doubt there are other dispute resolution methods.
• If you aren't willing to answer my questions about your block of my DrKinsey username, could you please let me know whether you would like to deal with our second dispute concerning my experimental user account separately or in the same dispute resolution process.
• I am very eager to resolve our two disputes. I would be encouraged if you could indicate the same willingness to reach resolution. I really feel that your non-response is wasting my time.

DrKinsey (temporarily 220.245.179.132 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Curps 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop banning Jake Remington accounts

Why did this guy get blocked, anyway? All he ever did was in the sandbox.63.19.129.10 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I could dig up and quote you some vandalism done by Jake Remington sockpuppets, but I think you already know. -- Curps 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unban Jake.63.19.129.10 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you care, unless you're Jake? Remember our conversation a while ago? -- Curps 02:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I, Jake Remington, wish to be unbanned. -- Jake Remington

Can you prove that you're User:Jake Remington? Log in as that user and edit User talk:Jake Remington. I haven't unblocked the account yet, so the talk page is the only page you'll be able to post to. -- Curps 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Jake. So just unban all my accounts!63.19.201.233 02:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to prove you're Jake. Please log in as User:Jake Remington and post to User talk:Jake Remington within the next half hour or so, and then post here to let me know, and then we'll talk some more over here. But if you can't prove you're Jake then there's nothing to talk about. -- Curps 03:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I used my Wilkesheimer account. Is that good enough?63.19.201.233 03:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Respond.63.19.201.233 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you need to log in as Jake Remington. -- Curps 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What was my Jake Remington password?63.19.201.233 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Just use it to log in. -- Curps 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the password? P.S I am definitely Jake Remington

If you forgot your password, go to the login page and click to e-mail it to yourself. -- Curps 03:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The password is not being sent to me. I am Jake Remington, American, and I hope you realize that.63.19.201.233 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were using a different e-mail account when you registered Jake Remington, if it really was you. If you don't know the password, then you won't be able to use the Jake Remington account no matter what, the password can only be released to the original e-mail account. -- Curps 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, from now on, no longer block new Jake Remington accounts.63.19.201.233 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

We block sockpuppets of accounts that were used for vandalism, and usually we block accounts that are too similar to the names of existing users. We could talk about unblocking Jake Remington if you didn't vandalize anymore (we'd have to run it by other admins) but if you can't prove you're the owner of that account we can't really do it. Some accounts that used variants of the Jake Remington name were also used for vandalism so we can't really unblock any of them. -- Curps 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

That person needs to be banned. Who do i talk to about that? Parys

It's an anonymous user, and that specific internet address has been blocked for now. -- Curps 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello, this is the poster you just blocked for "valdalizing" talk pages. The poster whose POV edits I removed contained numerous insults and biased material in which he disparaged the intelleligence of other posters. In one of the posts I removed, he reffered to another poster as a "moron". I would like an explanation as to why you believe it is acceptable to post such things, but not for a person to delete it? I am asking you to take a sincere look at the person's posting history and explain why you think I'm a vandal when my only goal was to clean up this person's troll postings: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.107.174.166 also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jugbo 4.155.60.127 03:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked BiasedMuch (talk · contribs) and BiasedMuch? (talk · contribs) for deleting talk page comments, but also because the user names are somewhat inflammatory: any edit you make under these names will read like a challenge or provocation to anyone whose edits you modify. That sort of thing can lead to edit wars, which we aim to discourage. As for the other users' comments that BiasedMuch deleted, maybe I didn't read them too carefully but as far as I could see one message only said "moron", and the other messages you deleted didn't even say that. If there's something I'm missing, let me know, I don't know the background or history of your disputes with other users. -- Curps 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I should add, I have no history of disputes with this person. However, if you take a look at the user's posting history, you will see that he has a history of making inflamatory comments on racial issues, using insulting language and posting links to questionable angelfire sites as documentation. I understand about banning the username, but please take a look at the user's posting history to see that my edits were only designed to remove inflammatory/troll comments from the talk pages. 4.155.60.127 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On rapid inspection, the comments by user Jugbo don't really read like inflammatory comments. He appears to express himself using civil language. Perhaps I didn't look closely enough or there are some code words I don't understand. He has posted to your user talk pages asking for clarification, you could perhaps reply on his talk page. If you can't resolve the dispute with him by discussion on his talk page, you could take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or some similar forum, but please make your case with specific details. -- Curps 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm Jugbo, and I posted those inflammatory comments when I lost my cool (it was also late at night and I was cranky), and never bothered to change it until I came here this morning to alter my post myself, only to find it deleted. I don't have a "history of making inflammatory comments on racial issues" (a subject that interests me), I express my opinion, look at my other posts. If you think I'm inflammatory on racial issues, then you didn't look through the discussion pages on which I have posted. 4.155.60.127, if you have something to say to me, then I invite you to address me personally (on my talk page). I believe that it's never acceptable to erase others words on a talk page (that is vandalism), no matter how outrageous they are (seriously, look at some of those pages on which I've commented!), and that you should instead articulate a counter-argument. I ususally avoid remarks of such a nature because I know very well that they are unproductive (although I did make points along with my rudeness), but I've simply lost decency in the past. --Jugbo 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What is this "biased material" (you apparently haven't looked at the pages on which I've posted, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about my "questionable" sources). Some of the material I've cited addresses the pertinent issues directly, so perhaps they seem biased to you. Again, be intelligent and articulate a response, rather than deleting my "troll postings" (how many of my comments have you deleted?). You misevaluate my history of expressing my opinion. I admit to being inflammatory on the Queen Charlotte page, and also mildy rude on the Beethoven discussion page (which comments I changed on my own, thank you), as the opponents to my position (which is also the mainstream position) tend to be agitatingly puerile and inflammatory. If you take issue with my positions, then come to me about it. --Jugbo 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps, you have blocked "BiasedMuch?" and "BiasedMuch" for an "infinite" time period. Does this mean that the user of these accounts won't be able to "contribute" to Wikipedia at all with them, at least until the blocks are lifted by an administrator? I left messages on these talk pages, so perhaps I shouldn't expect a response from them? 4.155.60.127 (the user of these two blocked accounts) still has access to Wikipedia, apparently. Is there a way for me to watch this person, regardless of how many accounts he opens or names he uses, or is that a job for administrators? Thanks. --Jugbo 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, blocked users can't contribute. However, they can re-register under a more neutral username. Normally I wouldn't have blocked these accounts indefinitely only for blanking talk page comments, but they did appear to have been created on the spot for the purposes of a specific edit conflict and they are names that read like a challenge to any opposing party, which only tends to inflame or worsen edit conflicts. There are ways to try to investigate whether two accounts represent the same person, but they're not infallible. You could add certain pages to your watchlist (see the "watch" tab and the "my watchlist" link near the top of the screen) to follow new contributions to pages of interest to you. -- Curps 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Thank you. --Jugbo 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Emo groups

Thanks for deleting that weird "delete" vote at the bottom of the page, I didn't even notice it! On that note though, do you think the article should be deleted? That and the List of Screamo groups just seem kind of extraneous to me.

Your talk page is really long. Alexforcefive 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

An AOL vandal went on a spree adding the same delete notice to a bunch of AfDs, which might be OK normally, except he also added it to closed AfDs from months ago, to articles and to pages in the Wikipedia: talk space. I reverted globally every such contribution. I'm afraid I don't have an opinion on any individual AfD involved, I didn't participate in any of them as far as I can recall. -- Curps 20:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

I noticed I was blocked in the block log for vandalism when I was actually reporting on it rather than committing it! But even the best admins make mistakes, nobody's perfect! --82.42.237.114 20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

me, not logged in! --Sunfazer 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that was odd. I did unblock almost immediately. -- Curps 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Were you intending to block a vandal instead? I'm here to make legitimate contributions and report vandalism like you do, Curps. You're doing a good job blocking vandals so far - keep that up!

Here's a barnstar for you, Curps:

--Sunfazer 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flarn2005

While I agree this user should be blocked, I think you might've been a bit rash with blocking him permanently without any community discussion or arbitration involvement. I think there's a small chance he can be turned around. Could you please way in on WP:ANI. I've suggested his block be shortened to give him another chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what happened there, I may have blocked him for long-ago vandalism more than something recent. Anyway, I agree the block should be removed. -- Curps 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

The article Ben Mulroney has been vandalized to say he was shot by Mark David Chapman (who killed John Lennon). I don't know how to revert it back to the version which it should be. I picked your name at random because I see you've fixed other bits of vandalism. Hopefully you can help. UncleFester 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind. Someone else has stepped in. UncleFester 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

contributions before and after account on same page

Thank you, Curps. Your info did help me, as I was trying to figure out how to view other users contributions; but what I also wanted to know was how I can make my contribution history before the 27th (the day I created an account) that is associated with my IP address show up on my user contribution page that displays contributions associated with my user name Jugbo. I would just like them all to appear in one place rather than having to search for my IP address to account for things I posted before I had an account. Thanks. --Jugbo 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to do that... that's why it's useful to register so that all your contributions are visible under one listing. -- Curps 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Jugbo 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting the vandalism on my user page. My first time! I'm almost proud. Natgoo 22:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And thanks from me. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Quarl

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! --Quarl 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Eric B

Why am I being blocked because of my IP address (64.12.116.72 and the other AOL one, that starts with "2") when I am editing with my user account? I thought that was only for anonymous users, and the user account protected you from that. 22:13, 28 Dec. 2005

You'll have to ask the developers about that. I believe there should be a way to define "users in good standing", who could keep editing when an IP range is blocked. -- Curps 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flarn2005

I know it's going to sound very proactive and perhaps over-aggressive, but I would ask you to reconsider your block on Flarn2005. I've been interacting with this user since sometime in the summer, and I feel as thoguh the user has been making no effort to work with the community, and instead treats Wikipedia as his private playground. A very simple look at his contributions reveals, I feel, very few real contributions - Out of the last 50 edits, only three are to articles, the rest are him messing around in the sandbox, on user_talk pages, and some light vandalism. I realize that I'm biased in the matter, but I would just request you to reconsider your actions. Not that they're wrong, or that I think you erred in judgment, simply that I'd like to bring other information to light. I remain yours truly, jglc | t | c 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Already unblocked earlier. -- Curps 04:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I meant, rather, to plead with you to reconsider your unblocking of the user. jglc | t | c 04:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if he commits light vandalism he'll probably get short blocks, and we'd have to see what develops. Mind you, any other administrators can also block him if they feel it's warranted. -- Curps 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my User page. — ERcheck @ 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop the discrimination NOW.

Curps, just look at what you wrote:

"Your problem is, in general public opinion in the real world, espousing pro-Nazi or pro-fascist sentiment is considered inflammatory and disparaging such sentiments is not considered inflammatory, and the situation on Wikipedia simply reflects that."

In the few months I've been reading Wikipedia, this is the most ridiculous thing I've come across. This is a neutral encyclopedia (or so I thought). If you want everything to reflect the "real world", fine, leave and never edit Wikipedia again. What you're suggesting is that this encyclopedia should be biased toward whatever most people believe.

Don't you think blocking users simply because of their beliefs is unfair? It's called discrimination. Your logic is basically this: "since most people in the world discriminate against Nazism, I should also discriminate against Nazism". If you want to do that, do so on a forum related to Word War II, not here.

"Username blocks are recorded in the block log, which is visible to all admins (and non-admins). If any other admin thinks the block is unwarranted, they could unblock. If that doesn't happen, well, draw your own conclusion."

Is that your excuse for discriminating? If so, can I vandalize this encyclopedia and say, "if any other user thinks the edit was vandalism, they could revert. If that doesn't happen, well, my vandalism is justified". The fact that other administrators can unblock your block does not justify you for discriminating.

"So you blocked AntifacsismIsBad prima facie (no pun intended), I see. Now this is ludicrous. You must explain how AntifascismIsBad is unacceptable but NazismIsntCool is. NazismIsntCool states an opposition to a controversial idealogy. AntifascismIsBad does, too. What's the difference? And don't use the "impersonation" argument, because it isn't. I really would like an explanation. 60.50.121.108 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)"

I am sympathic with 60.50.121.108. There is absolutely no way AntifacsismIsBad can be unacceptable whereas NazismIsntCool is. How is NazismIsntCool not inflammatory? Why is it not inflammatory? More importantly, why is NazismIsntCool not inflammatory where AntifascismIsBad is? There is only one reason for your actions: discrimination. According to Wikipedia policy on usernames, "names which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideological/homophobic hatred" are inflammatory. NazismIsntCool clearly promotes ideological hatred, just as AntifacsismIsBad does.

Curps, either block all usernames that promote racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideological/homophobic hatred (regardless of whether you or most people agree with that hatred), or change the official policy. NazismIsntCool and AntifacsismIsBad should either be both blocked (which I support), or they should both not be blocked (which should come with a change in the official policy).

By the way, Curps, can you finally get an email address so that users can discuss blocks with you? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlhover (talk • contribs)

You're back. Well, "Bowlhover" is a perfectly acceptable username, though a bit silly. -- Curps 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The two usernames you mention above were part of a spree that included "User:National Socialist", "User:Fash-ism!", User:I Am A Fan Of Nazism", "User:Fascism Rules". I just shrugged and blocked them all. -- Curps 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "back". I never left--just indefinitely blocked because my computer was an anonymizing proxy. Curps, can you please explain why you blocked AntifacsismIsBad but not NazismIsntCool? Reply to what I wrote please, not to my username (which I chose randomly out of the air). That spree you were talking about--why didn't you shrug and block NazismIsntCool? -- Bowlhover 07:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you quote the October 25 talk page discussion, you're already familiar with what I replied to you last time. -- Curps 08:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not 60.50.121.108. I didn't contribute to Wikipedia at all in October (check my IP address if you insist). You didn't repond to any of my complaints at all. That's fine, I'll post them again, and again, and again:

Why did you block AntifacsismIsBad but not NazismIsntCool? What was your reason for discriminating? Because the rest of the world discriminates in the same way? Because you expect other administrators to undo your abusive actions? Respond to all of my complaints and answer all of my questions in my first post. Respond with detail--don't give me a one-liner.

Here's an example: you've heard about Falun Gong in China, haven't you? The article about it on the Chinese Wikipedia is protected. Why? If we apply your logic, since this is a Chinese Wikipedia, why don't we forget about being neutral and vandalize it so that it's strongly in favour of China's government? On the other hand, since most countries other than China disagree with what the Chinese government has done, why don't we vandalize it so that it's strongly in favour of the Falun Gong practitioners? Why, oh why, is that article protected? Because, Curps, unlike you, the administrators over at the Chinese Wiki care about neutrality. So do most administrators here on the English wiki. (That doesn't include you, of course.)

There is no way you can have neutrality on Wikipedia if its administrators keep on blocking users with one opinion but not blocking users with another contradicting opinion. I don't support nazism or facism, by the way, in case you decide to discriminate against me. I do support the idea of a neutral Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that everyone from all over the world can contribute to without feelings of anger and rage. -- Bowlhover 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps, I know my previous posts have been sort of like a personal attack, but I really don't like discrimination. Let me ask again: what was your reason for blocking AntifascismIsBad but not NazismIsntCool? Is it because the "rest of the world" generally discriminates against Nazism, and you wanted to follow that? If so, why? Or is it because you simply think it's appropriate to block an username simply because you didn't like it, and not another username because you do like it? I'm asking you for an explanation. Please provide one. Also, what's up with using "user..." as a reason for blocking? Be more precise.

Autoblocker

I'm planning on doing some more page moving in tabs; will I have to slow it down to avoid this autoblocker? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

cool cat fanclub

You may have missed these: Special:Log/newusers Warning! "User:Cool_Cat_slept_with_a_65-year-old_woman has a nick containing the flag word: "cat" Triona 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers Warning! "User:Cool_Cat_had_sex_with_Karmafist..._the_stupid_Aspie has a nick too similar to admin "User:karmafist" Triona 21:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears vandals think I am hyper active sexualy ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to put a bell on that cat, I swear, it'll sleep with anything! ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! Funnily enough, I was on WP when it happened and I never noticed. --Angr (t·c) 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

University of Ottawa

Am I not allowed to dispute it? Ardenn 00:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I did justify it on the talk page, did you not read it? Ardenn 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that other user in violation of this rule you mentioned? Ardenn 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please answer my questions. Ardenn 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please give a concise but sufficiently detailed summary of what you consider to be not neutral about it, and the other side can respond to that (as well as any other interested participants). An "is not / is too" argument and accompanying revert war on the article page really isn't helpful.

Both sides may be in violation of the three revert rule. This can be reported at WP:AN/3RR.

I protected the page rapidly because most of the talk page "discussion" was just "is not / is too" back and forth arguing instead of reasonable discussion, and the revert war was moving too fast. -- Curps 00:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were going to answer me on my talk page, I thought that was the custom here. Ardenn 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Curps, I have told them about how Negotiations have taken place between multiparties a few months back, and even have provided sources to which Ardenn says they are "accurate" and then starts on personal attacks on me and creating an edit war. Anakinskywalker 00:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not bite the newcomers. --Ardenn 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why protected the baised version, and not the one with the tag? That seems like an endorsement to me. Are you his buddy? Ardenn 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I insist you protect the version with the tag! Ardenn 00:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Block bot

For "abusing" your admin powers in an attempt to stop "page move vandals" like SPUI.

I wanted to award you a Nerf bat to use to beat yourself senseless the next time the bot makes an oopsie, but I couldn't find a picture anywhere! I guess you'll just have to take this barnstar instead, you abusive admin you! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What the HELL is your problem?

"Duck test?" Your repeated, unwarranted blockings are beginning to border on the obsessive and the abusive. I would suggest that you take whatever problems you have with this person or persons and discuss them in a calm and orderly fashion in the guise of what you claim yourself to be. Otherwise, your credibility on Wikipedia seems suspect, the circumstances under which your behavior arrives becomes questionable and unvalidated, and you yourself come under the microscope as possibly being biased and badly behaved in the capacity of an admin on Wikipedia. Thar She Blows 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Vandal

Hi there Curps. I noticed you blocked OSJ and Captain Spinkicker earlier. I wanted to tell you he created another vandal account called Thar She Blows. As you can probably tell by the above message. Could you block him too? Thanks! — Moe ε 03:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked before you even wrote this. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think I wrote it first but he hit save faster. I came up with an edit conflict page. :-) — Moe ε 03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking proxies bot

Hello, Curps. In the CVU's channel, several admins were discussing that it might be a good idea to run an open proxy test on every IP address that is blocked for vandalism, and one user commented that you were working on something similar. If you are, could you fill us in on the details? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Qvvx

Hello. The MediaWiki system has informed me that you have blocked my new account (User:Qvvx) permanently because of its similarity to the existing User:Qwx. I was also advised to contact you to try and resolve this problem. I do recognize the similarity of my nickname to that of Qwx, and I also do understand that the problem of vandalism is current in Wikipedia. However, I must assure you that I had no intention to mimic User:Qwx by registering this account. In fact, my nickname is derived from the name of the standard metasyntactic variable quux, with the letters u replaced with letters v for no apparent reason. I do not think this makes up for enough similarity to vandalise pages efficiently from the name of Qwx. I can also assure you that probability of me making any significant changes to the English Wikipedia at all is rather small, because I am going to largely concentrate on making interwikies to the Russian articles (which I will be creating there also under the name of ru:User:Qvvx). I would be grateful if you removed the block from my account and the corresponding IP addresses (there might be more than one listed because I tried to use various open proxies in order to reach you). In turn, I can promise to never ever touch anything related to User:Qwx and even not to participate in the discussions outside of my talk page (in order not to use the signature which might be confused with that of Qwx). Thanks in advance. ~ 10:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, I've unblocked. I realized it was very likely an inadvertent thing, it's just that in the default font the 'vv' looks very much like 'w' (while in other fonts it doesn't). I'll leave a message for User:Qwx at the same time. -- Curps 11:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ qvvx 11:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

For reverting vandalisms to my userpage! [2]--MONGO 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too, I have no idea what that jerk was doing Elijya 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

hey Curps, that same IP did that stupid wrestling thing to my userpage again, think you could suspend it? Out of curiosity, should other users even be ALLOWED to edit another users user page?

Pedro Zamora

Sorry about that cut-in-paste error with the categories!  :-) Nightscream 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

University of Ottawa help

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!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Ottawa

Anakinskywalker 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tufano

did you see the text under "Really wierd vandalism" on Talk:Danny DeVito! Arniep 22:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW the episode of Eastenders which he supposedly appeared in doesn't google. Arniep 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Who knows what this person is up to, it could be a prank or something else.

Regarding the Reg Cox episode, it seems to be real enough: [3]. In fact, it seems to have been the very first episode. However, IMDB lists only Johnnie Clayton as playing Reg Cox, no mention of Tufano. [4] -- Curps 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it actually said Tufano played Reg Cox in a 1988 "Christmas special Walford At War: Civvy Street, set during the second World War, shown on December 22nd 1988" (the episode that doesn't google). Reg Cox did die in the first episode and was played by Johnnie Clayton, but the Christmas special (if it existed) was a look back in time. Arniep 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Vandals

I noticed there has been alot of vandals at the User:Chadbryant page lately. You recently blocked:

You_Sank_My_Battleship (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

He edited under a different name:

StefanDam (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I think even you can agree that these two are the same person. Considering they made the same edit on the same exact page, word for word the same edit. Could you block him? — Moe ε 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of 195.92.168.165

This ip and others near it are from a major city which is used by many users, not just the vandal who did this edit [5]. It is best to block these ips only very briefly, like for 15 minutes or so. Fred Bauder 15:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We need documentation of this range. Currently there is none. -- Curps 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Light current suser page

Can I ask you why you are reverting my changes to my user page?--Light current 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a glitch and was not intentional. -- Curps 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Curps, could you possibly lock my user page for a few days? it keeps getting vandalized Elijya 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Munster, Indiana

There you go again with your trigger happy deletions. I didn't put all of those people there, and I don't know who all of them are, but at least some of them should be on there. I guess you don't know anything about any of them so you just delete all of them.

More abuse of power by Curps.

When will Curps be blocked?

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalmia (talk • contribs)

I edited the Munster, Indiana article like any other editor, removing a handful of redlinks, some of which were obviously silly, and providing an edit summary clearly indicating why [6].

You have now created articles for a couple of those redlinks, which is commendable. However, it is far less commendable of you to put forward the absurd proposition that an ordinary edit to an article somehow constitutes a "deletion" of that article or an "abuse of admin power" that requires blocking. Who are you, and what's your problem? -- Curps 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you added the sentence "Munster smells like a giant fart" [7], for which you received a vandalism warning from another admin [8].

You also added this statement to your talk page: "curps is a bully. I looked at the block page, and now he's blocking others claiming they are me." [9] This is untrue. Which blocked users are you referring to in this claim of yours? -- Curps 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You DID delete a whole list of people on that page. I don't know who all of them are, but they were probably put there for a reason. I started pages for some of those who I know. Also, you blocked someone a couple days ago, claiming it was someone from my IP address. And Munster does smell that way. There is a big dump there.

It seems like you must be following pages that I watch. I check the pages of places near me. Munster is the next town over.Kalmia 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page to remove five redlinks [10]. Editing articles is a routine operation on Wikipedia, which anyone can do and does not require administrator powers.

You may have been affected by what's known as an autoblock. When it's necessary to block a user (or an IP address) for vandalism, other users using the same IP address as the vandal are affected. That's an automatic function of the Mediawiki software. If you read the automatically-generated message carefully, you can see that it's another user or IP address that was the target of any such block, not you.

There was some vandalism by someone using AOL addresses in the 205.188.116.0/23 range, and the prior edit to Munster, Indiana was by such an IP address, so that's the reason I examined the article. Unfortunately, AOL has a weird policy of mixing all users together on the same IP addresses, so it's especially easy for AOL users to get block messages intended for other users.

I'm not following your edits. Your prior edit to Munster, Indiana was all the way back in March 2005 and my recent edit did not revert any part of that long-ago edit. -- Curps 09:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi Curps, you accidently blocked my home IP address (212.182.143.175) at 21 december, because the username I used at that moment (Brooky) had too much in common with an existent, and apparently unwanted Brookie. Little did I know, I was new here! By now I have opened up a new account (SanderB) at a different location, but I would like to contribute to Wikipedia "from the comfort of my own home" too. Be convinced of my good will and check my - so far - small contributions summed up at my userpage.

SanderB 20:47, 2 January 2006 (GMT+1)

I took a look at the ipblocklist and couldn't find a block of this IP or an autoblock of Brooky (the latter may have been cleared already). Can you try again and let me know exactly what block message you get when you try editing from that IP address? -- Curps 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Again sorry to butt in, but could the block in question be here? [11] The time and date of the block was 21:54, December 21, 2005. Curps blocked "User:Brooky" with an expiry time of indefinite (too similar to existing user Brookie)

KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the one. And after that, I logged out of that account I tried to modify some things anonymously, but then I got the message that my IP was blocked because user Brooky was blocked. Of course my IP is the same, since I was Brooky. I've got a different account now which does not cause problems, so my home IP (212.182.143.175) has to be unblocked. SanderB 12:18, 3 January 2006 (GMT+1)

I've unblocked the Brooky account, you should be able to edit from home now. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Username block

Hi, I was wondering if it is appropriate to apply Username block to User:ShenanigansTMJ? Being new to admin job, I am asking your opinion. Thanks. --BorgQueen 06:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, "shenanigans" is kind of a mild word, so I'd say such a username is probably harmless. -- Curps 07:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to "butt" in but, but I saw this user was on this page from the "What links here" link. Just thought I'd let it be known that User:ShenanigansTMJ has made 3 edits involving image vandalism. I've warned him with {{Image3}} . Just incase he continues could you help keep an eye on him I'd appreciate it. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Impressive work

I followed some of the reverting that you were doing with the Crocodile Dundee vandal. I just thought I'd drop you a note to say that it was impressive. Well done. And thanks. -- Adz 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks from myself also. You did wonders with the spot fires and deserve kudos. Cheers. -- Longhair 14:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

168.213.1.134

I undid your block. 24 hours is a bit much for a shared IP, especially considering that I'm using it right now. I know the person who has been vandalizing, and I'll keep an eye on him—if he gets at it again, I or some other admin should hit him with 15 minutes. The class is nearly over anyway. :-P —BorgHunter (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia

We seem to have both reverted the Malaysia page move at the same time and as a result the history has been reverted. Since I am about to log off, would you be kind enough to take over? Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shultz block

Um... you blocked User:Shultz indefinitely for "pagemove vandalism over extended periods of time"... This user has made three bad page moves, for which I blocked him for. I then unblocked him because he promised he would stop and has done. I see no reason why this user should be blocked and certainly should not be blocked indefinitely. Thanks, →FireFox 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked multiple times before [12]. He committed pagemove vandalism in August, he did it again in October, and now he did it again in January (yesterday). Three strikes. He also did something in November to get blocked on three separate dates in that month (strikes four, five and six). His last vandalism was yesterday, so I hardly see how one day suffices to reach the conclusion that "he promised he would stop and has done". And yesterday's vandalism was repeated three times in rapid succession. -- Curps 17:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly he got blocked in November on two separate dates, one was an unblock. Now in my opinion, because one was an unblock, this almost cancels out the other block, which basically makes it once. Apart from that he got blocked once in October (24 hours) which had nothing to do with pagemoves or trolling, and once by me yesterday, which I soon unblocked. Since his last block he promised not to do it again, and hasn't. I think if you're going to block him, either remove or reduce his block considerably, or take the case to the arbitration committee... there really is no reason for this user to be blocked indefinitely. It's your desision, and I don't want it to appear like I'm telling you what to do, but I have a strong opinion on this desision. Thanks, →FireFox 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

When a person does the same thing three times, months apart, it's a pretty strong indication he won't change. But since this user has a long history of edits and is not just a throwaway pagemove vandalism sock, you are undoubtedly right that he shouldn't be blocked indefinitely in summary fashion. Anyways, I cut it to 48 hours. He should have made a different New Year's resolution. -- Curps 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. →FireFox 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps, after an extended discussion in IRC with this user - an a lot of assurances, I have unblocked them on their own parole. Hope you don't mind - I'm assuming their good faith and if the trust is broken I'll hit them hard (or you can). Thanks. --Doc ^ask? 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

EastEnders

Hi. I note you've moved List of EastEnders Cast Members to be List of characters from EastEnders but don't quite understand why - since the article is a list of cast members and not characters (they are listed by real name first). Are you planning to re-arrange the list? Stephenb (Talk) 18:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well "cast members" needs to be lowercase according to our title-naming standards. The move to "List of EastEnders Cast Members" was only made on December 26, and "List of characters from EastEnders" was the title prior to that, so I chose to move to that rather than to the lowercase "cast members" version, because I was under the impression that "characters" titles are more standard elsewhere (eg, List of characters from The Simpsons and especially List of characters from Coronation Street). -- Curps 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:142.32.208.232 block

About your block of this vandal for 24 hours, JoanneB had already blocked him for 12 weeks (which he deserved). Just so you know. (P.S: I think you seriously need another archive. Yeah, I know it's off topic.) Gnome of Fury 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... well I won't mind if someone redoes the longer block. However I noticed the .233 address was also committing vandalism. This might need some further investigation which I don't have time for at the moment. -- Curps 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychotic Frogs

Hi Curps, I've re-reverted your reverts of the inclusion of this Psychotic Frogs outfit from List of musicians in the first wave of punk music because a google search would seem to indicate that this was a bona fide example of an early US punk band, and therefore qualified for inclusion, see Talk:List of musicians in the first wave of punk music. I know somebody has been vandalising the Punk rock page by constantly re-inserting them, but even though thye weren't significant enough to be name-checked at the top of that article doesn't mean we should say they never existed at all! (btw, I don't have any sort of axe to grind over them one way or the other, just think they are a valid inclusion in that list), cheers quercus robur 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Usernames

Can you be a little more lenient when blocking usernames? Perfectly good users could be getting put off by it. You can't be sure that User:G Man wants to cause trouble. Also, unless I'm missing something, what's wrong with "I like p0rk" as a username? Hedley 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"G Man" is a little too close to "G-Man", who is an admin. It's probably inadvertent, but still leads to confusion. Regarding "p0rk" usernames, that's a persistent sockpuppet vandal. -- Curps 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

tdxiang

Evidently this user created an imposter user to keep himself protected from vandalism. Or something like that. Can you come to the IRC chat room?--Tznkai 09:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And me too. :D --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, sorry, I never use IRC chat, don't even have a client program for it. Can you provide some more details about your inquiry? -- Curps 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a doppelganger account at User:Terenceong1992 on wheels! and same for User:Tdxiang at User:Tdxiang on wheels! could you please unblock Tdxiang's IP address at User talk:203.124.2.7. We are trying to protect ourslves from WoW. And is it alright for you to unblock the two doppelganger accounts? --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an autoblock so I assume the IP has already been cleared. I unblocked User:Terenceong1992 on wheels!, but for the other one, Tdxiang himself should post and sign under his name to confirm that it's his doppelganger. -- Curps 10:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Thanks

Thanks for the vandalism fix. Quick question, though. How on earth do you notice these things?

He notices it because of Recent Changes, in the navigation box below the Wikipedia logo. It shows every edit made, everywhere on Wikipedia, within the last few minutes. Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Why you persuaded meta:User:Silsor to add a whole set of Russian geographical domains to spam blacklist? You are vandal or what? Please give your explanations here ru:Википедия:Форум#Spam blacklist. --ru:Участник:Begemotv2718

User:Jossifresco block

Thanks for keeping and eye ... but it was me that recreated the user name and blocked it indef as per the guidelines so that no one can impersonate me. Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jimbo Wales

That was the case, it was reverted back to the wrong thing and I guess the mass deletion logged it as vandalism anyway. --Winter 01:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an protection

Hi Curps, I'm glad to hear you didn't violate the article protection intentionally. If what you say is true, I apologize for violating the article protection myself. I was only going by what the article history said. Regardless, the protection is now lifted so I suppose it is a moot point. Thanks for the clarification though. Cheers. Kaldari 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

%8F — I know it doesn't work

It would help if the server wasn't so offensively slow and the vandals more intelligent then your average blanker ;D 68.39.174.238 10:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

delete history

Can you delete my user talk page's history? (207.156.197.1 16:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Block extended for IP 168.9.212.7

As 168.9.212.7 is a pathological vandal who has been blocked at least a dozen times in the past, I hope you do not mind that I have significantly extended the imposed restriction period. I will be sure to keep a watchful eye on this anon's contributions after the block expires. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of wrestling articles

Can you look into the accounts User:Super Grover & User:Owen Stevenson? Both of these accounts appear to be sockpuppets used by Alex Cain (the "DickWitham" troll) to vandalize & start revert wars on Terry Funk and Percy Pringle, among other abuses. Thank you. - Chadbryant 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to take sides in the dispute with this guy, investigation shows that they are indeed sockpuppets used for abuse, disruption and vandalism, and they've been blocked. -- Curps 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And you SHOULDN'T take sides with Chad. He has NO proof that the person is who he says they are -- this is only the millionth time Chad has tried to pull a stunt like this. - One Of Us 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's painfully obvious who you are. I don't have time for games, and you should have better things to do as well. -- Curps 23:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Said infamous troll/vandal is now defacing my talk page and starting a revert war over WrestleMania 22, and his vandalous insertion of a needless external link. - Chadbryant 01:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What games? What pain? I'm simply stating that you should not take sides with Mr. Bryant as he has a history of manipulation, lies, deceit, and outright vandalism while here on Wikipedia. BUT, barring that, you should not take sides with ANYONE if you are to maintain your status as the Switzerland of Wikipedia administrators. - One Of Us 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting the vandalism on my userpage...it was quite disgusting. Also thank you for banning the School's IP. Not much good is going to be coming from unregistered students.

Thank you (sarcasm)

Thank you for blocking my name as I was trying to switch pages, I had to think of a name that was not used to move page A to, so I may move page B to page A and page A to page B from page C. I, as well as others, do not consider it vandalism. On top of that, you had not giving me ANY warning. And is it my fault that the naming conventions for TV was rejected by the community? All I was trying to is to make the pages veer from those conventions which where not accepted by the community.

It's never acceptable to move a page to a nonsensical name (and you also blanked the page, so this wasn't merely attempting to "move the page out of the way" as you claim). This raises a red flag and a temporary block is applicable in order to prevent possible further damage while the situation is being investigated. Regarding lowercase "episode" and "movie" rather than uppercase "Episode" and "Movie", please see many, many examples for articles about episodes of Star Trek or Buffy or dozens of other series, and likewise for titles of articles about movies. I guess you're relatively new here, but it's useful to learn Wikipedia naming standards before engaging in repetitive reverting and renaming. -- Curps 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I have been here for about 2 weeks just searching stuff, about 1 week with adding some stuff. If would really help if there were an more indepth articles about the format of this stuff. I had put alot of work in the Lexx movies, and was planing on finishing the series, including adding screenshots, like I had with Mantrid. -- DivineShadow218 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of IP 216.138.113.184

I am writing this froma different IP address than the one above. I would just like to say that although so much trash/vandalism comes from this IP address, many users including myself contribute through this IP during free periods at school. When the IP is blocked genuine good-intentioned people including myself cannot edit even when they are logged in. So many times I have been unable to contribute because of the blockage. I am ashamed that someone would use this IP for vandalism, but blocking has done no good so far. We can no condone the damage done to Wikipedia, however, I think when this IP is blocked, more harm is done than good. From looking at the edits of this unregistered IP, for example, a vast majority of them were positive rather than negative. Still though, vandals must be punished. Thank you.Dustimagic 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We really need a way to mark "users in good standing" who would be immune from being affected by IP blocks. The current Mediawiki software has a number of deficiencies. -- Curps 23:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a moment ago, I received a message from Theresa Knott regarding collateral damage from the NTL cache (a problem which I thought was long since resolved) as a result of a block I placed. There are too many exploitable loopholes, namely ISP proxies, for vandals to disrupt Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be great if such a thing was created. Thanks Curps for being there to stop the vandalism on WIkipedia. Dustimagic 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that more harm than good has been done by blocking the IP. Seeing as the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas page and some of the userpages (not just mine) have been vandalized by those on the school's IP, I think it is a justifiable block. I see no reason why anyone has to use the school computers to edit wikipedia content. I don't think I'm assuming too much when I say that most of the contributors from the school have their own home computers to use for wikipedia. Sure, some will be left out but they are not the victims of wikipedia but are the victims of those who abused wikipedia. The ability to edit wikipedia is a priviledge and not a right. Curps's solution, however, would easily solve most of this problem and I hope that it will eventually happen. LuckyPanda 03:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some instances where collateral damage is a concern. The discussion regarding 204.218.244.11 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:204.218.244.11 is a prime example. Hall Monitor 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think U r one good guy here

Just me again and wishing you a good year of fun at wahtever U r doing..User:Norman Oh/monobook.js 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC) also my preferences jsut got change and I need someone to see if it's working.. Thanks..again User:Norman Oh/monobook.js 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So I see U r online.. wahtso matter with my template on {{alien2}}? Now...get off my back!Lor..leave an old man to rest please?User:Norman Oh/monobook.js 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well.. good I learn something today..template are for everybody to use..so my alien2 goes to User:Norman Oh.. that 's a good point! thanks..hehehehe!

WP:AGF Revert War

InTheJungle appears to also be an abusive sockpuppet, but was only given a two day ban. Thanks for the sprotect, that image needs to stay off the page as per consensus. Hexagonal 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Camsux

See if User:Camsux consists vandalism. I think it is not appropriate that he posted his page himself, as well as posting Jwissick's userpage. Adnghiem501 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we speedy delete his userpage if he is absent? Adnghiem501 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, no, I don't think absence is grounds for speedy deleting a userpage. -- Curps 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for TFD/Temp:Infobox Biography

Instead of talking about this, I'd like you to vote your argument at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Infobox Biography. Adnghiem501 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the connection. -- Curps 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is this subsection better for the connection? Adnghiem501 05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Camsux.jpg

This image is an orphan and should go to IfD, after you removed the blatant, offensive content from Camsux's userpage. I've listed it there already. Adnghiem501 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagemove bot

Is there a reason your bot no longer posts on WP:AN/I? This means that if you are not at the computer a false positive will not be seen. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It still does. However, this time I happened to be watching and tried to interrupt it from blocking you... however, the block was already done and I only interrupted the AN/I notification. -- Curps 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please undo the block

I'm trying to get those pages in order. I thought a move was the easiest. Please unblock KittenKlub 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. KittenKlub 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Hi there, please don't take this the wrong way, but why did you block User:Operation Satire-Vogel 9 indefinitely? (S)he is surely a vandal who's made a personal attack or two, but an indefinite block seems over the top to me. Lupin|talk|popups 23:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a brand new sockpuppet, created only minutes earlier, so this comes under "all edits vandalism". -- Curps 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If only there were something more severe than indefinite we could offer this vandal.  ;-) Hall Monitor 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had blocked that account for 2 hours, so I've just unblocked it and blocked it indefinitely. Lupin|talk|popups 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Username imitations

What just happened? I just saw about 50 users trying to imitate your username --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we need to implement a non-automatable (botproof) 60-second manual procedure to register user accounts. Captchas are one idea, but a random simple questionnaire might work as well. -- Curps 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well, but if we are to implement captchas (which can be circumvented), we would also need to provide a text-based random questionnaire system as well in order to cater to the blind and disabled. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. The RC is clogged with new usernames. Good luck knocking off this IP address, or whatever it is.. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we had some nearly identical account-creation vandalism in late October (both volume and patterns). -- Curps 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We should have a developer delete them completely from the database. --Ixfd64 04:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and automatically delete all accounts over 29 days old with zero edits. That should cut down on the willyisms. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:57, Jan. 7, 2006

AOL

Fair enough, I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that those more computer-literate than me would be able to get at the underlying ISP, thanks jimfbleak 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dundee

What do we do put him up for blocking under this new name? I noticed you havent even bothered to put anything on his talk, or is he blocked already? Must have lack of imagination, these were the ones he did last time SatuSuro 09:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stone Circle" has already been blocked. Just block, no need to leave any message, it's the same guy as the previous times. -- Curps 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cattleship aka stone circle (if we have the same dundee jpg inserter) seems to be limited, pity they werent all like that, like the first time I found happy birthday jimbo wales. sigh. SatuSuro 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)