User talk:Curps
archive1 archive2 archive3 archive4 archive5 archive6 archive7 archive8
Apollomelos2
Just to let you know Apollomelos2 IS Noah Peters. It is a sock puppet he created to attack and impersonate ME. He agreed to arbritrator Raul for a permanent block to avoid an arbcom ruling against him brought forth on my part. He has returned in violation and attacked all the users that had blocked him in the past including gay-related articles. See vandalism in progress page for further details. Apollomelos 03:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Misc
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that when I blocked you I did not know that you were an admin nor that you voted already on the Gdansk issue. Otherwise I would have waited for one more comment before blocking you. I also did not receive an email from you asking to be unblocked. If you ever see me doing a 3RR, feel free to put it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As for the 3RR rule: It's not perfect, but I think it will be rather difficult to formulate something else. if you can come up with a proposal, that would be good. Also, i greatly appreciate it that you did not unblock yourself. I just hope that you;re not upset with me personally.
On another point, some of the inline discussion on Talk:Gdansk/Vote is getting lengthy, and I am considering to move it to a new Comment section at the end of the Cross-Naming Gdansk/Danzig vote. You can also start such a section yourself if you wish. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 12:04, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
User:JillandJack has been blocked; it appears they were merely the latest reincarnation of a previously-banned user, User:DW (a/k/a User:Joe Canuck, User:Angelique, etc.) Bearcat 00:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
THANK you sir for asking my assistance and for your last information. I had only the time to quickly review this User's modifications; some of them were indeed POV... I will soon get involved in the debate on the Talk page. Is the JillandJack incarnation banned at this moment or not? Thanks again. --Liberlogos 04:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The "Election" message
Hi. Thanks for taking off that rather strange VfD election that turned on up my discussion page. What happened? Was this anon going around all over the place adding this to people's discussion pages? Weird. 23skidoo 03:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, would appreciate if you did not remove entries from my talk page (except possibly in the case of clear vandalism). --L33tminion | (talk) 06:30, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the point is, this anon user called his own edits to talk pages "vandalism" when he reported himself to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (!). See [1]. I reverted on that basis. -- Curps 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ah... that's unusual. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
GSherman
No, you should be aware of the three revert rule. You are poised to break it before I am. Lesson: stop the cover up. GSherman 08:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, you should read the NPOV policy. I am merely reporting what some human rights activists and scholars have written on a number of important U.S. figures; you are violating the NPOV policy by attempting to cover up their allegations (notice that the article deals with alleged war criminals). GSherman 09:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, you are attempting to insert your POV opinions (morally equivalent to those of a Holocaust denier), transparent disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding. GSherman 09:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your violation of the 3RR
You repeated violations of the 3RR have been reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. GSherman 09:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The 3RR rule applies to more than three reverts, not exactly three. -- Curps 09:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Quit going through my user history; that's trolling behavior. [personal attack removed - RadicalSubversiv E] GSherman 11:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
GSherman
I've just warned this user against making personal attacks, but I don't have the energy to get any further involved at the moment. Let me know if you need certification for an RFC in the future (assuming an admin doesn't take the initiative to ban this character outright). Note that s/he has just used up 3 reverts at Bill Clinton. RadicalSubversiv E 11:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE VOTE
- Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gdańsk/Danzig inine discussion
I moved part of inline discussion from Forseti header to my userpage discussion as I think it belong there more. Also look for the answer there. BTW: do you use IRC? If so, when is it possible to catch you there? Forseti 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Question
I got an e-mail today from Oirvine, stating that their banning was in error and they aren't JillandJack. Now, I'm fully aware that this isn't at all inconsistent with the whole saga, and even the existing evidence is already pretty overwhelming. But I'd like to ask anyway: how do I find out and/or who do I ask to review Oirvine's IP to see if it's consistent with any of the other identities or not? Bearcat 23:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello!
What's a bot?
Thank you!
Thanks for finishing the Anuzutica VfD. 'Twas driving me batty. I owe you a beverage! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blocking IP
You blocked 62.254.0.38
Had you done your research a bit better, and check that IP on Sam Spade you would have found that the block 62.253.0.0 to 62.254.254.254 is a server in an ISP server farm in Nottingham, UK. in fact, 62.254.0.38 = nott-cache-9.server.ntli.net .When you blocked this address, you stopped thousands of people in Nottinghamshire, Linciolnshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire from editing Wikipedia.
For your edification, heres a tracert to illustrate my point:
3 10 ms 10 ms 20 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v133.inet.ntl.com [80.4.46.73]
4 20 ms 10 ms 20 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan73.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.7
5 10 ms 20 ms 10 ms lee-bb-a-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.33]
6 20 ms 20 ms 11 ms lee-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.186]
7 20 ms 20 ms 40 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193
8 150 ms 80 ms 130 ms 212.187.137.1
9 30 ms 10 ms 20 ms so-10-0.hsa1.manchesteruk1.level3.net [4.68.11
7] 10 20 ms 20 ms 30 ms ae-1-0.bbr1.london2.level3.net [212.187.128.46
11 101 ms 100 ms 100 ms as-0-0.bbr2.washington1.level3.net [4.68.128.1
12 131 ms 130 ms 150 ms as-2-0.mp1.tampa1.level3.net [209.247.11.201]
13 140 ms 140 ms 140 ms so-6-0-0.gar1.tampa1.level3.net [4.68.124.10]
14 130 ms 130 ms 130 ms unknown.level3.net [63.208.0.94]
15 130 ms 140 ms 130 ms 64.156.25.242
16 130 ms 160 ms 130 ms www01.wikimedia.org [207.142.131.235]
I have excluded the first two hops to protect my system. Notice hops 5 to 7. THAT is the server farm you blocked.
I will take this further, You ignorantly abused your power by failing to investigate properly. I want you stripped of you admin rights, because you are a danger to innocent users like me because of your unresearched vandalism.
- I did in fact do a RIPE Whois lookup, and the range 62.254.0.0 - 62.254.31.255 belongs to one paticular ISP. [2] But that in itself doesn't indicate anything... practically every single anon IP we deal with is part of some ISP somewhere in the world, apart from those users who log in from schools or workplaces. Once in a while an anon IP is blocked by one admin or another for various reasons, usually for 24 hours. Whois lookup did not indicate that 62.254.0.38 was special in any way.
- You are saying that I should have done a reverse DNS lookup and deduced from the subdomain name "nott-cache-9.server.ntli.net" that this might be a proxy server? Well, doing a reverse DNS lookup (or even a WHOIS lookup) is not part of the standard recommended procedure or instructions for admins prior to applying a block. If you would like to recommend that it should be, feel free to suggest that. However, such reverse DNS lookups would often not be of much help, because many ISPs will not choose to helpfully label their machines in a way that might reveal their network layout and infrastructure to outside hackers.
- Although anyone who ends up being inadvertently blocked because of a standard 24-hour anon IP block might understandably be annoyed, I believe your announced intention to seek retribution is an overreaction and would not succeed. You are of course free to do so, but I believe my actions were standard procedure.
- How to enable admins to better distinguish between an ordinary dialup IP address and a proxy server is an open question. I don't know that it's possible to build in the knowledge of all the proxy servers in use by all the ISPs into a usable reference page, or into the software itself. For extremely large national or transnational ISPs like AOL, it is possible to do so, but not for the multitude of smaller local ISPs worldwide.
- -- Curps 21:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Its perfectly simple. The lookup indicates that the IP is part of an ISP block, so blocking that IP will affect multiple users. So blocking it isnt safe as it will affect innocent users. You see to be taking the position 'better that hundreds of innocent users get blocked that one spambot gets thru', an argument g'teed to annoy and inflame large numebrs of people.
In fact 62.254.0.38 is a CISCO 5000 series switch that is ARP'd for by 62.254.0.1, a CHECKPOINT Firewall box.
I suugest if there is any doubt that any IP is other than an individual users or network then you dont risk blocking it, certainly not if you dont want to alienate people. You punished me and I did nothing wrong. Consider that. Especially as the word 'sorry' appears to be lacking from your vocab.
Also, you are completely uncontactable. When blocked it is impossible to edit a user talk page, and you do not supply an email, so it is not possible, once blocked by you, to in any way take you to task. You are unaccountable for your actions, and you forced me to email other admins to get justice. I therrfore demand you supply an email so that you can be taken to task when required to justify yiour actions. You need to learn that power also carries responsibility and accountability, and you seen to be avoiding that two of that trio, which is shameful and immoral. Next time you block someone, make sure they can contact you. You have a moral obligation to supply a contact email, to be accountable. If you dont want to be accountable and responsible for your power then relenquish it to someone who will be.
- Every IP is part of some ISP's range of IP addresses (unless it's a workplace or school), so that alone doesn't signify anything.
- I did the block believing that this was just a garden-variety anon IP address. If I had known it was a proxy server, I wouldn't have done the block; the circumstances weren't extreme enough to warrant that. You are mistaken when you suggest I knowingly applied any policy of 'better that hundreds of innocent users get blocked than one spambot gets thru'.
- But the only thing that might indicate that 62.254.0.38 is a special IP is the subdomain name "nott-cache-9.server.ntli.net" which could have been found by a reverse DNS or a traceroute if I had done one, or perhaps the relatively low numbering of the IP address within the block (x.x.0.38 of a block x.x.0.0 - x.x.31.255). But both of these are merely suggestive; there is no standard naming scheme, and every ISP adopts its own arbitrary naming and numbering for its network hosts. In fact many ISPs deliberately avoid helpfully labelling any of their hosts in any way that would reveal any network layout information useable to hackers or other potential intruders; yours is an exception.
- You mention details about the network infrastructure:
- In fact 62.254.0.38 is a CISCO 5000 series switch that is ARP'd for by 62.254.0.1, a CHECKPOINT Firewall box.
- Is any of this discoverable somehow via standard Internet utilities (dig, traceroute, ping, whois, etc)?
- You are saying I should have known this was not an ordinary IP address before applying the block, but I don't agree that there is any universal or foolproof or easy way to know this, including doing a reverse DNS (which is not in any case part of any required or even recommended procedure for admins, in Wikipedia:Blocking policy or anywhere else).
- Nobody ever wants innocent users to be blocked, but I don't believe there's any way to guarantee that this will never inadvertently happen. If there's some way of doing so that I'm unaware of, please point it out and suggest adding it to Wikipedia:Blocking policy or the instructions on the page that admins use when applying a block.
- I choose not to supply an e-mail address, which is my right. This should not be a problem, since any administrator can remove a block placed by any other administrator. Just go to Wikipedia:List of administrators and take your pick. Given a reasonable explanation of the circumstances, any administrator including myself would have removed the block (and in fact one did). Even if I had an e-mail address, there's no guarantee that you would have been able to contact me in a timely way; I could be away from my computer and I'm in a different timezone from you. E-mail or lack of e-mail has nothing to do with accountability; any accountability issues can be handled right here out in the open, on publicly accessible Wikipedia pages.
- -- Curps 23:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Solana
Might it be possible to put a permanent edit block on Solana to stop a repeat of the previous vandalism. There should be no need for anyone to edit this page. I have put the idea at Talk:Solana. --SqueakBox 01:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I like the new Solana page. Is there any chance of retrieving the comment that was at Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV? --SqueakBox 01:50, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
One Salient Oversight wrote something this morning. But it doesn't matter. I am often getting edit conflicts when they don't happen, but I think this one was real. --SqueakBox 01:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Supercentenarian article
You just got into a revert war with me it seems?The Maria Olivia da Silva claim is EXTREMELY DUBIOUS and it can NOT be left in the current article the way 67.etc. had it.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 05:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Israeli art students
Aloha. I was wondering if you could take a brief look at the history for Israeli art students. A single, solitary user posting under a dynamic IP address has reverted the page five times in 24 hours. I've already reverted three times. Thanks in advance for any help you could offer. I've left the same message on User talk:RickK as well. --Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Grammarbot
From my talk page:
- "From your contributions, I didn't see any other Grammarbot reverts or discussion of other possible Grammarbot errors"
Why do you assume the Grammarbot reverts are from my contribitions? Consider the corrections on Inner product space (reverted by User:Jitse Niesen) and Archimedes Plutonium (reverted by User:Infrogmation). I am still checking the other "fixes". Note that the Grammarbot completely messes up TeX formulas (for instance, " \ ," is quite different from "\," ).
I think the policy on bots is pretty clear: If there is any doubt the bot is misbehaving, then it should be blocked. Ample evidence exists that the bot creates more work than it's worth. CSTAR 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please check the citation: The Archimedes Plutonium is a written quote from Usenet (which is easily verified by looking at the link supplied). It has the space after the comma. Do you think there is justification for changing an actual quote?CSTAR