Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive48

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

Noticeboard archives

User:JimmyCrackedCorn and sockpuppets = Girls Aloud vandal?[edit]

Essjay just blocked ExpertTag_-_by_JimmyCrackedCorn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), whose contributions consist solely of adding the {{expert}} tag to several minor celebrity pages, including Girls Aloud. Suspected sockpuppets of JimmyCrackedCorn include User:DEastman, User:DKorn, User:John Henry, Long John Silver and others (see Talk:Ray Nagin). FYI. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This user is doing some strange edits using multiple accounts (so far I've seen JimmyCrackedCorn Complains ON a wikipedia (talk · contribs) and ExpertTag - by JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs)). Looks like he's annoyed that his pet POV fork (Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy) was deleted. --cesarb 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm too slow. --cesarb 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I killed off the JimmyCrackedCorn Complains ON a wikipedia vandal, but he's shown he doesn't intend to leave just yet. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 00:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I opened a RFC on this guy under his latest nym 'John Henry' Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Henry. He seems to be somewhat ticked off about that. --Gorgonzilla 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like now we've got User:TotallyDisputed- JimmyCrackedCorn adds the tag and User:TotallyDisputed. Except I suspect he was blocked before he could "add the tag." · Katefan0(scribble) 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Age Limits for Admins?[edit]

I think that we should have an age limit for administrators. Perhaps one of 18 -- with absolutely no exeptions. Some might think that an admin can do his job just as well being under 18, but look at it this way: We dont let people drive who are under a certain age, and I'm sure there are plenty of under-16 year olds proficient enough to drive a car just fine.

Unless we set an age limit for those entrusted to run this site, Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as a source for verifiable, reliable information. It will always be thought of as a school-yard clique -- as it is now.Shelburne Kismaayo 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1) you are a little late 2)there is no way you are going to be able to confirm ages 3)We know that sub 18 admins can do a perfectly good job 4)admins don't really run the site. Individual admins really don't run the site 5)we judge every admin so if lack of maturity is a problem they will not make it to adminship. 6)adminship is no big deal 7)you are far less likely to kill people in the role of a wiki admin than driving a car.Geni 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well said. →Raul654 03:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Shelburne, let me tell you one thing right now. I find your statement insulting, baseless, and ill-informed. And my college professors take Wikipedia rather seriously; in fact, they're intrigued by the fact that I'm a Wikipedia admin. They all tell me "we LOVE Wikipedia! It's one of the first places I look". So... do you have a purpose for this rant besides crying because the RFC against Redwolf isn't doing you any justice? Linuxbeak | Talk 03:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Linuxbeak, he might be a trouble user, but you're making his case for him. Geni's reply was reasonable, yours lookslike the sort of rant I'd expect from... well Shelburne (and his related socks). Every critical message does not demand a harsh reply, take a look at the other replies here... --Gmaxwell 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The main reason the real world defines thresholds in terms of arbitrary ages is that society can not really afford the time and expense to certify whether or not any given individual has the skills and maturity to deal with situations like driving, smoking, drinking, voting, etc. So as a society we set some arbitrary boundaries and hope that most of the people that have reached that age are qualified for the rights and responsibilities being bestowed upon them. Frankly, it is fairly crappy system as it, since there are inevitably some "kids" that are substantially more trustworthy than some "adults". Unlike society at large, Wikipedia does take the time and effort to judge the qualifications and attributes of each candidate. In the process we (hopefully) weed out the immature candidates of all ages through a process of peer evaluation that is certainly more effective than any arbitrary age barrier would be. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the main differences between wikipedia and real life is that age matters much less here, though IMO the significant, active admins tend to be adults. I would do like (apparently) the Roman senators did and make the age bar 42 but, as Geni says, we never ask admins or anyone else to give personal information away, and that is as it should be. Trying to changer that would be major policy change anyway. I believe ione of the bureaucrats (who officially appoint the admins) is 13, and there is perhaps something commendable in giving such responsibilities to young people, SqueakBox 03:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently noticed, he turned 14. Dragons flight 03:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else? I had thought I was on the Rfa talk page, SqueakBox 03:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think an age limit of 18 is a fine idea. Then we could get rid of all the corrupt administrators that are older than 18. --Zephram Stark 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many, more important reasons why Wikipedia will or won't be taken seriously by whoever. I seriously doubt that an age limit for admins is one of them and I doubt that it would make any difference in public perceptions of this site. Gamaliel 03:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be enforced by consensus. If someone's under a certain age and you want to oppose on those grounds, feel free to do so. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think not discriminating based on age should be enforced by consensus. The only argument for RFAs being restricted by age is if someone was being immature and not respecting wiki principles- in such a case discriminating on age is pointless, since examples would abound; futhermore, this would catch a lot of innocent users in the same net, or force them to lie/withold data. Considerations on age is a bad idea. --Maru (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Maru - if someone were to discriminate on the basis of age, I would hope a b'crat would disregard it as spurious - much like discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, sexual orientation... Guettarda 04:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I misphrased what I was trying to say. What I meant to say is that, regardless of how any indidvidual feels about it (I very strongly opposed it myself, but I may be biased being 19 myself,) there's no need for such a rule or lack thereof; if one feels that it's a good reason for a user not to be made an admin, they can oppose any RFA on those grounds. There's no need for concrete qualifications for admins, period. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 04:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever the case, this sort of policy will be impossible to enforce because nobody will post their true ages anymore. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Shelburne Kismaayo has proved to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (See below). Do not feed the trolls. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, trolls aside, this is quite a narrow-minded idea. I know twelve-year olds that are more mature than so-called "adults". Maturity is not determined by age, period. Besides the policy being unenforceable, it is simply a bad idea. Titoxd(?!?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
And to whoever said our best admins are old: Refer to My Teenage Wikipedians essay. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be easier to refer to it if the link actually worked. JIP | Talk 07:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
hey, some of our admins may be young; that doesn't automatically mean that they are the people writing our articles on field theory, ancient history and literary criticism. So I don't see how our content should be taken an less seriously if our vandals are being blocked by youngsters. If we have a problem with credibility, it is not with the admin population, but with the kook/wierdo population among our editors, often sporting grey beards. If anything, the limit could be suggested for the arbcom; I would be uncomfortable with having involved content disputes judged by 14-year-olds. I have no problem with 14-year-olds valiantly protecting our content. 83.77.208.46 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Age limits for admins are an incredibly stupid idea. Who's to say people under 18 can't be taken seriously? I myself nominated a 15-year-old for an admin, and the request succeeded. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What a silly idea. The necessary social and technical skills to be an admin are not much different to those needed to be, e.g., a message board moderator, and plenty of teenagers are quite able to discharge that duty competently. We have plenty of very good Wiki admins who are teenagers. You have posited a solution in search of a problem. - David Gerard 11:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (age 38)
For the record, regardless of any trolling by originator of discussion, no age limits under any circumstances. MONGO 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (age: older than David Gerard)

READ THIS
BEFORE YOU ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION, scroll down and read the part about the originator of this thread "Shelburne Kismaayo" being a sockpuppet (now blocked) of a banned user. There's not much point in adding yet another indignant statement about what a loopy idea this is. Don't feed the troll. -- Curps 14:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Rainbowwarrior1977, Wiki brah, & Shelburne Kismaayo[edit]

I have blocked Wiki brah & Shelburne Kismaayo indefinitely as socks of Rainbowwarrior1977. This comes as the result of a sockcheck performed by brion that determined that that there was evidence that all three are using the same ISP and thier IP activity indicates they are likely the same user. I brought this to the attention of mindspillage and Kelly Martin via IRC and was instructed on thier authority as arbitrators to enforce the recent ArbCom ban of Rainbowwarrior1977 by blocking these two sockpuppets. I was further instructed to report my actions, and the events leading to them, here. -- Essjay · Talk 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the WikiEN-l archives for a thread by me with the subject 'The Trollslayer's Guide to the Wiki'. I can't link you now as the archives aren't in yet... but they're coming. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
May we consider this to be a community ban then? Linuxbeak | Talk 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. The three of them have all been a burdon to the community and have caused a lot of raised temperatures, and now it's safe to say Rainbowwarrior1977 et. al, are banned by the wikipedia community. HIP HIP! Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 05:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Though at the same time look at [1]. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 05:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You can't call it a community ban because we haven't gotten the community's input on it. If it's going to be a community ban we'd need a big outpouring of overwhelming sentiment in favor of banning. But if it's justified as enforcing an ArbCom ruling, just call it that and that will suffice. Everyking 07:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If it's going to be a community ban we'd need a big outpouring of overwhelming sentiment in favor of banning. - Really? Hrm, that's interesting, because when Plautus was "banned by the community" for being a complete and total prick, there was just such an outpouring, and yet you were arguing that that wasn't suffecient. →Raul654 07:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe we can call it a community ban until someone is against the ban. Notice MARMOT and JarlaxleArtemis are at banned users, yet we haven't asked the community. We'll leave them banned UNTIL SOMEONE SAYS THEY SHOULDN'T BE BANNED. Yay obnoxious caps. RW1977, et al. are banned by the community. Redwolf24 (talkHow's my driving?) 07:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Call it what you like. While it seems just a little premature, it's a reasonable action to take in the circumstances. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this qualifies as a community ban. Rainbowwarrior1977 is all but banned by ArbCom (the ban has passed ArbCom, but the case hasn't officially closed yet so the ban is not yet in force). I privately recommended a one week block pending the closure of the case, with notice to WP:AN, with the assumption that we'd close the case within a week and implement the one year ban in the ruling at that time. Essjay instead elected to block indefinitely, a choice I'm not entirely thrilled with but which I'm not going to make a stink over. (In my opinion, y'all are using longer-than-policy blocks too much these days.) This user is currently blocked by the community, and will (presumably) soon be banned by ArbCom. Kelly Martin 20:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood the advice I received; I had already blocked indefinately by the time I saw the comment about a week-long block (and for the record, I asked for a non-involved party to issue the blocks and was told it would be fine for me to do it, there was no need for a neutral party). It was my understanding that once the vote had passed (and it did, unanimously) the decision was in force, and that when a user is banned, any sockpuppet should be indef blocked immediately. As it stands, I am doing nothing further on the matter until the Arb Com decides what to do. I've had more than my share of stress over this one. -- Essjay · Talk 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Epping Boys High School block[edit]

From AIV we're in the process of blocking several IPs, and I'm considering the range (203.166.96.224/27 for those that are interested). Several admins are involved, but there may be some collateral damage. Someone getting in touch with the school might not be a bad idea. Wikibofh 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Further update. Looks like these are used by a number of schools. Will have to go with short term range blocks. Wikibofh 05:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Even more...looks like some of these might be an Australian provider proxy...holding off on the range block. Wikibofh 05:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh good. Banning a school without even contacting them is completely the wrong way round. Secretlondon 05:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I tried to see if I could find a contact easily on their website, no luck. If they were the only ones to be affected a short term block while you try to contact them seems perfectly appropriate to me. As it stands however, that doesn't seem like a good idea in this case. IMO, of course. Wikibofh 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This the New South Wales school's? They've been a problem since day one and if weren't for the ISP I would support a full block until 1 January 3000, however because of the ISP that isn't feasible. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Robchurch[edit]

Being an Admin seems to have gone to his head. Perhaps it's not wise to give such power to one so young. After all Power corrupts etc.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Irate! Blocked - David Gerard 14:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh gosh, I welcomed an Irate sock! I feel so ashamed...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't be ashamed - you assumed good faith. Alphax τεχ 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice to know no-one took it seriously. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User:211.245.243.189 and User:Mirmo![edit]

(Also posted to Vandalism in Progress)

Not-quite-newbie originally drew my attention by posting nonexistent or obscure pseudo-abbrevs to disambig pages. Appears to be same user as Mirmo!. Overall problem with user behaviour (see talk page for details) is exacerbated by fact he/she/it does not respond to questions/warnings on talk page, so it's hard to tell if they've read and/or are ignoring them. Latest problem is AfD tag removal; they have previously been warned that tag removal is vandalism. Whilst I consider this user's behaviour more annoying than malevolant, they're unwilling to resolve disputes through the normal channels, so I'm not sure what else can be done. Fourohfour 17:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

General notice re: Wright Amendment[edit]

Be advised that two newsjournals [2] [3] have noticed the edit war on this article. Expect additional external and media attention to be paid to it for the next several days. Kelly Martin 21:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You know you've reached the big time when the Associated Press is writing about your edit wars. Geez. Dragons flight 22:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

71.112.0.134's contribs[edit]

User:71.112.0.134 has been writing misleading edit summaries, yet the edits seem to be useful. What do I do? Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism from anon claiming to be a bureaucrat[edit]

Hello wikipedians, I am logged out. I logged out in order to criticize a friend of mine. Adam Bishop can be seen here at the block log 00:34, 18 October 2005, Adam Bishop blocked 71.112.0.134 (infinite) (contribs) (wheels vandal)

He blocked a non-proxy IP indefinitely. And the reason is wheels vandal. IP's can not move pages! Looking at Special:Contributions/71.112.0.134 you'll see every edit by this guy has an edit summary that scares RC Patrollers, but if you look at the diffs you'll see he's actually been helping out the wiki. This is a lapse of judgement on the Latin speakers part. 207.200.116.5 00:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooh trolling - what fun. Secretlondon 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he's a troll, but that doesn't make it okay to block an IP indefinitely, especially one that's never been warned, and especially when every contributions has been legit. Warn him to not be an ass with his edit summaries then. 207.200.116.5 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've warned and shortened to 24 hours. A block is clearly appropriate in this case (the behavior is highly disruptive), but indefinitely blocking an IP that may be dynamic is never appropriate. ~~ N (t/c) 00:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
A block isn't neccesary at all. What happened to warning people? I remember back in 04, vandals may have been rarer, but at least we warned them. Some may have actually gone straight :-/ 207.200.116.5 00:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The edit summaries he used clearly showed that he was no newcomer to wikipedia and he used them in bad intent. I'm all for warning newcommers, but here a block was totally apropriate. Now leave it. Shanes 01:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous, you guys probably wouldn't want a new enemy to the wiki =-/ 207.200.116.5 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess I could be a bit big-headed now, but I'll give you a hint as to who I am: I am one of the 21 bureaucrats of Wikipedia, and I am a contact of Jimbo's (I took a walk with him at one of the meetups). In fact I remember Larry Sanger quite well. Yet the destructiveness exhibited by some admins here is enough to get people to start hating the entire project, which is never good for the wiki as a whole. 207.200.116.5 01:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering about this, and I didn't know how to warn him. Maybe the 24 hour block is inappropriate, I suggest 15 minutes at most, and a message asking why he's writing edit summaries that are almost certain to result in blocks. Titoxd(?!?) 01:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Quick, summon the deflation-mobile before this one pops! silsor 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm accouding to User list we have 22 bureaucrats.Geni 01:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're a bureaucrat, which I doubt, you should know better than to vandalize. If you are, and would like, you can email me at windrunner at gmail dot com pointing to an article you will edit logged in, before you do so, and I will note here that you are indeed a bureaucrat without giving your name. However I do not expect this to happen.. Pakaran 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be complete nonsense. None of our bureaucrats is so cowardly as to log out before voicing a very mild criticism of another user, and in any case all the bureaucrats are also administrators and are capable of reversing the block themselves. You'll have much more success in causing a fuss (which is your intent, correct?) if your lies are not embarrassingly obvious. — Dan | Talk 01:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with rdsmith (and really its more silly then causing a fuss), this is a bit distracting to the topic at hand... I said on the user's talk page that if there was an apology I'd unblock and I will in while. If the user continues the nonsense I will re-block. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I know what's going on here, but I ain't tellin'. It looks like an inside job to me, something that was carried out in order to test the problem-solving skills of Wiki-admins. I remember something similar to this occuring not too long ago. -Alexander 007 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
well you could argue that most problems go away if you block them often enough.Geni 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, regardless the user is unblocked now. Just a note to other admins that the user has been warned that it will be reblocked if it continues with the edit summary nonsense. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw a page being moved to "...on wheels" on Recent Changes as I was heading out the door, and reflexively blocked the IP. If I may be allowed to post from IRC:

  • [20:34] <AdamBishop> (diff) (hist) . . User:Kelly Martin; 20:34 . . 71.112.0.134 (Talk | block) (User:Kelly Martin moved to User:Kelly Martin on wheels!)
  • [20:35] <AdamBishop> I blocked that guy but you can all have fun reverting
  • [20:35] <AdamBishop> I have to go to work

I could have investigated further I suppose, but whenever there is an apparent Wheels vandal it is best to block first and ask questions later. So the lesson here is, don't do that, and you won't get blocked. Adam Bishop 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess the confusion stemmed from the fact that there was no page move, and indeed the user wasn't even logged in. The reason why you'd think otherwise is obvious. I think it's right that the user was unblocked, but I can't feel too sorry for him... don't stick your hand in the mouse trap to find out if it only catches mice. --Gmaxwell 05:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Didn't you notice it was an IP and so shouldn't be indef-blocked at all? ~~ N (t/c) 14:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm changing the heading of this to something more... descriptive and appropriate right now. I guess Adam doesn't care, since he left it, but it offends me. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

sheesh. what has "remebering Larry Sanger" and "having taken a walk with Jimbo" got to do with anything? Why would a bureaucrat log out to criticize Adam? And why would he base his criticism on the 'good old days' when there was leisure to appeal to the conscience of each vandal? Has he taken a walk with Willy? If you could take the time to edify each vandal with a personalized sermon back in 2002 -- good for you, but these days are gone. dab 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User:JackSarfatti[edit]

Is JackSarfatti (talk · contribs) still under a block for making legal threats? If so, he's still editing as (definitely) 71.139.97.67 (talk · contribs) (see this this series of edits, where he uses the first person in talking about Sarfatti), and (probably) as UFO Black Ops (talk · contribs) (same style, and even the same malformed sig). --Calton | Talk 07:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • JackSarfatti is definitely still blocked infinitely, see the IP block list for his name. can someone look at the other suspects? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, I should have checked there. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • So nobody's going to block his socks? --Calton | Talk 13:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, since block evasion is an unacceptable use of sockpuppets I will block them now. I heard some talk of possibly unblocking the original account, but I will leave that decision up to TenOfAllTrades. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • UFO Black Ops blocked indefinitely for being a sock used for block evasion. The IP blocked for 14 hours for the same reason, but I am wary of giving long blocks to IPs (except open proxies) for whatever reason. I'm not entirely sure what length would have been appropriate for the IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User:JackSarfatti has agreed to abide by WP:NPA, WP:NLT, and WP:NPOV, and to strike out his personal attacks on talk pages. DES was the primary target of JackSarfatti's recent broadsides, and JackSarfatti's editing privileges were restored with DES' approval. User:JackSarfatti is now on a very short leash with respect to personal attacks and any other violations of Wikipedia policy. DES has been extraordinarily gracious, but I won't let his good nature be taken advantage of.

I will give Jack one warning about the use of sockpuppets, and remind him that he is to be on his best behaviour. Ed Poor is also keeping an eye on Jack; without Ed's close monitoring of the situation I doubt we would have given Jack a second chance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

About UFO Black Ops (talk · contribs)—I'm not sure that the account is User:JackSarfatti. Unlike the anon, this account seems totally consistent at using the second person to refer to Jack Sarfatti. It might just be someone who shares Jack's...unique...worldview. Ed Poor has lifted the block there; we'll keep an eye on it. If it was a sock, it will stop editing now that JackSarfatti is unblocked. If it's not a sock...it will appreciate the unblocking. (Should User:JackSarfatti be blocked again, I'll watch potential socks closely.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it was a sock, [this] convinced me (it's rather strange to edit headers on someone else's talk page, and Jack frequently changes the headers on his talk page). The timing was suspecious too (he popped up right after the blocks of a number of anon IPs Jack was using to avoid his block got immediately blocked on editing). Anyway, it isn't all that important, meatpuppets aren't allowed either. --fvw* 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, we've tried that. Can we block him again now? --fvw* 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IgnoreAllRules[edit]

IgnoreAllRules (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). FYI. encephalon 07:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The account was only used for vandalism, with taunting edit summaries. I blocked it indefinitely. --MarkSweep 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This one is of interest, particularly given the debates it "participated" in - David Gerard 10:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. One edit stopped me short because I thought the sock had slipped up and edited under another name, but it seems it just moved an earlier comment from elsewhere. It's obviously someone quite familiar with WP and some of the recent debates. I've cleaned up after it (and I believe Aaron picked off some too). PS. Thanks for the block, Mark. encephalon 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Aaron Brenneman shares a proxy for a large organisation with IgnoreAllRules, with those two as the only users on it, and IgnoreAllRules has a fondness for the same pages. When I asked User:Aaron Brenneman directly if he was IgnoreAllRules, yes or no, he refused to answer, instead becoming aggressive and pseudo-legalistic (see User talk:David Gerard#IgnoreAllRules. What jolly fun - David Gerard 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

NTL fun[edit]

Mostly, NTL users are showing up as using their actual IP, which is good. But a few have still been showing up using the proxy. So if you see weirdness from apparently UK editors who may be on NTL, particularly MARMOT-like activity, please let me know and I'll check - David Gerard 08:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd that, any idea what could be triggering the lack of forwarded-for headers? If it's really just MARMOT we could block the proxy IPs as MARMOT should be the only one appearing to come from them, but if there are more, it requires some more investigation. Could any devs give some more information here? Are there still legitimate reqeusts from the NTL proxies coming in without XFF header? Do we discard XFF headers whose IP is not in what is thought to be NTL's range? --fvw* 16:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
As explained on [4], some NTL proxies use a Client-IP header instead of a XFF header. To make things even more interesting, some of the proxies send the IP address reversed on the Client-IP header. --cesarb 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

HTMLplusTIME[edit]

I searched and read an article subject HTML+TIME time this morning. It appeared to be an article written by Microsoft and a link to Microsoft was given. Later, also today, I returned to the article but this time it had been deleted. In the delete log I was able to read "08:10, 18 October 2005 The Anome deleted "HTMLplusTIME" (speedy deleting as blatant copyvio from http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/behaviors/time.asp)".

The article is in my opinion a good guidance and information for those who are keen on learning and practising the HTML+TIME syntax, originally engineered by Microsoft teams. I do recommend that the article will be undeleted.

As it is understood that a copyright violation seems to be involved with the article as it was inserted I suggest a heading to be added to the article giving no doubts whatsoever that it is/was an original Microsoft text (if that is the case).

Sincerely Anders Lindesvärd, Sweden Date: 18 Oct 2005 / <email address removed>

  • If an article is an original Microsoft text, it's copyrighted by Microsoft, and can't be used verbatim (or with only minor changes) without it being a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more. android79 17:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And what if the text is made as a quotation with reference to the source (in case the text evidently was a copy of an MS text)? Anders Lindesvärd

If you only use part of the text (generally a pretty small part) it can be considered fair use and copyright concern would be limited. You can't use the whole thing. The best idea, IMO, would be to write an article from scratch and link to the Microsoft article as a reference. android79 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not have access to the article anymore as it is deleted, and what I do recall from reading the article was that it was very short indeed when comparing to the really huge article on MSN covering the subject. Writing about the particular subject must be in exact and well disposed terms and in my opinion MSN is undoubtedly the best source of correct information. There was, however, an interesting link to a sample, which now is gone. I added today another link to a very good sample presentation.

I am considering if I myself shall insert an article about the subject. But to be very precise in the subject I trust it has to be built on quotations from MSN original texts in order to avoid misinterpretations of technical details in the subject. Would such an initiative be supported?81.229.108.199 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd

Sure. Of couse if Microsoft agreed to relase the articel under the GFDL we could use it. But I very much doubt that. I'll put a copy in your userspace for you to work from. DES (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good precedent, as it's a copyvio in userspace too. --fvw* 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I am considering that it is simply a mirror of the microsoft site, being used as a source to build a proper article which cites the microsoft text. Surely that is a form of fairuse, like goign to a library and makign a photocopy of a journal article for reference in writing a paper that cites it.
I have temporarily undeleted this, and it is now at User:DESiegel/HTMLplusTIME. (I would have put it in Anders Lindesvärd's user space if that user were loged in and had an ID). Please let me know when you are done with it. If I don't hear in a while I will just blank it or delete the copy in my userspace. If any othe admin thinks this is out of line, i am willing to discuss the matter. DES (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. I have now copied and stored the article that was deleted. Yes it is a copy partly of the Microsoft HTML+TIME article.--81.229.108.199 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd

If the article's online and freely accessible, why make a copy on wikipedia? (I may have missed some of the discussion leading up to this, sorry about that). --fvw* 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You are, IMHO, hitting the head of the issue here. I have been pratising the HTML+TIME for many years now. In several USENET newsgroups it has been obvious that folks interested in the wonderful HTML+TIME syntax get mixed up and confused when visiting and reading the huge MSN article with many pages. My idea is to quote the startup part from Microsoft, with linking of course, and under External Links give linking to what I have during the years found to very well made sample presentations. Microsoft does not link to very good samples and those are what new practitioners are indeed missing. Wikipedia will be useful in this sense.--81.229.108.199 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd

Ooops! That was a tricky one. Would the GFDL possibly be mentioned in any of all the Microsoft copyright notices? Some scouting to do. Thank you, but I have to read all about what it takes from me to insert an article on Wikipedia. First time for me.--81.229.108.199 19:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd

You might want to consider registering for a free account and logging in. That will make it much easier for other users to communicate with you, for one thing. DES (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Will certainly consider that. Thank you Sir. Have to close now. Will study how to make article inserts on Wikipedia. Will be fun. Bye, bye for now and thanks for your kind assistance.--81.229.108.199 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Anders Lindesvärd

I have edited and saved a new, most comprehensive, article with external linking on the subject HTML+TIME. The title is still HTMLplusTIME because I found it not possible to edit the title to visually the more correct HTML+TIME. Thank you. --A.Lindesvard 09:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Dick Nob[edit]

Dick Nob's user page appears to admit that he is a sockpuppet of Son of Paddy's Ego (as he also claims on his edits of the Chester page earlier today). Since Paddy was blocked yesterday, perhaps this is not a coincidence. --RFBailey 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibofh 18:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Woodroffe Avenue[edit]

  • This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2005 by Aranda56.
  • During the discussion, Earl Andrew left an unsigned comment stating "Keep. Delete nominator."[5]. User then continued to participate in the debate, leaving multiple comments after Deletion votes.
  • Katefan0 closed the debate as Delete on 29 September 2005, and deleted the article[6].
  • On 30 September 2005, Earl Andrew restored the deleted page. [7].
  • RHaworth re-deleted the article under CSD G4: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy". [8].
  • Earl Andrew restored the page again on 16 October 2005. [9].
  • Page listed on Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Woodroffe_Avenue on 17 October 2005 by maclean25.
  • Page was re-listed for CSD by DESiegel on 18 October 2005 [10].
  • Evilphoenix removed the CSD tag while researching the issue[11], and made a notation on the original AfD page, reversing the original AfD decision, interpreting the original voting as 15 for deletion and 7 for keep, giving 68 per cent in favor of deletion, which in Evilphoenix's opinion did not constitute a strong enough consensus for deletion [12].
  • Upon further research, Evilphoenix discovered the current VfU, and reversed himself on the original Afd, and re-deleted the article, pending outcome of the VfU.

This evidence was prepared by me. I feel that Earl Andrew, as a party to the deletion discussion, should not have repeatedly undeleted the page. I have re-deleted and protected the page, pending the outcome of the VfU discussion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing all the above out. I agree with your point about repeated undeletion by an involved party. Also, while you may not agree, many people feel that anything at or over 2/1 (66.6%) for delete is a valid delete result on AfD, so I don't think that 15/7 justifies overriding a close even in the absence of an ongoing VfU discussion. DES (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for sharing your opinion on deletion percentages, I will take that into consideration. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Earl Andrew should be roundly condemned for partisanly delete-warring, and for delete-warring at all. Act your edit-count, not your shoe size. If you can't act in either way, then have the good grace not to act. As for Evilphoenix deciding it's ok to summarily reverse an AfD decision, he should study whether or not there was the possibility of discussion with the deleting admin before doing so. However, I'm glad he's joined the VfU debate rather than playing with buttons; it's a far more becoming mode of self-conduct. -Splashtalk 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The page was substantially changed by User:SimonP during the debate, and I feel that it is only fair that it should be put up for VfD again with the new page. The page should never have been deleted in the first place, as there are many other less notable (but still derserving) road articles out there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Is that a justification for delete warring? -Splashtalk 20:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This was the first time I had encountered an AfD closing that I felt should be re-considered. Normally I don't worry about how other admins close AfD's, I was only evaluating it having visited it from the re-created article, and was trying to decide whether to leave the article or re-delete it. Had I not discovered the VfU, I would have let the article stand, and contacted Katefan0 to discuss the deletion, but when the evidence showed that the re-creator was also party to the debate, and there was a VfU in progress, I didn't want to invalidate the ongoing VfU. In the future, I will take your advice and contact the closing admin before reversing any decisions, should I feel that to be neccessary, however I generally dislike the idea of reversing another admin's actions. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I felt there was no consensus to delete it. I know I was a party to the discussion, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to do something drastic to shed some light on a topic. Anyways, when the article was originaly put up for AfD, I felt there was not enough information to really portray to validity of the article. However, during debate it was expanded, and I feel comfortable that the validity of the article was reached during that time, and that it was probably unfairly deleted. At least, put it up for AfD again. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case you should have taken it to VfU. That's what its there for. You should not act unilaterally when you are involved. That is disrespectful of everyone else who is following the process. - Tεxτurε 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Precisely what I was going to say.--Scimitar parley 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work, Evilphoenix. You made every action appropriately. - Tεxτurε 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly concur with Texture and Scimitar above. If any admin action turns out to be disputed by any other admin, the proper response is to talk it out and/or get a third-party opinion, not to revert war. For deletion-related matters, VFU/DR is the perfect place for that. Radiant_>|< 21:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    or failing that, in the event of further disagreement and admin action warring, don't worry... you can always unblock yourself. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a general rule of thumb, an admin should not close an AFD, determine consensus, or most importantly revert another admin's judgement in any discussion in which he or she has been personally involved in because of POV concerns. Unfortunately, I do not see that written down as official policy (unless somebody else knows where it is). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, are you talking in generalities? Because I certainly was never involved in this article or related AFD up until the point that I closed it, and would hate for someone to read your comments and come away with the mistaken impression that I was, when nothing could be further from the truth. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That is a general rule of thumb. And I was specifically addressing Earl Andrew, not you Katefan0. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In short, any admin who is actively involved in any type of discussion has absolutely no business in processing it, and should not even think about reverting its final judgement without another discussion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That would make sense, perhaps, if an admin had some high obligation to fairly decide which side won.. But thats not the case, they are supposted to take all the points and views, and apply their judgement in a way which best furthers the community interest. It would be pretty odd if we only allowed people who didn't trust their own judgement enough to express it in public to use their judgement to close AFDs. We don't need to go out of our way to ensure fairness in this process, because the process is transparent and can be undone by other admins. It would be reasonable to advise people to not close issues where they have an obvious emotional attachment, not because I'm worried to much about bias, but because AFD is most importantly a consensus building device (even people who disagree with the action will usually agree to abide by AFD), and the illusion of bias taints that. For the most part people are already doing the right thing, since its just common sense. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you claiming that of the closing admin and the reverting admin that one can be trusted and one cannot? Your argument collapses if applied to both admins in this situation. One of the admins was not involved in the discussion/voting and was the one to close the AfD. The other was involved and passionate enough about his opinion (yes, only an opinion) that he unilaterally decided to undo the decision based on his vote. Why does an admin's vote weight heavier than other people's? - Tεxτurε 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I was responding to the post above mine in a general sense and not talking about this issue directly. I think it is important that we do not exclude admins from being involved in matters when they made the mistake of expressing their view in public. :) As far as this case, you're right. We have a process and it was followed. No one should have reverted a delete unless they feel confident that an error was made (and 'I don't like the outcome' doesn't really count). If an admin let their involvement in an issue cloud their judgement, thats bad, and thats why we are here discussing it. A single revert isn't so bad, after all, if the revert was made in error it isn't to hard to get someone to revert the revert... but doing it twice? thats an admin-action revert war in my view. --Gmaxwell 13:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I Was Unfairly Blocked[edit]

I was accused of being a sockpuppet, and I am not. I emailed administrators, and was said to be "spamming" them. I dind't then go do anything sneaky, like trying to get into Wikipedia on another computer or something like that. I followed procedure, all to no avail. I was told if I stayed off certain pages, and didn't post there, it would be a sign of "good faith" and I could then be unblocked. I don't see that as fair, either, seeing as I never broke a rule here or attacked anyone. That seems manipulative. My question is, what does one do when faced with a wall of administrative silence? --EKBK 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

EKBK, I offered you what I think was a very reasonable deal. I believe you're a sock puppet (or meat puppet) of Zephram Stark, who's been trolling at Talk:Terrorism for months and who's currently up in front of the arbcom for it. You insist you're not. In order to split the difference between us, I said I'd unblock you if you stay away from Talk:Terrorism until the Zephram issue is resolved. You refuse to do that, even though you've only made 41 edits, and six to the encyclopedia, so it's not as if you're deeply tied to Terrorism and couldn't bear to be parted from it. I was also reminded by another editor to ask you why you claimed to use the term "FISA terrorism," which is one of Zephram's made-up phrases, yet you backed him up, claiming you'd heard it often and used it yourself. Still, I'll repeat my offer to unblock you if you stay away from Talk:Terrorism or any other page Zephram has caused trouble on. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite has asked anyone considering unblocking to read this thread first. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite's link calls into question why I would care if SlimVirgin blocks EKBK under the guise of being my sockpuppet. My answer to that is threefold: 1) SlimVirgin has also blocked me because she claimed that I had a sockpuppet. I have never created a sockpuppet. 2) SlimVirgin and Jayjg are using tactics of blocking people and threatening to block people who disagree with them about the "terrorism" article. Together they have blocked over a dozen people. 3) It's just corrupt as hell to block someone who has done nothing wrong. --Zephram Stark 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that to ask me to stay off certain pages smacks of Big Brother. I told you that while I have no desire to frequent that page for any particular reason(I said what I wanted to say there), to be barred from using certain pages isn't fair. I also told you that I was compelled to state my opinion. The FISA terrorism thing certainly does not mean I am Zephram Stark, any more than my post on the Flying Spaghetti Monster page means I am a Pastafarian, and the fact that I was perfectly willing to turn on my webcam even further proof I have nothing to hide. You obviously don't like people agreeing with anything he says, all the more reason not to agree to unreasonable requests. I ask to be unblocked because I broke no rules, and the one thing you accused me of is not true. I am not a sock or any other kind of puppet. --EKBK21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

When I asked EKBK to e-mail me from her regular e-mail address, she said she had no Interact access at home, and could only e-mail from work, hence the hotmail address. So I wonder where she keeps her webcam. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Sockpuppets - "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." It seems to me that, at least until the arbitration against Zephram Stark is concluded, it would be reasonable to avoid the Terrorism article, as SlimVirgin has suggested.--Scimitar parley 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The key phrase being "for the purpose of dispute resolution." The quote above is saying that if an administrator thinks that a vote is being swayed by sockpuppets or meatpuppets, that all of the suspected puppets should count as one vote. Expanding that into an excuse to perma-block someone and lock her user page is a sure sign that the administrator is corrupt, especially when the accused person was not involved in any vote. (EKBK contribs) This case is really simple, regardless of how much confusion Carbonite and SlimVirgin want to throw at it. The question is, "Given that it is apparently impossible for someone to prove their innocence of being accused of sockpuppetry, what should be the standard?" Should someone be blocked permanently because an administrator accuses them of being a sockpuppet without any evidence? Exactly how far can an administrator stretch the rules before another administrator will say, "Enough is enough?" --Zephram Stark 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Zephram, you know, the main rule is, "whatever is conductive to a better encyclopedia" (imho this should be in giant letters on any policy page, since it a fortiori includes npov+cite). I am confident many admins will react to blatant injustice, but we are not here to play games of guilt or innocence. It is typically embarassingly easy to tell 'encyclopedists' from 'trolls'. I will certainly tend to bend the rules to unblock users whom I consider prolific writers of well-referenced, highly encyclopedic articles. EKBK was offered a deal, should he stay away from Terrorism. There are 770k articles here, many in a shoddy state. Any serious editor can find no end of productive tasks without hogging a particular article. dab () 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd need to feel fairly strongly that there was either an error in judgement somewhere along the line or a good chance that the blocked editor would change their behaviour to unblock someone. I have no feeling whatsoever in regard to EKBK, after having reviewed the evidence. Something fishy is going on; and EKBK seems to have been bordering on trolling in some cases. Hence, although I may not have blocked EKBK, I have no motivation or desire to unblock, and I don't doubt that other sysops feel similarly.--Scimitar parley 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring[edit]

Is editing as User:203.51.32.244. He's banned (not blocked), so has to be blocked and reverted on sight, right? --Kiand 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is optional, but in most cases I would. --fvw* 21:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And User:143.238.244.68 --Kiand 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That bastard better not be making any spelling fixes! By God, we'll hunt him down for that! Everyking 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)\
I'm sorry Everyking, while I do respect that you feel certain users have been treated harshly, we are dealing here in this instance with a textbook troll in whose mouth butter would not melt, who systematically stalks users. His editing and spellchecking pattern is essentially one long personal attack, and, IMHO, an especially subtle and vicious one. I really feel there's not much scope for leniency. Slac speak up! 00:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So if he fixes an obvious spelling error, you advise re-breaking it? ~~ N (t/c) 00:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
If you mean do I think all of his edits should be reverted, yes. As has been established, content of edits is immaterial when one is dealing with banned users. Skyring is relying on the guile-filled claim that he's "improving" the wiki as a way of carrying out his vendetta against other users. Slac speak up! 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
How is making a perfectly harmless spelling correction, that any other user might make, not an improvement? Motivation for editing does not change the quality of an edit. The ban can still be extended based on spelling corrections without reverting them. ~~ N (t/c) 02:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he is, but he's also harrassing users, and a ban is a ban - he's not allowed edit the Wikipedia for one year from the day of his last attempt to - which is today, obviously. --Kiand 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And User:143.238.244.40. He's all over that netblock tonight. --Kiand 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
He seems to have let off User_talk:Jtdirl for now, but keep an eye out. Changes his IP address between edits. I reset his block to a year from (yesterday). Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't his block be a year from now?? Updating... Bratschetalk | Esperanza 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I blocked 203.51.25.0/24 for 3 hours. Also been blocking other IPs he gets for 3 hours. He's been hitting Jtdirl's talk page pretty bad. They're all Australian addresses originating from Canberra. Perhaps .nsw.bigpond.net.au should be contacted- that's where most or all of the addresses are originating. Ral315 WS 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for all the work with Skyring. It is really appreciated. Creating 16 sockpuppets in 2 hours to attack 1 page is a hoot. (Attack removed) Anyway, thank folks for all the help and support. It is superb. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked User:143.238.244.181 indefinately as a proven sock puppet of Skyring. As it's the first time I've blocked a user, I'm just noting it here to make sure I've not gone "rogue" ;-).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have made that an indefinite block - IP addresses do change, and if that one is part of some ISP's dynamic address pool, this block will surprise someone eventually. So I've unblocked it. CDC (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
139.168.157.40 (talk · contribs) another indefinite block. Somebody can modify if they feel I goofed. Slac speak up! 00:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WOW?[edit]

I've just blocked 81.77.194.22 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours because his sole contribution is vandalism related to Willy. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what created that "warning" message on their talk page, and if it needs to stay there? Actually only really care about what created it, if it was auto or manually added. «»Who?¿?meta 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be the result of fancy template editing. Some templates now show warning boxes if displayed in the wrong location (e.g. talk page instead of article) or if not substed. This may not actually fully work yet due to bugs and typoes, feel free to experiment. In this case, no, the warning need not particularly stay. Radiant_>|< 11:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd page[edit]

I just got this meta wiki page saying this wiki does not exist when i went [13]. Strangely it is still the same URL. I got the right page the second time. Some subtle vandalism? Or just a mistake in the wiki technology? It starts Wiki does not exist From Meta, a wiki about Wikimedia

This wiki does not exist yet. Perhaps you are looking for one of our other projects:

A meta symbiol had appeared on an earlier tab for anotherr en.wikipedia page, SqueakBox 01:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been an error we've been getting on and off. I've told the devs, we'll see what happens. Ral315 WS 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed now?

Wiki brah[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedwolf24&diff=25878008&oldid=25872387 Rainbowwarrior1977 explains that he's not Wiki brah, the tone seems sincere enough, I'll trust it for now. But may I remind you all that the sockcheck showed he was... in Florida. So if not anything else, he's up in Florida, not Brazil. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the un-block, but continue to watch Wiki brah in case. Ral315 WS 01:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much credit in where people are from IP address checks. One of my customers owns a large optical plant that covers the Caribbean and parts of South America. In additon to raw TDM transport they also provide internet connectivity. The address space they provide customers is sliced out of their ARIN address blocks. The sort of armchair internet sluthing we use would quite possibly conclude that a person who was actually in Columbia was in Miami. Even reverse DNS lookups can be misleading, for example: for about three years around 2000, Adelphia had customers in south florida reverse resolving to names that would imply that they were located in Pennsylvania because they moved a block and didn't update their zone files. --Gmaxwell 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I knew it was easy to make it appear you live in another state (I supposedly live in Virginia...) but I thought country by country would be different. Seems strange that Brazil would possibly translate to Miami though. Now I gotta do some work, I'll check this thread later. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
There have been times when I would be traced to the US (new york I think). AOL again.Geni 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem strange to me that Brazil, and all eastern mainland Latin America would route through Miami. Always does from Honduras, including linking to Europe, SqueakBox 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)