User talk:Curps/archive25

I added October 26,1947 and a paragraph on Rashid Ali. When I did this the page on Iraq, went crazy(this was a accident)can you please turn it back to normal? How do I add this to the article without the article going crazy? Thanks.

Hey yo Curps I have been trying to keep it real here on wikipedia making helpful additions and so on and when I was searching some articles this caught my eye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Game_Hunters_(sketch_comedy)

I do not know how to request an article for deletion so I thought I'd bring it to your attention since u seem to have your business pretty together

As I understand it this article is almost definately written by someone in the group and that is not allowed I think? also if you serach these cats in google nothing comes back so it is pretty much "Unremarkable People or Group" (As listed under Speedy Deletion Guidelinezz) matter if u ask me

hope I was of some help, thinking maybe about registerin a name on the site and adding some fresh new information about the author George Saunders, he is great

your friend, 66.229.17.88


 * There are various details given at Articles for deletion and Criteria for speedy deletion for nominating articles. There are some templates like db and related templates for suggesting that an article might be speedied.  Good luck and hope you find the time to make some future contributions. -- Curps 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Block
Hey Curps, someone vandalized the Hadi Tacosolavni page. I think it needs a revert. --MonkeyCMonkeyDo 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Riff Johnson
Thanks for your help. I've got to go to school now, though. Also, can you help me find where (somewhere in Wikipedia namespace) it says that your contributions to articles "will be edited without mercy"? Riff doesn't seem too clear on that fact. Thanks. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you're way ahead of me. Still, being able to cite that on his page might do some good, any idea where I could find that? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall offhand. Maybe search would find it. -- Curps 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolute bullshit. My mate Riff shouldnt be blocked whatsoever and you, Curps, are a dickhead for doing so.


 * Found it. Or at least, close enough. Rights. Probably a handy thing to have lying around when you need it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ownership of articles is even better. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Batzarro
Hi Curps, thanks for all of your effort in dealing with Batzarro and his socks. I ran his anon IPs through http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl just now, and all but one from the suspected list are registered to Irshad Deen who actually works within Sri Lanka Telecom Internet. Could you personally double check me, so that I can contact them with confidence that this person is at least an accomplice to the vandalism? -- user:zanimum


 * Yes the anonymous IP range appears to be as you stated, however "Irshad Deen" would be the contact person (employee) of Sri Lanka Telecom Internet (ie, the person you'd complain to, rather than complain about). The actual vandal would either be a customer of Sri Lanka Telecom Internet, or perhaps might be using open proxies (I haven't checked). -- Curps 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you for that. I'll hold off on contacting SLT until Batzarro vandalises another page. --  user:zanimum

OK i am batzarro! You have tracked me,big deal,now what? Deendodd 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)(Bat)

answer me(whats up now) u have found the batcave. Reply now16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)(Bat)

OK answer me???? Huure 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Curps has other things to do, other than answer you immediately. We can contact the service provider, and speak with them on your activities. It's general practice for ISPs to not tolerate spammers, virus creators, spyware spreaders, and the like using their networks. While Wikipedia is an unusual case, most also recognize the importance of participating with one of the world's largest websites. More likely than not, we can have them internally identify you, and terminate your service. --  user:zanimum

Cleanup on isle Rainbow F***er
Seems to be an AOL user, I keep getting.. Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Rainbow Fucker". The reason given for Rainbow Fucker's block is: "user...". ...every time I try and edit a page, seems to have wiped out most of the 64.12.0.0 to 64.12.255.255 range--64.12.117.5 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I undid the autoblocks a while back. I only found two however.  I hope the problem is solved for now, although AOL autoblocks remain an ongoing issue. -- Curps 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block?
Hello, Curps. I noticed that you blocked User: 70.48.238.65 (talk • contribs) for vandalism for 24 hours. However, besides personally attacking me (twice, possibly - I suspect that he is also this user - they're both in Ottawa, Canada, coincidentally), he has since reverted your correction. Is 24 hours all he deserves (on both his IP addresses)? --Jugbo 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If he avoids extreme profanity in his edit summaries, it's just an editing dispute, and as per Blocking policy there's nothing really blockable there (unless WP:3RR gets violated or something like that). -- Curps 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. The issue on the page seems to be solved now, anyway.  Thanks. --Jugbo 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

a spammer
for your consideration: User talk:217.115.218.80. b/c you're most recent on the block log. thanks. Derex 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye on the mortgage page. -- Curps 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Biff Protection
look, what you're doing is thinking too much. you haven't looked at the actuality of the differences. you are just knee jerking along. I can't compete with you on the blockage. I wouldn't want to. But I will tell you this, that sort of blind inability to see the truth is what will bring a great idea like Wikipedia down in flames. You should read the article and see the actual differences, rather than simply following strict guidelines you've made up in your head. you have a chance. Don't blow it. I'll be here when you get done thinking. I like you, I really really like you. And you know what, despite yourself, right now, you like me, because I asked you do what we all come to wikipedia for in the first place, and that's to think. no matter how many times you label me as something i'm not, I'm thinking and making you do it too. And that's as vibrant as a breath in a ragged lung, coming to life on it's own accord, after years on a lung machine.... come on buddy, you'll see my point. Read what I've written, and you'll see the truth. Or not. I'll be back, just you wait and see. just you wait and see. I love waiting. Waited for years for peace of mind. how about you?Goregonzola


 * I'm not taking a position in the editing dispute; I'm not familiar with the article content and topic. However, you are a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, creating multiple sockpuppets for the purposes of evading the Three revert rule. See the comment I left on User talk:Dimes for eyes. -- Curps 08:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

?
What about my talk page?
 * That post is by user:Sargonious. --  user:Zanimum

How about...
User is against the islamic domination of middle eastern life. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk &bull; contribs).


 * See my reply on your talk page. -- Curps 08:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There

 * Not all readers of the English Wikipedia are fully fluent in English. An organization with the same name as a common pronoun may be very confusing to some people who do not know English well. Anthony Appleyard 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At least one page (List of commonly confused homonyms) points to there and means the pronoun. Anthony Appleyard 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

my imposters
thanks for blocking all those imposters of me recently, theyve alos started using ben0n now to try and avoide detction,thanks againBenon 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for getting all 10 of the recent bunch :) ive tagged them all with Benon 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For evidence, I'd like you to see this category. --Slgrandson 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:CorkedFun
You may want to block this one as well, see this. I would do it but I'm not aware of the details they are referring to. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Meat Puppets
Hi, Curps. I apologize for the profanity at the Meat Puppets article. 83.88.137.34, who continues removing my addition to that article, has clearly been chasing me away. On the other hand, I've been wanting an administrator to block that user since he or she kept coming back editing that article. Alex 101 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Destructive Trolling Sock Puppets
You seem to dislike them, and you put an indefinite block on one that has been harassing me lately, namely User:T`sitra Yel Darb (I've got an active RfC at Requests for comment/Braaad that covers most of this). He's got another sock puppet that he's playing with at User:Vinnie von Go. If you could intervene, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. McNeight 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was starting to wonder if anyone actually cared. Thank you. McNeight 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gmail Account
If you are still in need of a gmail account, decrypt the following. It may only be good for a short time. -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

hQQOA5ErWbbpmdMMEBAA+AQXf7o48RIKMv5XRHkeSX72YU5t0SkOzew+gzva37Fp EuLBaKJpKXNFSeIujgz77yp1v5BikAr2/CZ94x7bqEkyWsNslSc3obDOuQ4SBnBf K0ZBbFjo+2oL5qMLvbFrq+t1C4WvLlEiPcL3JA5ZGXMW1QTTjgTJCcw04RY6TQPm OfNTcturdMnaOPiJqKjo37MwfrxWxgFPr+KJf/LwNt8liHU17ZSDmKWZ1r4/zA+B YSqQxdqL7gLIIbacO6jC+fIF76lfu93lQdz+/9vymfFxs1SGhSeKVDrVI96BnDz7 DNS99fYrZvP8h2sKXj19ykVxBxnCCzyUgBgMh6BL+FMt8nskbtePyOz8JfW3OmA2 RxJc1G6HVhP+LYbXRpokkiAmIxuB3zc7dm/hFI1vH4JI6sDZ8dYvdm5KjCjjKAbj OXM2AmLx3Sao9pDkiIK7VwhxQH3jfm/5d+DFuLXs8YSwZPak1IoiRUW3rNZ6RV3G zq95zRaDpGJttRahLknmPuLdArlekHoT8DxRvLjgNQh78XvjN1dq3tmYYevPYz4Z gzys9+0CzZo3sB46j/W79Ylsg2tFluTt8Zj86GK4OcxpkUYd5sRU4cjMe6mN9VH1 swOfp8/+6X0vWtzSzzSVxDLX8lKg74UlWtB0/+eItzUzuPrDkQLekzrLl4miPmQP /3LsXX7y+YzREmRABQb3bzYblBAhdwvh8ElKFdoDISNWnDU+jtE4OKZSSuPeR/2T pMc1Bx22YCKnoG56ct2Ih2yRLwuDYmQ/mhJDgjY3FiQP0nlHyPy+YZHL3Nc3TZlr OWZA0QXgHxV7lMKjEW/3kz/KYeH94g4vvCxyrUELLQgc6DlWl4AewzQ+AyZJaiOz dX33NLzGIbjDma26sm/wo0x6s/RySrABdXrsvo2W19D4bfvJO1NLvITXxtnIshOX R8VQA0IWgmj2OwGn5ss1niu8YpORuQd0T8wGprfU55WgxExQgBXZuKdL5lPb24qD O8JS417fjwR/SDzcO6iNZvwEyssdZ+gCp6RXikPdxyOwoWChPBHw5a4+BaVSMzgB oiuK+UDCr3V5pzU9RfRVJBc8oSMVR89q4RgbZ923KJOvTKS3RClsaByBrM2cpEG3 A0LSj55+6BbtNFIiRjLV87FysTItpAzidS5zgZsKC1OUtc3i4ec1v56UGU2o+S68 XN1xq38Wh3g4OW8etSAOQW6LQqiOKQBiWx8Pvsta52wT4hlLGrFM6DDL+HKWJCyv 51mG4JTwOlMQWbsZdzcV6sxpu/yajP0hiNNf7YCp2mTNmlHGWLyUOR6FjewvMSKW LRU43rgcgdc7W1q2DT4JZgOBipQ0YWvDa6pbkmijcRB60nQBnltUo8V+meLwflFv tIemt1uYhBftp2HVjCa1ShgJgL6U8BPetzRQRB7eVfUeO+4I0v1HTGBkuZpAy4Pw i5EBsNFRR1AmgMb4OORd7xxMh1ZTvB0sc3zva1Nizsc21VJ115mFOBbMrzEoyZl7 baDF24XUig== =VC2R -END PGP MESSAGE-

Jmax- 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for the vandalism revert on my userpage! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Doppelganger blocks
Hi Curps, I was pre-emptively creating doppelganger accounts and hadn't yet added the doppelganger tag from my regular account, when you and MarkGallagher indef-banned the accounts and blocked my IP. Could you unblock my IP please? Thanks &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 11:21Z 


 * OK, should be unblocked now. -- Curps 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand
Yeah I have noticed that I'm going to make sure that it is a complete Revert thanks for the notice anyway, Betacommand 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Special:Contributions/68.72.232.155
Hi, if someone has vandalized multiple articles and there don't seem to be any good edits from now on I think we should go straight to more serious test3 test4 or bv templates otherwise we just cannot get these people blocked. Thanks Arniep 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage, then blocking the user. Much appreciated! -- light darkness  01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Need evidence
Did you reported D agnostic when he vandalized me last time? I could use that evidence for my case. Do you knok any kick-ass advocate?--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a genius
Hi. "Cainman" here, among other dozens and dozens of names. I would just like to compliment you on your genius. You are obviously superior to me and everyone else on Wikipedia. Are you a member of MENSA, because if not you should be. Someone as wise as you should not let their gifts go unused in the public.

The reason I say you are so wise and knowing is because you wish for me to arbitrate with Chadbryant yet as soon as you find an account I create, you ban it. I can see how that is an intelligent move. After all, what better way for a person to request arbitration than to have his account banned? That IS your plan, right? You have looked "outside the box" and found an entirely new way of dealing with arbitration that others up to this point have not, and it involves in some way banning the accounts of a person so that he may not speak his case? I do not claim to be one as intelligent and evolved as you so I can not nor will I not question the wisdom of your decisions. After all, it is YOU who are the genius, not me. For now I only humbly request on bended keyboard that you let the rest of us on what this plan of yours is. I must confess I am most eager to find out. After all, I am a mere peasant, and I can not see how this would be beneficial to the problem at hand. Obviously YOU can and have, and those of us who have pondered the wisdom of such actions would be greatly delighted and honored for you to inform of us what you have in mind.

You ARE banning each account I make because of your Great Plan, right? After all, you are far too intelligent and wise to tell someone to take it to arbitration but then ban them each time they show up. Ha, ha, that is certainly a joke that I will share with others around the hay fields and horse stables as we go about our daily tasks! You have made me laugh, and for that I thank you. --166.102.89.7 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) aka "Cainman"


 * I block each account because you start up the same nonsense each and every time: personal attacks (and with earlier sockpuppets, petty vandalism). You also simultaneously admit to and deny using multiple accounts, saying in effect (paraphrasing): "you can't prove those accounts are sockpuppets, so I'll keep creating new accounts to revert it whenever someone puts a sockpuppet tag on them".  You were requested to go through Dispute resolution for your dispute with Chad Bryant months ago and showed no inclination to do so.  I still have no idea what that dispute is about, and don't particularly care to find out.  Over the top feuding is part of wrestling storylines, not something you should be trying to carry out across the pages of Wikipedia.


 * Just knock off the personal attacks (schoolyard taunts), don't revert sockpuppet tags on old accounts which quite obviously were sockpuppets, and be serious for once about going through Dispute resolution with Chad Bryant, and then I won't need to keep blocking. -- Curps 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blowhole
Hi. You blocked user "blowhole" for a day for the 3RR and I am grateful. But he is also guilty of Wikistalking and he is a sockpuppet. Look at his user contributions and he is following contributors to their user talk pages. I would hope that Wikistalking is more than a 24 hour ban.


 * 24 hours is standard for 3RR. He's also using uncivil language in talk page contributions and edit summaries, but that doesn't fit the strict definition of "clearcut vandalism" as per Blocking policy (at first I mistook one of his edits to be impersonation and vandalism, but that was in error, I didn't check back far enough).  You could try the steps of Dispute resolution, or wait and see how he proceeds. -- Curps 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:152.163.100.69
152.163.100.69 is baiting me on the masturbation page, and lying about my revert record. I see he has had previous problems, and I have issued a warning, can you block him or tell me the next step in the process? Chooserr 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they are also blanking paragraphs. Chooserr 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In short, please examine chooserr (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) 's recent edits, then block him for as long as you feel is nessesary--152.163.101.5 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, "blanking paragraphs" in this case seems to be a content dispute. We can't really block for that as per the Blocking policy.  Why don't you guys try mediation or seek the opinions of some of the other recent editors of that page? -- Curps 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He has a difficult time dealing with other editors because they're apparently either conspiring against him, or just not very good christians--152.163.101.5 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an insult to me, which I do not appreciate. I am being conspired against! The whole day anon IPs from Aol have been reverting my every edit!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, Please stop them or get a restraining order or something! Chooserr 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They've also been calling me a troll, and lying about me. These personal attacks must STOP. Please Curps can you help me out, or do anything. Chooserr 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're asking is beyond the power of an ordinary admin. Only the Arbitration Committee can issue the equivalent of a "restraining order", see Requests for arbitration.  As a first step, you could try Requests for comment to explain in detail your complaint. -- Curps 06:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kin Khan block
Hey Curps, I know it is like 2 in the morning, or at least where I am, it is ... but anyways, I followed up on Kin_Khan (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]), and it turns out that the autoblock used against him accidentally blocked out another user, as I discovered on a request for unblock page. It shouldn't be too much to remove the autoblock and just use a regular block; in fact, with ISP's starting up everyweek, IP addresses are all over the place - that's why there are quite a few "why me" complaints. Is it the true vandal just pretending - I really don't know, but if the request is legit, we'll have to follow through. Keep me posted. -- Jay  (Reply)  07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What'll it take for Dechronification to be allowed on here again?
Many users said that the # of search results doesn't matter in determining article-worthiness. Mikkalai based his afd off of that (though people say he wasn't supposed dto). Once an article has been AFD'd, is the rule to keep it off Wikipedia forever, or what condition needs to be met in order to let Dechronification back on again? (Remember, the search result count doesn't matter. Too many have told me this to dismiss it as speculation. --Shultz 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a vote at Articles for deletion/Dechronification which resulted in deletion. What you can do is post to Deletion review to propose undeleting it. -- Curps 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa
Slow down that autoscript. You've blocked almost every account that i've created and that contains Unicode. And now you've also blocked another guy who's created an account w/ unicode. Remember that the MediaWiki software autoblocks the IP of whoever you block. Other Admins dont know what's going on or why you block them Irc Log here (eg just "user..."). ~ Cheers &mdash;Achille 2006-02-02 22:12Z 
 * Could you please unblock  and  Theyr User:Pattersonc accts, no vandalism coming from them, witty usernames, and deserve no block anymore than Radiant! deserves a block for using !. Thanks &mdash;Achille 2006-02-02 22:28Z  (Aka, the Unicode Defender!)

What do you mean when you say "almost every account"? I blocked your account with the Unicode "FULL BLOCK" character (and note that wasn't an autoblock, I typed in an explanatory summary), plus the two "chip off the old..." accounts which seemed to be sockpuppets of the first one. They're unblocked now at your request. What other accounts are you referring to when you say "almost every account that I've created"? Unicode accounts are not routinely blocked. Some accounts were created in which Cyrillic or Greek letters are used to spoof Latin-alphabet letters (in some cases to impersonate existing users and in other cases for no apparent reason), and these have been blocked as intentionally confusing or misleading. However, in general, Russian, Greek, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, etc. usernames are fine as far as I'm concerned. -- Curps 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe, you also blocked my own User:Αchille (that I use in my signatures) and another account that I cant remember. I found it hard to believe you did those by hand since you blocked em so fast. (no kidding, you need to be renamed to The Flash or something) Thx for the unblock &mdash;Achille 2006-02-02 23:58Z 


 * No really, you did them by hand or did you write some specialised tool for it? &mdash;Achille 2006-02-03 00:01Z 


 * Sorry I was a little blunt... I usually dont mind as that's a good job you are doing but the admin I was talking to was refusing to unblock the account. ~ Cheers &mdash;Achille 2006-02-03 00:07Z 

Well, User:Αchille is an example of what I mentioned because that's a Greek capital Alpha that looks exactly like a capital A, which could easily have been a malicious impersonator of your account. Various people have tried to create spoof accounts of Jimbo Wales, for instance, or various admins. -- Curps 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for blocking User:BLOCK ME FOREVER AGAIN!! I saw this user on recent changes and would have blocked him myself, but I'm not an admin and you responded before I could request one. Keep up the good work! Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

About this featured article vandal we just had
Thanx for blocking "#91914", an autoblocking of the IP that was used to repetitively vandalize Restoration spectacular with  link removed . However, I dearly think that the autoblocking of 24 hours is by far not enough, and I really think that even as far as a hard ban for this IP is in order. I would also like for all of his edits to be deleted, therefore completely disappearing from Restoration spectacular's history tab. Thanx. NicAgent 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're asking for is beyond the powers of an admin to do. You'd have to contact developers or ArbCom members. -- Curps 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This vandal attack is currently being discussed at the incidents noticeboard. (Link removed above) --cesarb 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Curps,
You are, undoubtedly in my mind, one of the best vandal-fighters on this here encyclopedia. Just wanted to tell you how much you rock. - Jersyko   talk  13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, I'm afraid. There's no "one of" about it. ENCEPHALON  07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tv316
It seems that User:Tv316 (contribs) has taken up the fight for the user who has made a full-time job of attacking me and having his sockpuppets blocked. He is spouting much the same rhetoric, and creating edit wars with baseless accusations of sockpuppetry and reinstating personal attacks from that other user. - Chadbryant 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship page, you'll see that right after I made comments to Chad that he probably would not like, Chad stopped making contributions from 10:42 EST to 11:03 EST. This guy, -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.131.237.219 -- on the other hand, made all of his edits in that time frame. Also, that user vandalized my talk page with threatening remarks about how "he always wins" and for me to "shut my cock holster" because I am a "little Canadian bitch." On the Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship page, Chad has made numerous personal attacks against me and included in that is some libel that I tried to remove, but Chad threatened me with administrative action because I was editing his comments. Apparently it's only a one way street accoriding to Chad.


 * I assure you that I am not a sockpuppet nor do I condone the actions of Alex Cain. I just don't condone the actions of Chad. He may say that he only removes comment by Alex Cain because he's a sockpuppet, but he has also struck out comments by myself and deleted comments by User:LtColMüller because he didn't like what we were saying. I know you don't care about the edit war from a newsgroup. Neither do I. All I care about is the problems stemming from all this as it relates to Wikipedia. tv316 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What's really funny is that when someone posts on User pages that there is a possible sockpuppet of Chad's, he instantly jumps to remove the comments made, yet he has no problem posting over and over again the "DickWitham" sockpuppet accusation without rhyme or reason. But then again being a hypocrite is pretty much what Chad's life is all about.  That and harrassing the cashier at McDonalds for there not being enough pickles on his Big Mac. --166.102.104.33 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When it comes to sorting out these kinds of claims and counterclaims, well, only the Arbitration Committee is vested with the authority to do that (plus, they are given access to enhanced sockpuppet checking tools). Only they can come up with some kind of final ruling on all this. -- Curps 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

overzealous blocker
You are a bit overzealous when it comes to blocking people, Curps. No need to block someone for minor vandalisms on talk pages or user pages.


 * A bit? He blocks everyone for anything and everything. He is abusing his power. Curps, I suggest you stop assuming bad faith. --GorillazFanAdam 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not overzealous enough
For pete's sake, 207.193.126.124 is a frickin MONSTER. He never does anything constructive and spams "wikipedia sucks" all over articles. He's been blocked NINE times and the block time has risen to one week as of the latest two blocks. I think a block of 24 hours is way way too light. Putting him in a rocket and firing him into the sun would be more appropriate. Argyrios 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock
Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. 165.230.149.154 05:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not place that block. You'd have to ask the admin who did: . -- Curps 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see someone else has unblocked it just now. -- Curps 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this yours?
Just saw this fly by RC, is it yours? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. It's already blocked. -- Curps 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I wasted a perfectly good welcom brochure on it then. --Marinus 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

THanks
...for fixing the backslash problem. Sorry 'bout that. Joey Q. McCartney 10:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Including Pope JPII in LGBT Rights Opposition Category
Rather than an edit war perhaps discussing this in the relevant section of the article tlak page would be helpful. Many thanks.--Sjharte 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cigammagicwizard
Hi could you please explain to User:Cigammagicwizard why he is autoblocked. Thanks. --Martyman- (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocked
For three times, you have autoblocked me because of this reason:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Curps."

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Jimmy Wales II". The reason given for Jimmy Wales II's block is: "impostor/too similar to existing user...".

1)This is my brother's user name on another user on my computer. 2)I never have a usename close to Jimmy Wales II.

NOTE: Next time, check on who you are blocking, like me, instead of blocking random innocent people. User:Cigammagicwizard|Cigammagicwizard]] 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The user that was blocked was "Jimmy Wales II", and this was a proper block because it is an impostor of User:Jimmy Wales. Unfortunately, due to the autoblocking feature of Mediawiki software, this causes the underlying IP address to be blocked.  You were affected because you happen to share the same IP or ISP as the blocked user "Jimmy Wales II". -- Curps 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant's rampage
Awright, I know you probably don't care about this (since you love to ban me and all) but could you please check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chadbryant

. . . and take a look at that? It seems Chad has flipped out and lost it completely, going on a sockpuppet-template posting spree. Is there anything you can do about this? I'm reverting as many as I can, but DAMN! Look at that. --166.102.104.75 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) aka "Cainman"


 * You have created sockpuppet accounts like User:CHadbryant and User:AnaleaseBryant for purposes of harassing Chad Bryant (and dozens if not hundreds more), and when they're tagged with a template you revert and try to insist these are legitimate users? There just happens to be a guy out there named CHad Bryant with a capital H out there, and the similarity of User:CHadbryant to the real User:Chadbryant is just a coincidence?


 * You fail to get the point. Chad has no access on Wikipedia to IP addresses and/or DNS locations.  He is not an administrator in any form.  Yet you allow him to vandalize user pages at random with this pathetic and childish (and truth be told, somewhat excessively paranoid) sockpuppet accusations.  I don't expect you to be the fucking Marines here, but you could at least act like the National Guard.  It should be noted that when tv316 made a note on PyterTaravitch's user page on how he suspected that Chadbryant was using a sockpuppet, Chad removed the remarks. So tell me how the hell is it okay for Chad to do it but when it happens to him it's not? Why are you letting him persist in this vandalistic behavior? You can't seriously take a look at that history list and tell me it's justified.  --166.102.104.75 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the sockpuppet tags are in fact true, as you have not even tried to deny, they should stay, and your removing them is vandalism. Over time, various admins have reverted your repeated removals of these tags. -- Curps 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're just going to let him run rampant on Wikipedia, vandalising user pages as he sees fit. Chad Arbuckle and the 72.* users aren't even ME.  But whatever.  If you and Chad are playing pocket pool with each other, that's none of my business.  Shows loads of what kind of person you are, though.  Perhaps TruthCrusader was right about you all along.  --166.102.104.75 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the sockpuppet tags are in fact true, as you have not even tried to deny, his adding them is not vandalism and your removing them is. -- Curps 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, then. I hearby officially and congruently deny each and every one of the sockpuppet tags that he has placed onto the various User pages on Wikipedia.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm having breakfast with George Orwell & the former Iraqi Information Minister.  --166.102.104.75 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You deny it even for User:CHadbryant? You and the former Iraqi information minister seem to share a credibility problem.  If you have a case, take it through Dispute resolution. -- Curps 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

GNAA accounts
Sorry to bother you, but can you please block Boris_Red (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]), the note to WP:AIV is getting stale now. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Saw that, thanks. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

AOL autoblocks, ... again
User_talk:Dante26--205.188.117.65 14:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Achille / Doppelgangers
Hey just to let you know shortly I'll be creating accts w/ variations of my name per duplicate protections. Thx. &mdash;Achille 2006-02-05 21:26Z 

User:GuettardaSock
Amazing efficiency, but I actually came up with that account to test an idea regarding Geni's sock account for unwatched articles (see Requests_for_adminship/Genisock2), to see whether it would be possible to use such an account without giving it admin powers. Of course, that left me caught behind the autoblocker... fun, fun (I have never seen the blocked text before - it's pretty intimidating/startling). Do you think that this is an unacceptable use of a sock (ie, do you have any problem with unblocking the account?) Guettarda 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it's you, I unblocked it. -- Curps 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And thanks for the block.  Guettarda 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of User:Ti Exi Yexyes as an NCV sock
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That user was a hard-working good contributor. Also the supermarket information should be in those pages.A Texas Guy 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, Good Catch.
Looks like I need a nap. Didn't even notice it was a User page. Thanks for saving my bacon so quickly. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

FYI
Just so you are aware - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Checkuser_vetting Raul654 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is wonderful news, congratulations Curps. Hall Monitor 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

World Financial Group
I have listed the above article for unprotection. Rather than an edit war over a POV tag (which you listed at the participants' talk pages), I feel the greater concern is the removal of properly sourced information which paints the company in a negative light by one participant. The WFG article has seen a fair bit of POV pushing (both for and against the company), but there has been little of what I would characterize as legitimate content disagreement. &mdash; Lomn Talk 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected it. -- Curps 19:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Smurfs and communism
The page you no,minated for deletion already went through this process, and was kept. . Please remove the afd, unless you want to repeat. As it will fail i can assure you --Larsinio


 * It seems the previous Afd was under a different name (Smurf Communism), which explains why I didn't see the previous Afd when I nominated it under its current title. The nomination was in good faith in any case. -- Curps 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

previous AfD (sockpuppet fest?)
You don't notice anything fishy about most of those keep votes?
 * ???? I've never seen 19 sockpuppets on 1 AfD before--205.188.117.65 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

db:nonsense

 * Hey curps, seeing as how you're an admin and everything, couldn't you just speedy delete the entire thing as a nonsense article?--64.12.117.5 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't meet Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Curps 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add an email address
Hi Curps, please could you add an email address, or if you already have one stored, allow others to email you through Wikipedia. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No sig in test
Hey Curps. I've noticed that you use instead of ~ when giving test notices to vandals (example: User talk:88.109.81.2). Is there any reason for that? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

White trash article
You're wrong on the White trash article.

First of all, I removed barbecues because they do not have a predominantly "white trash" connotation. Outdoor barbecues are solidly middle-class, and moreover I know several upper-class people have had them.

"In the common definition, 'white trash' would not be applied to upper class or even middle class"

Defining class is tricky, but if we're talking about income groups (income group != social class) the "white trash" stereotype is not mutually exclusive with a middling or even upper-middle income. Mike Church 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please block
Please block User:72.136.67.28 because of their repeated vandalism. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone already did so one minute after you posted above. In general, posting to Administrator intervention against vandalism will usually get the fastest response. -- Curps 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 166.66.16.116
It seems we both blocked 166.66.16.116 at the same time. Your block, being shorter, takes precedence. I chose to block for a week since the earlier, shorter blocks seem to have had no effect, and since there seem to be no recent constructive edits. There's also this edit. Anyway, I'll defer to your judgement. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Powpow 13
I see that you have threatened the above user with blocking if he persists in vandalism. I've just found that he has added a player who does not exist to Rugby union positions. I have never heard of Omar "Fat Boy" Bdawi and neither has google (even under variant spellings). I conclude that it is vandalim.GordyB 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually a standard warning (a bit stronger than usual because he vandalized Vandalism itself after some prior vandalism). You may be right about the edit to Rugby union positions being a prank, but I just reverted for now.  If he persists, you can try posting to Intervention against vandalism, which usually gets the quickest response. -- Curps 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Firefox
i think that guy is just too insulting to firefox (not crups0 don't you agree

Music of Nigeria
Why not just protect Music of Nigeria until the vandal calms down? Pepsidrinka 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be against protection policy to protect an article linked from the main page. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but that's how it is. -- Curps 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it times like this where WP:IAR comes into play? Pepsidrinka 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll let some other admin go ahead and do that. -- Curps 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

your checkuser vetting
I understand why you don't want people to know the inner workings of your bot but as I am clearly not a vandal or a troll I was wondering if you can explain your bot to me using a more private form of communication (email preferably). I'll of course keep the inner workings to myself and it would probably allay my fears about you getting checkuser quite a bit. Jtkiefer T  00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd really prefer to say as little as possible about it even by e-mail. If I discussed it in private with some admins (a few have asked already) it would be difficult to justify not discussing it with all the other admins, and information known by 800 people is not particularly secure or confidential. -- Curps 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser and Blocking bot
Hello, Curps. While I would fully trust you with CheckUser privileges, I have one concern about giving you CheckUser access. Would you program BlockBot (as users in the CVU affectionately call it) to use CheckUser access? The problem with that is that as I understand it, running CheckUser requests is taxing on the servers, and programming the bot to do for every user you block could potentially slow down the site. So, the question is, would you plan to use those privileges manually or would you allocate them to your bot? I know this is a quite sensitive issue, so if you prefer, you could contact me through email, or preferably, on the wikipedia-en-vandalism channel. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, if server load is an issue, it might help if there was some "checkuser lite" that just returned the IP address and didn't perform all kinds of cross-checking for sockpuppets and matches with other usernames. However, I think I'd run it sparingly on specific individual usernames rather than routinely or automatically.  Probably the Arb Com members could provide guidance, since they've been doing this for a while now. -- Curps 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Style
Please write articles in an encyclopedic style. You should not write "come on why wasn't this article created a long time ago?" in the text of the article itself. -- Curps 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not that well-trained on making articles look encyclopedic from the get-go. Maybe on articles that are already well-established, but to -make- articles -become- well-established is a responsibility I rest on other users' shoulders. After they bring it up to par, I usually check back to inspect how they did, and touch up the article further when necessary.


 * I knew asking why an article wasn't created already would bring it the attention it needs, so I didn't see much harm in that. Otherwise, new articles could stay untouched for months. For example, hitman.us hasn't been touched by anyone else the last time I checked and I usually like to see the article grow within minutes, hours at most. After a day, I get worried. Maybe I need to 'adjust' these kinds of expectations. However, such adjustments can't happen overnight. --Shultz 06:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The place for "why wasn't this created sooner" comments is a talk page, not the article itself. After all, that's your personal comment, not part of the description of the topic itself.  To signal that the page needs attention, you can put various templates, which I see you are already doing. -- Curps 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Those various templates don't work by themselves, apparently. See Hitman.us. Untouched by anyone else for days, even with two top-page templates and two bottom-page templates. What else did I forget to put that would cause people to flock on over and spruce it up? --Shultz 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Z0l
You seem to have blocked User:Z0l indefinitely, seemingly automatically because he vandalised my userpage by moving it to another page. While I am thankful that you reverted the move and blocked Z0l, I still doubt Z0l was your average pagemove vandal. Judging by his contributions, he rather seems to be some kind of nerdy schoolboy who came up with his own Internet slang neologism and wanted to use Wikipedia to gain notability for it. And to think I threatened him with a block after you had blocked him indefinitely... (And may I just say "There is no Dana... there is only... Z0l!" just because I wanted to?) J I P  | Talk 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he could be reblocked for shorter. Perhaps I'll do that. -- Curps 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant once again
Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Dick_Witham

for details. Chadbryant is creating comments intended for no purpose other than to cause trouble or incite it in the first place. There is absolutely no need for these remarks, and I'm pretty sure they violate Wikipedia policy in some way. Is there something you can do to help stop this, please? Thanks. --166.102.89.32 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Detailing your abuse and boasts/threats of continuing said abuse are more than relevant for a talk page regarding the over 120 sockpuppets you have created (most of which have been indefinitely blocked). Your only motivation for removing content from that talk page is to cover up your abuse.
 * Note for admin(s): Please be aware that since Mr. Cain's registered accounts are now generally blocked on sight by a variety of other admins, he has taken to vandalism and abuse without using an account. The one non-educational ISP available to him limits his IP ranges to 166.102.89.* and 166.102.104.*. - Chadbryant 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's cut the bullshit, mmmkay? You are not "detailing" anything.  This is just as sad and pathetic as your "FAQ" you created out of your obsession over my person.


 * And you want to talk about removing content to cover up abuse? Why do you continually revert PyterTaravitch?  Or the 24.*.*.* IP that follows in same?  As tv316 pointed out, you can't have it go both ways, Chad.


 * Note for admins: Please be aware that since Mr. Bryant's abuse is now known by many users but few admins, he has taken to vandalism and abuse in a blatant and aggressive account.  My accounts are not generally "blocked on sight," and I would dare Mr. Bryant to prove this otherwise -- even Curps has stated that he does not do this.  --166.102.89.32 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Short & simple inquiry - the "DickWitham" troll is no longer registering accounts, and is utilizing his ISP's dynamic IP assignments to abuse Wikipedia. He has admitted elsewhere that Alltel is his only option for an ISP in his rural town, and the modem pool there limits him to addresses in the 166.102.104.* and 166.102.89.* subnets. Is there any way to have these IP ranges blocked for any period of time? - Chadbryant 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Short and simple? Don't you mean wide and fat? And now you're trying to block me on Wikipedia?  Don't make me laugh.  Whoops -- too late.  --Swiper No Swiping 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Cain acknowledges Yet Another Sockpuppet - and as usual, he uses it to deface my talk page. - Chadbryant 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The place to settle any underlying issues would be Dispute resolution (which includes Requests for arbitration as its last resort). In the meantime I've blocked Swiper No Swiping and 166.102.89.32 for yet more personal attacks, which Alex Cain has been asked many, many times to refrain from. Admins CAN block on sight if the Arbitration Committee hypothetically decides to ban a user (either temporarily or permanently). Blocking IPs is problematic because of the possibility of collateral damage; if you feel that an Alltel customer might be violating the terms of service of that ISP you could formulate a complaint to them (Alltel Abuse: abuse@alltel.net, +1-800-990-4449), re their terms of service "Termination by Us" section clause b) "if you use a Service in a manner that adversely affects Service to other customers or harasses our customers, our employees, or others" -- Curps 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Documentation of Mr. Cain's Wikipedia abuse has been sent to Alltel. - Chadbryant 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Cain attempts to remove the link to his admission of being limited in his ISP choices, and does so using an IP administered by Georgia College & State University. - Chadbryant 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain my warning
I do not understand the policy here. If I edit information that is blatantly false and misleading, you edit me and warn me about vandalism. I do not think anyone disputes my information. If they do, I would love to see why. My info is factually correct...please explain.

You still will not explain my warning. Editing true information is not a violation of the rules as I read them. Am I wrong here? If my info is disputed, I would be shocked. Because a user does not like the truth does not give you the right to edit the true information off of the page. That is not the right thing to do.


 * Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you're referring to. By the way, you can sign your talk page edits by adding   at the end of them. -- Curps 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about user Madchen Hoch. I have been warned for providing true and completely accurate information.

revert
Thanks Mikereichold 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You Edit out true info?
Why would you edit out info I edit in when it is all true? I do not understand why you want all of the wikipedia readers to be misled about somebody or something. This site is not a communist site....it should not be censored because the true information you do not want to read. If a page is created and has untrue information on it and I correctly edit that info, why do you revert back to the untrue information and warn me about vandalism? You need to be true to the other users and stop allowing false info to be spread. This is America and the truth prevails. Thanks for your answers in advance, I look forward to reading the rational for these acts.


 * Can you be more specific? I don't know what you're referring to. -- Curps 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about user Madchen Hoch. My info is accurate and undisputed yet you remove it. Because the user does not like the true info should not allow you as a censor to remove it and warn me about vandalism. Everything I have written is true and accurate...EVERYTHING.

LOL
and that's my name too, whenever i go out, the people always shout, there goes ! fa la la la la la, la, la!

Email
As you can see on WP:RFAr, we're basically waiting on you getting an email. Gmail requires an email to send the invitation to ... if you catch me on IRC (DavidGerard), just ask. Or indeed ask anyone else with Gmail! - David Gerard 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disregard that, I just saw your note on WP:RFAr that you have an email set up! I'll just let the AC know - David Gerard 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain 1500 2500 2006
I saw that you blocked The Fountain 1500 2500 2006 for vandalism. I find it curious that he was blocked for one edit, and just wanted to ask if he's vandalized before under other usernames. I just wanna keep a lookout for this guy if he's a constant nuisance. Thanks. -- Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK! 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at other edits to Stephen Harper in that time frame (while it was "In the news" on the main page), there were a number of edits earlier by User:Brook street changing the image to "Harper is stoned.jpg", sometimes with minor text vandalism. Not long after, the User:The Fountain 1500 2500 2006 made the same edit.  Note this was a throwaway account freshly created for the purpose of making that one vandalism edit.  If someone creates a throwaway account and vandalizes with it, well, they've thrown it away. -- Curps 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Found open proxy
User 198.203.175.175 is an open proxy. I found this outside of wikipedia used as a proxy to do harm elsewhere and I checked inside wikipedia and there it is. The contritions of this seem to be from different users, but on the talk page User_talk:198.203.175.175 it has vandalism warnings. DyslexicEditor 09:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Diacritic printability
Hi Curps,

Would be very grateful if you had a look at this: Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) - don't know if I made any errors, or maybe lagging behind on Wikipedia's state of the art. You're the expert (I'm not). --Francis Schonken 14:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:217.33.207.195
I was going to tell you about Blocking policy proposal, but you've already been on it. This really should get through when it does  Sceptr e  (  Talk  )</sup&gt; 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The vandal that just vandalised your user talk page
This guy is persistant, I think he is on a dynamic ip range. We are watching him in the channel. He is upset about Rocky Marciano I believe. -- Cool CatTalk 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuts
OK. I've followed all the procedures, reported to all the admin boards, and shut my mouth and taken the abuse. But now, User:Braaad is back and admitting to the sock puppets he created (which you have blocked), further trash-talking about me, and has possibly created yet another sock puppet which I've reported to Requests for CheckUser. What else do I need to do in order to get this to stop? McNeight 03:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hi
Ok, I understand. Could I ask if the devs and assorted people have looked at it and seen that it's OK? Don't get me wrong: I think that your work here is invaluable. But I just want to know how to react when people talk about the "secret, unapproved block bot," which I've heard bandied about lately. Thanks. Bratsch e talk 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * David Gerard made some comment in the RfArb vetting discussion about this, see (final diff of the series).  Developers haven't voiced any concerns so far. -- Curps 05:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: autoblock of school IP
Ok, I understand its only 24 hours or less for autoblocks. Thanks for responding. I am amazed at your abilities. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That Rocky Marciano Guy
Hey Curps, I've noticed that you've done a bit of the reverting/blocking of this particular all-caps vandal. He's also constantly adding content against consensus to Frederic Chopin. He's also vandalised(?) my talk page and sent a very rude e-mail to me(threats and cursing). User:Antandrus and User:Titoxd seem to think he's using open proxies. Thus, would it be appropriate to permanently block the IPs he uses? I think there's some sort of longer explanation at User:Dijxtra/Sock. Just wondering. Also, can blocked users still use the e-mail user function? Thanks, Makemi 21:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, blocked registered users can still use e-mail (that's one way to ask to get unblocked, for instance). I don't think anon IPs can use e-mail (because they don't provide an e-mail themselves), so he would have gotten your e-mail from some other means (perhaps a prior e-mail correspondence?).


 * He's using regular ISP ranges in some cases, but other do seem to be open proxies, however, I haven't run tests on them yet and am just putting the standard temporary blocks on them for now. -- Curps 21:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, makes sense. The e-mail was from his seeming sockpuppet User:Projects at the e-mail address (which I've hidden from general view for politeness' sake). Thanks, Makemi 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for your attention to this matter. Makemi 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Threat
Hi Curps. I think that perhaps a block of User:68.96.23.7 might be appropriate, due to this edit. Thanks TigerShark 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you unblock 68.96.23.7? s/he's having a hard time not vandalising pages ever since s/he tried to stop a few days ago. I personally didn't mind that s/he did it and I am willing to give him/her another chance. Thanks. Evan Robidoux 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
I just popped by to say hello and thank you for your fixes for the vandalism at the Michael Jackson page, I hope you'll consider making more changes and alterations with the rest of the group who are currently discussing the articles prospects in its talk page! Once again, thanks for the hard work you put into Wiki.--Manboobies 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tookie Williams
'Preciate the rv.--Beth Wellington 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

egregious username vandal
Thanks for asking Kelly Martin about it.--Shanel 07:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: IP blocks
Thanks, FireFox undid the block. No harm done. Thanks anyway. haz (user talk)e   

Bot Warning
I am giving you official warning to cease using your bot since it is in violation of WP:BOT for the following reasons:


 * Unauthorized (no official authorization to use bot)
 * Use of admin powers by a bot

If you continue you may be blocked until such time as you guarantee to stop using your bot without approval. Jtkiefer T  19:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After getting some feedback I have been convinced that it would be a bad idea to just block you without further input so as such I am asking you politely to please turn off your bot until more input can be gotten at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Jtkiefer T   19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now replied on that page. In the discussion on that page, I haven't seen anyone else calling for the bot to be turned off, other than yourself.  And I'm fairly sure you've been aware of the bot's existence for some time now, as have many other members of the admin community, so it's not clear why you consider it urgent to turn off the bot right this very minute, before the discussion you initiated even takes place or reaches any consensus to do such a thing. -- Curps 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahhwhereeami
Thanks for watching out for my user page. Double thanks for taking the effort to realize that it was me anyway. The double-e in the name was a long-missed typo :) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahhwhereeami (talk &bull; contribs).

Vandal fighting Tool
Hello Curps, I couldn't help noticing your extremely effective vandal-fighting technique, and was wondering what tool, if any, you use to patrol recent changes.  Wh e  re  (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Current Sports Template
I've never blocked an article or template, but you seem to know a little bit more of what you're doing. I saw you reverted the. I'm sure you're aware that it's a the third time it's been vandalized? Any way you can block it? (and also let me know what you did so that I can do this myself next time?) Thanks! tiZom(2¢) 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85 vandals
Can you look at the contributions of the following users:''


 * Warrierknog (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Koollid (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Blinded_By (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * The_last_time_I_saw (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Compassio (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Back2buk (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Teenage_wedding_and (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Rolston910 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Guesswho05 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Piece_10_cough (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * BK Fish (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Nippy432 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * Godd (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])

This a list of users who have been vandalizing on my user page for a while now. So Mcfly85 can't use them again, can you block them? Can I also ask that you watch my user page for vandals and block his sockpuppets when they show up? S W D 3 1 6 talk to me 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cr0w bar
Hey there Curps. Good job on closing all those AfD nominations early. I thought of doing the same thing earlier but decided against it since I had already voted in some of the nominations and had started a (frustrated) dialogue on Cr0w bar's talk page. But I'm not sure he needs to be blocked. How would you feel if you and I just kept an eye on him, and I tried to maintain communication with him? I'm still not entirely sure that he's editing in bad faith, and I try to be easy on the blocks. But of course, if he continues to be a numbskull and it becomes obvious he's ignoring my advice, I'll block him. moink


 * Take a closer look, this is a bad-faith troll... his first edit was vandalism (not AfD-related), and a number of his justifications for nomination are intentional nonsense, eg A rising tide lifts all boats: what is an "all" and how does it mean?, and a few more in that vein. This is also a newly-created user... what genuine newbie starts out nominating AfDs as the first thing they do? -- Curps 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw all his contributions. In fact, you'll notice I reverted his first quite odd one.  My suspicions, due to his jumping in to AfD so early, are that he is a returning user, i.e. a sockpuppet, but he hasn't done a lot of damage yet.  I was heartened by the fact that he responded to my comments, and I think he may have some potential to be an ok contributor.  But I'm not going to get into a wheel war over this.  moink 06:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating bad-faith AfDs is damage enough, it wastes the time of all the people who voted keep and speedy keep. His edit summaries are pretend-clueless or intentionally nonsensical ("very short article plus who is really when you thing evil?", what is an "all" and how does it mean?), and his reply to you was rather nonsensical too ("why would another be redirected to traced memory?").   I believe in accepting good faith, but this is no clueless and semi-literate newbie, it's a returning user (as you yourself agree), and he's up to mischief. -- Curps 07:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article another really is redirected to Trace Memory and his question was a good one, though that doesn't explain why Radical feminism should link there. And I don't think all his AfD noms were bad faith... Kwality Wall's read as an advertisement when he nominated it.  I vote clueless.  Anyway, no need to get into a big fight over the severity of his actions.  Though I'm not sure an indefinite ban is required... isn't a 24 hour block more in line with blocking policy?  I'd prefer that if he came back, he came back as the same username, so I could keep an eye on him.  moink 07:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since he's a returning user or sockpuppet, as we both agree, I think he has the option of returning under his original username. Even if you argue that a few of his AfDs might plausibly not be bad faith, that still leaves the rest which are.  Not to mention his first edit which was simple non-AfD-related vandalism.  If by some stretch of the imagination, this was a genuine clueless user, he'd be so clueless that there would be no hope of useful contributions.  Frankly, I don't believe it for a minute.  Generally, freshly-created sockpuppets that are clearly up to no good are simply blocked; a genuine user on the other hand we try to work with or mentor.  If you feel strongly about it, I won't wheel war with you, but I don't see any good in it.  For what it's worth I was careful to close only the AfDs that had basically unanimous keeps with a sufficient number of votes, that still leaves about 3 or 4 open.  -- Curps 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I agree with you on the AfD's, and I think I might be choosing the wrong user to do my "why do softy admins always get their cases taken over by the hardasses" rant.  It is late here, and I am going to bed.  moink 07:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

foreignchar
On what basis are you reverting me? Just because you consider me a sockpuppet that shouldn't edit at all, or because of the specific removal of this template? As I said before, there is no consensus to use this template, and surely it's incumbent on those who want to introduce things like that, which affect hundreds of articles, to establish a consensus first. Rahcngierof 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)