Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654
I have notified and two other checkusers about this thread. I didn't contact him first because frankly I didn't think it would do much good, as I've expressed concerns about blocking patterns by Raul.

Raul has been blocking a simply ghastly amount of IPs in order to try to snuff out blocked. I've already expressed concern before that Raul is misusing his administrator tools with people he has a content dispute with (the thread was duly ignored: please note this does not include Scibaby, a sockpuppeteer). However, this blocking is simply above the pale; I don't have a checkuser tool, but I do see the several requests for unblock-auto affected by this every day, and I do have an IP range contribution tool which shows other editors on most of these ranges.

Range blocks include: /16:
 * 1) 72.254.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 2) 207.67.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 3) 72.62.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 4) 68.27.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 5) 72.61.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 6) 198.172.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
 * 7) 128.241.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
 * 8) 72.58.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 9) 70.6.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
 * 10) 205.212.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
 * 11) 99.204.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 12) 99.203.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 13) 99.200.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 14) 66.215.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by Raul.
 * 15) 68.26.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 16) 207.195.128.0/17 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
 * 17) 66.215.64.0/18 - 1 year, AO ACB, ACB overturned.
 * 18) 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
 * 19) 209.59.48.0/20 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
 * 20) 99.204.37.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 21) 72.62.103.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 22) 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
 * 23) 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
 * 24) 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
 * 25) 71.196.216.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 26) 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB
 * 27) 64.215.225.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 28) 207.67.151.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 29) 209.59.56.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 30) 207.195.244.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 31) 130.94.134.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
 * 32) 128.241.107.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB

This is a lot of IP addresses, and it only includes the ones designed to get Scibaby (there are others that have been problems, such as 213.249.0.0/16 - 1 year, overturned by the Office).

I believe these IP ranges should be unblocked. WP:RBI works best when dealing with one banned editor, not hard blocking over a million IP addresses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur This is quite a large block. I like to hear from Raul, but absent any comments, I think these should be removed.  This is something not even IP block exemption can scale to relieve, at least that was not the intent of the policy when I proposed it.  Yeah, these blocks need looked at. As an aside, Raul does some good work on the project.  NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum to above: All this for one sockpuppet? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Too much collateral damage, methinks. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an impressive ammount of ranges, how come this was done for Scibaby AKA Obedium, when it hasn't been done for the puppeters with 200+ registered accounts and countless IP addresses? -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious, what was the original block reason? – xeno  ( talk ) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have brought this kind of thing up before (as can be seen from Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive399). From what I can tell, User:Obedium - sockmaster- was blocked because Raul determined he was POV pushing on a global warming article and blocked him (the only people Raul ever blocks are people who POV push against global warming and for intelligent design). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems the answer to my question is: "Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV." – xeno  ( talk ) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I missed that in the block log. But I thought this was obvious given the nature of the case :). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a quote from that thread you linked me to. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul tends to prefer a ridiculous "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach, and apparently is intolerant of any criticism of it. Just a heads-up; I've had a run-in with him in the past over a similar issue.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time I ran into Raul's enthusiastic range blocking; and I see their effects at regular interval on unblock-l&mdash; there is such a thing as unacceptable collateral damage, and I think this has crossed that line. I would hope Raul would acknowledge the fact that he may have been a little overzealous and that he might want to ease up on the /16 blocks a bit.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He won't, although he should. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solutions
For this particular instance, is there a consensus, or can we discuss unblocking these specific ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to wait to hear from Raul what the reason for the blocks are. Some time ago when he detected increased scibaby activity he protected all the Global warming related articles. So, perhaps something similar is going on and he has tried a different tactic.


 * This is necessary to prevent the editors at Global Warming page from wasting their time reverting an Armada of scibaby socks. When that happens their editing pattern betray them and they are banned without doing a checkuser per WP:DUCK, and WP:Waste of Time as happened to User:Shenstar :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that we could be turning away potentially valuable contributors with these rangeblocks, as evidenced by the numerous unblock-auto requests that come through. It seems we're making a trade-off of user time spent protecting a small set of articles and potentially losing valuable contributions to a larger set. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While some banned users are real pests and require drastic action to keep them off of the project, I wonder if these blocks are the best way. In my experience, banned users who have access to many IPs usually stop using an IP after it's been blocked, even if only for a short time. Unless he keeps returning to the same ranges perhaps shorter blocks would serve the same purpose while signifciantly reducing the collateral damage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful solution would be to desysop Raul. Unlike Bedford, Raul actually did something wrong--and so the community (and only the community) should endorse desysopping him. He's caused way too many problems. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, he is only causing problems for the global warming denial propagandists. Anyway, this is the previous case and my proposed solution, which admittedly is not so easy to implement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the unfortunate souls who happen to use ISPs that are allocated IP addresses in that same range and who would like to contribute. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't they just ask for the block to be overturned? In these cases one could allow them to create an acount and then notify Raul about that created account so that the new editor can be monitored to see if it is not Scibaby slipping through the net. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of hoops to make a potential good faith contributor jump through. I would gather a good number of them say "sod it" and are lost forever. That proposed solution sounds like it could benefit from the stable revision enhancement. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Response?
Has anyone been able to contact him? Has he made edits since being notified, is he ignoring this? Email? Does anyone know his usual log on time? I think there shouldn't be any mass revet action taken until we hear from him. Unless he's ignoring this, than I say some further discussion is warranted immediately. Beam 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He most certainly has edited since; his last was just over an hour ago. I was looking at this earlier.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Raul doesn't usually edit wikipedia on Sunday. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tile join blocks
Just a note that Raul has also blocked large ranges of UK dynamic IPs when it would be simpler to just protect the articles that this one attacks. There are swathes of the most popular IPs blocked for 1 year, including BT, Tiscali and Sky. The thing is that even these rangeblocks are completely pointless, because short of blocking the entire ISP (tens of millions of addresses in some of these cases), one can just reboot the router and end up with a completely different IP anyway. I am on BT and my IP bounces between absolutely dozens of /16 blocks every time I switch off my PC and router. Examples; Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 81.153.64.0/18 (BT)
 * 79.76.0.0/17 (Tiscali)
 * 90.200.0.0/16 (Sky)

Half-cocked
Let's not go off half-cocked here. I just handled an unblock request from 207.195.224.0/19. There were only about 8 active IPs on that range, so I took a closer look. That range is owned by a hosting company. Hosting companies frequently host misconfigured web servers that act as open proxies and many hosting companies don't give a flying fig about the security position of their clients. Every IP on that range that has recent edits is an anonymous proxy, so I've reblocked the range with a different reason. Anyone who unblocks Raul's blocks without a damn thorough check and who thereby enables vandalism or socking is going to get a personal trout slap from me. Thatcher 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's reply
First, I'd like to start this out by noting that The Evil Spartan has a history of making false and/or misleading statements about my actions, based on either ignorance or a distorted understanding of them. He has apparently chosen to continue this trend here. Above, he says that Obedium was the sockpuppet master, and that I blocked him because I disagreed with him. This is false on several counts - Scibaby was the sockmaster - he was the first one discovered, based on a checkuser request, and was blocked by William M. Connelley. I had nothing to do with that particular block. Months later, I did block Obedium for vandalism, and a few days thereafter (following some checkuser queries) I changed the block reason to include being a scibaby sockpuppet. All of this is available in the Scibaby and Obedium block logs - had Evil Spartan bothered to check them. Apparently these thing are "obvious" to him, the actual facts of the case not withstanding. It's not the first time he's leveled that particular false claim either.

Now, about the range blocks -- The Spartan suggests that we Revert-Block-Ignore Scibaby's misbehavior. There are several problems with this approach - first, that it demonstrably doesn't work. He simply creates new accounts and comes back. It's been almost a year since he was first caught and blocked, but several hundred socks later, he shows no signs of stopping. The only method that has proven even half effective is to prevent him from registering new accounts. Second, constantly dealing with Scibaby's nonsense burns out the people who actually have to clean up the damage (Raymond Arrit quit over it). I'm sure it's easy for Evil Spartan to suggest that people RBI, given that he hasn't actually done a scintilla of work dealing with Scibaby. Those who do edit these articles, however, are quite clear in their desire to keep them Scibaby free. He wastes a great deal of time and effort from other contributors that could be better spent writing articles. Third, the ranges do not affect anyone with an account. People who do not have accounts can contact unblock-en-l and ask for one. Fourth, the ranges above were not blocked willy-nilly. I avoid blocking highly active ranges - if a /16 is active, I block the /24. Thatcher has already noted this elsewhere in this thread.

To reply to Will Beback - I started instituting year-long range blocks in place in or around February. (After shorter ones failed to stop Scibaby) He still hasn't stopped. Therefore, if after 6 months of consistent range blocks he's still coming back, it stands to reason that shorter blocks will not stop him either.

And lastly - I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous Kurt's comments are. Anyone who's seen his participation elsewhere on Wikipedia should have a pretty good idea of the soundness of his judgment. But to rebut one thing he said, he claimed (falsely) that I edited an hour before he did - several hours after I got Spartan's notice on my talk page. Apparently Kurt has issues reading dates and times. My last edit prior to this one was a full 20 hours before I got The Spartan's note on my talk page, not (as Kurt said) an hour before his edit at 01:32, 28 July 2008. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several hardblocks, could they be tweaked to anon-only? – xeno  ( talk ) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of carefully applied, anon-only range blocks to help control this level of disruption is fully justified. Volunteer burn-out is a serious issue when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers, and it's dismaying to see those who aren't actually dealing with the sockpuppeter giving back-seat advice on what would actually work to those who are dealing with it. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the options are spend all our time cleaning up after jerks, or just quitting and doing better things with our time, because we can't take serious measures to stop said jerks, I think it's obvious what most people will be doing. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on Rauls experience, and vested nature into the project, I'm inclined to give Raul the benefit here. The rationale sure makes sense.  I apologize Raul.  Continue the work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that people/IPs can request to be unblocked is enough to determine that this did not belong on AN/I, as this is a topic that does not deserve to have anyone waste their time on, let alone should Raul, with his constant dedication and experience here, be questioned in such a strange way. Can't this be closed and killed already? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have the hardblocks been tweaked yet? – xeno  ( talk ) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone is requesting unblock for any of those IPs to create an account, why would it matter? Wikipedia acts preventively, and so far this has been effectively preventive. Your concern seems unwarranted and would not stop the socks from being created. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. Tweaking the blocks to anon-only would stop us having to create a new account and hand it IP block exempt at the same time. – xeno  ( talk ) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. " Then that shows that they are perfectly capable of doing so, and the system works. Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should hand a brand new account an IP block exempt flag? Would be much safer to soften the block. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am being a little confusing - There is a person making sock puppets. He relies on constantly shifting ips and making new accounts on a standard basis, which allows him to use the socks later. The only way to stop this is to stop the ability to create new accounts. It is not IP postings that are a danger, but sock puppet accounts. By having the people have to physical request an unblock to make an account, or permission to make an account, it prevents this automatic account creation to work, or slows down the process. Soft blocking wouldn't achieve this desired affect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only". Thus even if we created an account for them, they wouldn't be able to edit (unless given the IP block exempt flag, something that isn't handed out without a good reason). Now if there is 1) a good reason for those ranges to be hard blocked or 2) an understanding that giving out an IP block exempt flag to edit through these hard blocks, then I guess there's no issue with them being hardblocks. if not, they need to be softened to "anon only". (keep the ACB). – xeno  ( talk ) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only"." Actually, I addressed that above. We are trying to stop socks. Some of them are already created. To slow him down, he would need to request to unblock each. To make new socks, he would need to request to be unblocked. Chances are, he could be caught before he is unblocked. Understand how this is the only way now? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why are only a handful hardblocked? And, should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? P.S. I'd prefer a reply from Raul, as perhaps they are hard blocked for a good reason ( I did notice one of them mentioned it was a whole range of misconfigured web servers that acted as open proxies - is this the case for all of them?) – xeno  ( talk ) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ok, so should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? " Most certainly not. They should be forced to explain some of who they are or other such things to make sure that its not a copy and paste job. Otherwise, it would be just as flimsy as letting him have free access to create. If they are current names, their background needs to be checked to see if there is overlap and a history that connects them to the puppet master. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unblock-auto request comes from hard blocked range. I offer to create them an account, providing my standard boilerplate text which can be seen at User:Xenocidic/misc in the collapsed frequently used wikitext (I stole it from another admin). email comes from someguy at somewebmailhost dot com. "create me an account please". so I create them an account, and hand them IP block exempt? that doesn't seem like a best practice to me. neither does forcing someone to explain some of who they are (what ever happened to anonymity?), just because they happen to be in one of these ranges. and again, I'd prefer a reply from Raul, for reasons mentioned above. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will let Raul answer for himself, and I will have this be my final say on the matter - This happens quite often and is standard procedure when people have their IP and account blocked, and that IP rotates to someone else. It is hard knowing if the new person is actually a new person, or if the previous user is trying to game the system. Such extremes are taken because they are necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These aren't IP blocks, they're IP range blocks. Feel free to reply, I've decided just to ask him directly. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen the ranged blocked for socks. So, yeah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to respond, Raul. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break after raul's reply
You guys are missing the point. It isn't that an ip couldn't request an unblock, it's that an actual new editor, the most valuable resource in all of the lands of the 'pedai we hold so dear, might not know what a template is, or even where the { symbol is on their keybaord. And when they realize they are actually blocked, they're already gone. Beam 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it's turning away new editors. As an editor whose ip (from one of the places I regularly edit from) falls into one of the blocked scibaby ranges, I can attest to the fact that I'm unaffected by the block once I log in.  I'm not aware of what particular disruption scibaby has caused, but I do know that a disruptive sock farmer can cause frustration enough to inspire an exodus of existing volunteers, so it makes sense to take aggressive measures to halt the disruption in order to not lose valuable editors.  There's enough information on the block message that comes up for a potential new editor who hasn't created an account yet to contact the blocking admin to ask for help to proceed--I know there was enough info for me to email Raul the first time I got hit with the scibaby block message just to let him know the block was hitting a regular editor's ip.  I don't see any real negative effects caused by these blocks, especially if it's effective in stopping the disruption. -- M P er el  05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Raul's range blocks, and I want to note for the record that Raymond Arrit isn't the only editor who has been damaged by scibaby. For some strange reason that I have yet to figure out, an administrator named Madman decided to block me for 48 hours for helping to revert the damage caused by one of scibaby's accounts in September 2007.   Madman claimed that I had violated the 3RR (no such violation occurred), was being disruptive (helping to revert SPA is not disruptive), and that I was edit warring (edit warring with a banned user?).  NonvocalScream (then called "Navou") and Nishkid64 supported the block.  It would be nice if administrators would actually do their homework before using the tools.  Blocking the correct account is somewhat important here. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your editing was disruptive, lets not get twisted over 2RR versus 3RR. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was nothing disruptive about reverting a scibaby account in September 2007, and there continues to be nothing disruptive about reverting their edits now. It appears that you don't understand the word "disruptive" as it used on Wikipedia, and I suggest you actually read WP:DISRUPT.  You supported a bad block, and sadly enough, you have not learned from your mistake.  If you are at all interested in correcting your error, you are welcome to take a look at this page and scroll down to 02:31, 25 September 2007 and below.  It's pretty clear who is being disruptive here, and it's not me.  Amazingly, User:Obedium was allowed to continue to edit until  28 November 2007 when he should have been blocked in September.  Instead, you chose to support blocking me. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a ridiculously inappropriate block, I remember that now. All the more reason to be aggressive blocking abusive SPAs.  The collateral damage to a highly productive top 100 editor like Viriditas is case in point that an SPA permitted to run amok is far more damaging to existing editors than an ip block that might possibly discourage a potential new account in the SPA's ip range. -- M P er el  14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me. It doesn't appear the blocks are working, since Raul deems it necessary to continue blocking vast numbers of IP addresses. If Scibaby continues indefinitely, does that mean ranges will continue to be blocked as a consequence, obstructing and potentially deterring other users from participation? Isn't there a certain point at which the collateral damage exceeds what is acceptable in attempting to prevent one person from making easily-reverted POV edits? Also, has semi-protection been tried? Wouldn't that be a much simpler solution? Everyking (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Scibaby creates multiple accounts at staggered intervals, so any attempt at SP results in a sleeper account coming out of the sock drawer. He recently attempted to do this with his last account, and he did it in full view while registered from another account.  This is what sets him apart from other accounts; take a look at some examples where he creates one account after another:, , , , , , , and many more. Take a look at this one where he uses one account to create two.  It's easy to break the the day/edit threshold by creating a new account every x days and making y number of edits.  The solution is to block on sight, and since the modus operandi is obvious (same type of edits, almost no use of talk pages), this should be easy. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul is right; I am in error as to whether he edited. I made that comment on the 27th, but I was thinking it was the 26th (which at the time was also the date of the last edits he had made). I often am one or two days off on the day of the month, so that was an error on my part.

That doesn't change the fact that his method is wholly unjustified. Saying "Unless you're the one dealing with it, don't criticize those who are" is hardly a compelling argument; I do not need to be an NFL quarterback to recognize when Joey Harrington is stinking it up, nor do I need to be a businessman to recognize when a company is going under. The "collateral damage" caused by Raul's actions is, in my view, an unacceptable tradeoff. It's as simple as that. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know how much collateral damage these blocks are creating, nor do you have any idea how effective they are at preventing Scibaby from creating new accounts. You are simply taking wild guesses based on no evidence or understanding of the problem whatsoever (which is what the arbcom sanctioned Everyking for, now that I think about it). Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmph. If people were prohibited from commenting at AN/I just because they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, you could hear a pin drop in this mofo. MastCell Talk 05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If Kurt Weber has an alternative solution, I would like to hear it. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why present alternative solutions when it's so much easier to say "Let's give up and let Scibaby do what he wants." It doesn't require learning anything about the problem (something that neither Spartan nor Kurt thought necessary before commenting here). Better yet, one can blather on about it while not doing any useful work (Kurt's specialty). Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That some people understand how to get around these blocks for good purposes does not mean that everybody does. The need to be accessible to newbies is at the very heart of WPs survival and growth. Raul, didn't you say above that even the current blocks weren't being effective? If so, why leave them up? DGG (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said the blocks are half-effective - they don't prevent him entirely from editing Wikipedia, but they have had a demonstrable effect of slowing him down. He used to have dozens of outstanding sockpuppets at any given moment; now he has far fewer and they don't last nearly as long. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You, frankly, have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I have no evidence behind my claims. Frankly, I submit that I'm vastly more informed about this issue than you are.  And I find it ironic that you claim I do no "useful work", when I have done much more for Wikipedia than you ever have or ever will.  "Not doing any useful work"...ha!  Do you know anything about what I do here?  Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion (you won't, since it's blatantly false, as a quick check will show).  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I still agree that we may be doing more damage than good with these rangeblocks. A few people manage to figure out how to throw up unblock templates, and I regrettably have to decline them, instead offering to create them an account, but rarely ever receive that email from them. Potential contributors, lost forever? There must be another way. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, where can you post something on the internet (say a forum, on a blog, etc.) without at least giving your email address, or, more typically, by registering? I know of very few sites where you can still do this. What maters is that everyone who is really motivated to participate in editing won't find it too cumbersome to get an account here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if you were going to once again accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about. I see you opted to do so indirectly. Everyking (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I see it, we have two solutions: end the range blocks, and effectively make it impossible to prevent the socks from being created, which makes the blocking policy a complete laughing stock, or keep the blocks in place and potentially alienate new people while needing to burn more IPs in order to prevent this sock from acting in the way he is doing. Either way, the options suck. However, partisans are becoming far too much of that and forgetting that the blocks are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. What doesn't help the encyclopedia is this bitter fighting. Can we please tone down the language? Everyone here wants to help the encyclopedia, and Scibaby is winning if admin are busy fighting amongst themselves. Thats exactly what he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this problem is limited to the few global warming related pages, we could think about being selective in this respect. Is it possible to automatically block newly created accounts from certain IP ranges to contribute to a small list of articles? Count Iblis (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny You bring this topic up. I've been recently editing a discussion panel of Climate change denial article and within hours someone tagged me as "a possible scibaby sockpuppet". Soon users KimDabelsteinPetersen and William M. Connolley deleted my comment on this ground. It was titled "this article could become neutral".
 * That's why I have an impression that the tagging system is seriously corrupted and abused for purposes other than original.
 * After I contacted them on their talkpages to make things clear, Kim changed strategy. Then he claimed that my edit in a discussion panel includes private opinion which makes it irrevelant soapbox and he deleted it again. So I've found a few sources and reverted my thread back thinking now everything was going to be OK. But I was wrong. Kim's friend Aunt Entropy deleted my comment again without any explaination. I asked why did he/she do that on users talkpage but he/she simply deleted it!


 * Please someone tell me how can I check who tagged me and how can I become untagged78.131.137.50 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)