User talk:Gator1/Archives/March and April 2006

No, I had no doubts. My pastoral training teaches me to do a self-exam (especially on Ash Wednesday!) when in conflict with others. An objective review from time to time never hurts. Especially from an admin. --CTSWyneken 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have enough experience to know that making legal threats here is a no no. I agree that it was a personal attack (a form of vandalism) and have placed the appropriate warning on his talk page. But please do not make any more legal threats (although I can understand the desire to with this guy). Keep up the good work!Gator (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not ;) Seriously, though, thank you :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take action as an admin and go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people. I`d appreciate it if you can look into this.Zmmz 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was very sensible! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go along for the sake of peace, but at this point I don't know how many others are willing to do so. To me, it looks like rams banging their heads together. Arch O. La 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. Darn! I thought I'd get in the first stability revert! --CTSWyneken 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support vote in my recent RfA. It ended (22/11/8) without consensus. Please keep me in mind next time I'm up. --Christopherlin 16:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop a quick note — nothing fancy! — to say thanks for your vote of confidence in my recent request for adminship. As you might have noticed it was unsuccessful; most objections related to my lack of experience. While I disagree that nearly 4000 edits, whether spread over two months or ten, constitutes a lack of experience, I respect the vote and will try again at a later date. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to help out in the meantime as much as I could with admin access, but again I appreciate your support and hope I'll have it the next time I am nominated. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll load up some photos as soon as I get a chance. We also used to have guinea pigs (4 at one point) but sadly our last one died a couple of month ago aged 5 1/2. I have seen your photos - your rabbit looks quite a character!

The TCF does have a sense of humor (check out our synthesized joke), but we are serious about working from the center. Frankly, the TCF formed when I realized that CTSWyneken's conversation with Jim62sch was similar to my earlier converstaton with SOPHIA.

TCF 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

find this out?Gator (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to http://www.arin.net/ and type in the IP address.  :) Monkeyman^(talk) 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already been blocked under his username for two weeks. He uses a shared university IP. He needs to learn that bullying will get him nowehere with us. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cameronian has left Wikipedia. Kd4ttc 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...to congratulate you on your soon-to-be adminship, and the unanimity surrounding it! It's a good thing, too, as I've felt guilty ever since the last RfA! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That question and, i am supporting you for your admin, i like your contribs.--

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

95 and counting...way to go dude!--MONGO 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

98....--MONGO 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100...--MONGO 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

105...enough already!!! Thats almost double the number I had and there was a lot of opposition to me...what kind of deal is this???!!!--MONGO 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also starting to get envious. ;) Congratulations, though. —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the intervening months since our ill-fated meeting during the peak of the BigDaddy attacks, you've really done some good work - putting in a lot of commitment to some pretty onerous tasks. You seem to keep a good balance of 'detail' and 'perspective'. I really respect that and I think you'll make a great admin. :)

Keep up the good work, and I'll see you around the watering hole from time to time. Be well, and buona fortuna! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my friend. I normally consider 99% of edit summaries to be boring unnecessary bullshit, so I've been trying to jazz it up a bit every now and then.

Unfortunately, I think i'm a darker horse than you(my local paper is now saying I "was" a candidate[1]), but that's ok, this is just practice for a bigger election for me in November. Hopefully we can find some more wiki-politicians and start our own party!

Congratulations on

Looks like I've been beaten to it! Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with an almost unknown level of support! If you haven't already, now is the time to read the

Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or enquire at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All the best, Warofdreams talk 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

108/0/1....what the heck???!!! This can't be right...I demand a recount...I mean...the Wikipedia servers are in Florida...and we all know how much to trust the voting system there!--MONGO 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! --Syrthiss 12:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this! Good luck for the future! --

Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Congrats! And Happy St. Patrick's Day! Hope to work with you in the future. --

Hanlon's Razor 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A belated congratulations! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to grab the one I did that you left on my talk page as the first one had a redlined link for

Saw that, sorry.--MONGO 13:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you were looking for feedback on the your move of the Sam Houston page. I'm not convinced that is the most efficient move for the encyclopedia. First, about 99% of the people looking for a "Sam Houston" are going to be looking for the Texas version. A disambiguation link at the top of the existing page would probably have sufficed (i.e. the "this page is about the Texas historical figure, if you're looking for the Maine figue, see XXX".

Second, there are about 200 links to Texas personage that now need to be fixed since they point to a branch page.

Thoughts? Kuru ^talk 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twas a joke - have you read the message on his talk page? It tells us not to bother to leave messages as he's on a break. I'll go back and clarify my point - he'll know it's a joke as we are still in e-mail contact.

It's more for the purpose of trying to stop my perdsonal stalker from leaving messages.... though, from his talk page, it seems he's still busily following my every online action (and some that aren't by me but he thinks they are). Oh well! Robsteadman 13:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a new admin, and I noticed you blocked User:WegianWarrior for a 3RR onAnti-Masonry. Did you fail to notice that he was reverting User:40 Days of Lent who also had 4+ reverts, and who is almost assuredly a sockpuppet of a user banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ruling of ArbCom? See 40 Days of Lent's user page for details. In short, I think you stepped into a situation you knew nothing about, and as a result made a bad decision, which I think you need to revisit. MSJapan 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've looked further into it, the edits are clear for both parties, so if you're going to block one for 3RR, you should have blocked the other. MSJapan 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revisit supported. I can understand being strict with WegianWarrior for 3RR, even he admits to the reverts. However, correcting vandalism is not against 3RR. The problem is that the vandalism in this case is carefully hidden in the trappings of a content dispute. Please take a look at the history of Freemasonry, then look at the history on talk:Freemasonry, then look through the archives. This particular vandal has posted the same material over and over and over again, using different socks. The other editors on the page have explained multiple times why his additions are not acceptable. However, the vandal has a POV agenda, and will not listen to reason or concensus. Each time, he eventually gets proven to be a sock and is blocked indeffinitely. A few weeks later he is back with a new name, and posts the material yet again. He knows the other editors will object, but he does it anyway. How long must it be before what he posts can be considered vandalism? Blueboar 15:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked

♥♥♥♥ 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup that makes sense, thanks for the better eye on the matter.Gator (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears gator simply saw the 3RR report and did the block according to the diffs. That WegianWarrior is probably well aware of the rule due to long edit history, there is no reason to expect that he should be warned. It is a bit much to ask that admins know what is going on in 1 million articles as far as NPOV and vandalism. The 3RR report appears to be accurate. WegianWarrior should report vandalism, if that is what he was reverting, to vandalism in progress page or at AN/I...but the reverts I see appear to be just content disputes, not vandalism in any real sense.--MONGO 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice

St Patrick's Day

!

Computerjoe's talk 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, First of all congratulations for becoming an Admin. I just looked at the recent admin list and I saw that you passed and you have "B.A history and political science". I would like to invite you to comment on this matter posted here and maybe comment?

I hope its not too big of a challenge for you!

All the best --Kash 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this responsibility. I feel that you will be a good admin and good luck for the future. --

Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 14:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the best. --Bhadani 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congrats, been gone a while, but would have supported this time. looks like you didn't exactly need my vote anyway :) i really am impressed, after your baptism by fire. and my apologies for not being more patient when you were a newbie.

Derex 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

]

My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Gator1, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my

e Ong 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Swedenman

Hi! You blocked User:Swedenman for 1 week, but 4 minutes later User:Fred chessplayer blocked him for 24 hours, see [2]. Is Swedenman blocked for 1 week or only for 24 hours? Probert 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I've been away for a long time, but if I had been around I would have given you a vote of support on your RfA... congratulations and I believe Wikipedia will be a better place with you as an admin. --kizzle 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Acca

Howdy! Regarding your use of deletedpage, I notice that you didn't protect it afterwards. I most often see it used in conjunction with protection, and if you had a moment to let me know why you didn't, that'd be super. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Hey! Congratulations on the RFA. I'm sorry I missed it (don't patrol that page as often as I ought to). At any rate, have fun, but don't be afraid to ask for help -- it's not easy being an administrator, particularly when pushing a button usually results in a target being painted on your backside. Don't hesitate to come to me if you find yourself with questions. Best · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codesgroup

Excuse me, but how did

WP:CSD#A7? Henning Makholm 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup, you're right. I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.Gator (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WillaimWestchester

WillaimWestchester has posted a whole bunch of lists of quotes relevant to U.S. History. I've tagged them all (so far) with {{

Move to Wikiquote}}, except American History Primary Sources Origins of the Civil War. Could you please undelete it so that we can deal with the series as a group? Melchoir 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! Melchoir 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks Gator1/Archives/March and April 2006

Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores ^Talk 07:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun

Thanks very much... semiprotection is making us all breathe easier (maybe it should be standard for the current MP each day?) zowie 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

BIHP did it again, at 4:16 he vandalised Mayberry Mall Dolive21 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him Dolive21 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ushant

Hi

You recently deleted two articles -- Battle of Ushant (1778) and Battle of Ushant (1781). You say this is 'temp delete to merge' them, though not what to.

It would be good if you could either put them back or at least be a little more explicit what you are trying to do.

I can't see what you would merge either of them into as both are discrete events. I'm assuming that you don't intend to merge them into each other, as the two battles are completely unrelated, beyond the coincidence of taking place within a few hundred miles of the same French island.

Neither of the two articles was great, but they were better than nothing and a large series of broken links which is what we now have.

Best regards,

JimmyTheOne 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Myers posted the speedy delete template as part of a merge. Feel free to talk to him about this and if you need me to help sort it out, I'll be glad to help.Gator (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the speedy response. I've taken it up with him. It's disconcerting when decent articles suddenly disappear. JimmyTheOne 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I put up

(complaint dept.) 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. I apologize for any confusion.Gator (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are now admin...

COuld you please do soemthing about Str1977 who seems to be out of control with reverts on

Jesus Myth. 3RR has been broken and the edits themselves, are largely vandalism - this is only 5 days since he received a warning about 3RR from another admin. Time to act, methinks. Robsteadman 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Make Post Where?

SirIsaacBrock 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, in regards to this report[3] and your sugesstion; please know the user did it again today (sigh)[4] Zmmz 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I'm very patient and lenieniant towards vandals, so, you might want to unblock ABC so that my hour long block is overidden... --HappyCamper 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Admin Sir!

Hi Gator - I think things have gone far enough and we need outside help with the Christiarnity/Jesus/Historical etc articles. The same old arguments are coming round time and again and even though I have read RfC's can be painful I think it maybe worth it in the long run as we can hash out what the real areas of dispute are and build up a reference work to get newbies on the page to read so as to get up to speed. Maybe it will come to nothing but I think all the threats to RfC need to be given a forum so we can pin them down and move on.

The main isssues seem to be how to deal with minority views and the authority of scholarship used as references on the pages. There is way too much reverting when just a simple edit of the phrase would bring it into NPOV. It seems to be the reflex reaction of some editors when faced with something they don't like and has set a trend which gets out of hand and leads to edit wars/bans/blocked articles. A neutral area with neutral referees and everyone having to quantify what they mean as opposed to referring to the nebulous "they" all the time will hopefully clear the air.

The point is I have no idea how to do this properly - I've asked Ann but she has a message on her talk page saying she's busy so the next admin that came to mind was you! You didn't think you'd got my vote for nothing did you!! Can you point me in the right direction and help me get it formatted correctly so we can start on this process and hopefully bring some calm to the articles. Thanks.

TCF 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks - I'll start reading through that later. I'm hoping as I'm going for an article RfC it will avoid personal comments as much as possible - ever the idealist! All I'm interested in is pulling all the axes out to grind them all at once and see what independent editors make of us sad lot! I may request further help with the "making it up" approach!

TCF 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Karatekid7

He blanked his usertalk page again [5], and you said you'd perm block. Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

thanks for cleanup help

hi gator,

thanks for helping to expunge the warning notices from my modified "subtelomere" entry!

Lesotho 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 198.111.237.8 block

Three months seems appropriate, I could find little other than vandalism in that IPs history. Thanks for cleaning up the double-block :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Malik McMahon

Sorry about deleting those earlier warnings. I saw the big blob of fake biography, and just emptied it all out without looking if there were warnings underneath. tv316 20:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal blocking

Not a problem — I agree that two "final warnings" is redundant, I just didn't feel like stepping on SteveO's toes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NTF

Thanks for the note. I had already given a 1 month block to another IP # he was using. The guy has apparently been permanently banned from many other yoga related sites, as well. --Fire Star 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

I want to requesta page on the Toledo Zoo, but the article request page is very extensive and I am having trouble figuring out what category I should put it under. A little help would be appreciated! Thiggy 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Would you mind blocking

There's also a WP:AN/I listing if you're interested in the other IP. ~ PseudoSudo 00:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think you forgot to lay the actual block. No sweat. ~ PseudoSudo 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a page without discussing this with the author, please see Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, You cannot simple delete something because you disagree with it!! Ethnopunk 10:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 17 March 2006

hi gator. in not sure if you are aware of the ensuing conversation from your post, here it is:

Fair enough, but not every town in Ireland has a GAA club, its not spread out that simply. Take Cork for example: http://www.gaa.ie/page/cork.html There is a few Town Name GAA Club's, but there is also more like: Na Piarsaigh and St. Vincents. Maybe the page would be good to list all the clubs or just create a page as needed for each club. Ablaze 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ablaze, thanks for the hunting down of gator! I see his point or though I dont really agree that its just a list of places in Ireland. You are right that there are many clubs without links to a specific town or parish. Also in my own area there are parishes with more than own club e.g Dripsey football club is in inniscarra parish which also has a team of its own. I guess the hope is that people would supply the links to the clubs. There are a great many out there. That would make it an interesting page. Thanks again for your time.Eleutherius 21:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Getor and see if he can see your point. Else you can put it to the Irish Wikipedians' and see what their view is. I agree with you, it would be a good reference for for the GAA Ablaze 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darranc"

I am wondering if these can arguments to persuade you to revert the deletion? At the very least I would suggest that it could be back for a period of time ( say six months) to see if it could mature. There is a great possibility within it as a resource of websites and also it does seem that the list of gaa clubs in ireland would be and is quite distinct from a list of towns/villages/parishes in ireland. Eleutherius 11:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for blocking the anonymous IP that was vandalizing the James Blunt article. I agree with you that this one warranted a block. He was not only a persistent vandal despite warnings, but also likely in violation of 3RR. A 24 hour block seems very appropriate. And I really appreciate the message on my talk page. Thanks, glad you're here helping keep Wikipedia in shape. Best, Gwernol 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Hi, Gator. When two administrators block simultaneously, or one after the other, as has just happened the more lenient block is the one that "takes". If you want to unblock and then re-block, feel free. I won't feel I've been undermined! I tend to be more strict about vandalism than about 3RR violations anyway. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reinstating the block. I will definitely pursue this further, as well as attempt to establish communication with the respective county council. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I received an e-mail about your block of the above address. The e-mail noted that your "e-mail this user" function has been disabled, so there is no way for the university's sys-admins to get in touch with you to work out the problem as your blocking message advised them to do. Given that your block was for three months, I have to assume that there was some rather large problem with edits from that IP that aren't obvious to me from looking at the contribs. Would you mind letting me know when your e-mail is enabled so I can let the effected party know? Jkelly 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not necessary since they're no longer editing the article. The IP had not hopped. It doesn't need protection until they do. -Splash^talk 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understnad. You say the IP was not blockable, but appear to have blocked it. There's no need to both block and protect. Also, it's perfectly fine to block a dynamic IP. If you feel things are so critical at that article (after, what, 3 reverts?) that it needs locking up, then do remember to lift it in a day or so. -Splash^talk 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I think it's wrong, I can and should reverse it. I frequently clean out

CAT:SEMI anyway, so if it's there next time I do so, don't be offended if I lift it. -Splash^talk 19:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

But on the other point: why do you say that a dynamic IP is not blockable (you blocked it)? -Splash^talk 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -Splash^talk 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's just a hint of wanting to sort of own the protection. Admin actions aren't 'ownable' like some articles are (and I don't mean it in the

Your welcome, I always appreciate it when a friendly wikipedian thanks his fellow support voter and also congratulations on becoming an admin, hopefully I'll see you around and good luck in the future. -- Patman2648 20:09 28 March 2006

Gator, I agree with your ban of the Phaistos troll for the threat of harassment. However, you should not put long blocks on dynamic IPs: Any person in Luxemburgh may run into these blocks any time, and the banned user will just get another IP from the ISP's 13 bit range the next time he connects. With logged-out users, there is no technical way to block them once and for all, you just have to pronounce them banned, which will allow anyone to roll back their edits without regard to content or 3RR. See also

Hi, Gator, you may want to check out our anon friend's veriety of edit warfare/trolling [6] and the way in which he attacks me [7]. --Latinus 11:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, don't forget my point about lifting the 6 months' bans on the dynamic IPs, you were not in the right there ;)

dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree they don't do much damage; we appear not to have many editors from Luxemburgh. But they have just as little effect, since grapheus gets an IP from a pool of some 8,000 every time he connects -- making the chance for him to run into your block about 1 in 2,000. It doesn't make sense. Either you decide the ISP can be blocked, and block the full 13 bit range, or you decide that it shouldn't, and don't. It makes no sense to block the IPs that grapheus happened to have used in the past.

dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I see; you'd need to block 80.90.32.0/19: this is a range-block of 13 bits (19+13=32, the numbers of bits in an IP), meaning, every IP from 80.90.32.0 to 80.90.63.255 is blocked. Mind you, I don't recommend that you do this; this will block all of vo.lu (and possibly other Luxemburghian ISPs). The block will certainly prevent grapheus from editing, but if you try it, you should try a short block first (a day or two) and see if you get any complaints. An intermediate approach would be to slap 8-bit blocks on every IP he uses, i.e. block 80.90.38.0/24 if you see him using 80.90.38.243 etc. This way, he'll use up his IPs 256 times faster than if you block single IPs, and you still don't run quite the same risk of collateral damage. regards,

dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

come again? 'set up' what precisely?

dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

what did you do to get that message? I just blocked 80.90.38.0/24 without bother [8]. The message you get asks you to configure the mediawiki installation, something only developers will be able to do, but I don't see it when doing a rangeblock.

dab (ᛏ) 14:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

yes; you just blocked half a country for trolling on Phaistos disk. I do not recommend this. People will shout at you. However, you can always undo it as the complaints come in, just be sure you can be reached via wikipedia email. See also [9].

dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

see the discussion immediately above your post :)

dab (ᛏ) 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

 Search results for: 80.90.32.0

NetRange: 80.0.0.0 - 80.255.255.255 CIDR: 80.0.0.0/8 NetName: 80-RIPE NetHandle: NET-80-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType: Allocated to RIPE NCC NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET NameServer: NS3.NIC.FR NameServer: SUNIC.SUNET.SE NameServer: NS-EXT.ISC.ORG NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET Comment: These addresses have been further assigned to users in Comment: the RIPE NCC region. Contact information can be found in Comment: the RIPE database at http://www.ripe.net/whois RegDate: Updated: 2005-07-27

1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-03-28 19:10
2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

ok the following range block *should* hit them on this range - 80.90.32.0 - 80.90.39.255

it is a 80.90.32.0/21

you there is then 3 ips left in the range, but going up to the next step is encrocahing on other isps ip allocation blocks

regards

You come across a bit garbled, Benon, but I agree that 80.90.32.0/21 would be a good block too; how about lifting the /19 block and doing that /21 block instead, Gator1?

dab (ᛏ) 15:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Gator1! Congratulations on your rectent RfA success. I only have time for a brief note, but I un-blocked the IP address of User:198.20.32.254 as it belongs to a large education center in London, Ontario. They have a substantially sized business program and I would estimate 20 - 30 separate computer labs serving perhaps 2500 students. Perhaps if you see persistent vandalism occuring from this address in a short period of time, some shorter blocks to discourage the vandal might be necessary. I'll be putting that IP on my watchlist as well. Good luck, and feel free to leave me a note to discuss this if you'd like. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply concerning the post I left above. If the IP address is indeed shared by the entire TVDSB, then it is serving literally hundreds of separate computer labs and tens of thousands of users. While it may seem that only bad things eminate from such IP's, let me assure you there are many useful editors who may wish to access the project, myslef among them. As I suggested earlier, it may be that short blocks will discourage the immediate vandalism in that most students are only going to have limited access to Wikipedia, at sporadic intervals throughout the day. Further, there is a "suspected sock" template at the user page for this IP address, and in light of the information that we are now currently in posesstion of, it is more likely that rather than one bad editor useing sockpuppets, there is a better chance that the suspect socks are actually multiple users. I make this assumption without having closely checked the contribs that have eminated from the school IP. Since I will be using these computer labs to work on WP while I am in classes during the day I'll keep one eye open for anybody who may be engageing in vandalistic edits. Once again, my thanks and best regards. Hamster Sandwich 17:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you indefinitely block this user? It's true that he came off a single 3RR block and started inserting the same type of material, but an immediate indef block is too harsh I think. He should've been blocked for a longer time period, then if he started back again reevaluate. Will you please reconsider this indef block? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log shows blocks for one incident; they appear to be several because both I and R. Koot blocked him for the same 3RR, then R. Koot rescinded and reapplied his blocks when he changed his mind about the time period for which the block should occur. This is all over the same incident. An indef block is way too harsh, and while I appreciate your willingness to have your decision reversed, that you don't see how this was a hasty action worries me a little. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you read my response on my talk page. Just in case, I'll post it here too. I don't wish to block Swedenman for longer periods of time; I'm still hoping for him to improve his manners, because I don't think he realizes he behaves malicious (There's several people who disagree with my assessment though).

But anyways, I'm fine with a 1-week block at the time. But I don't want to block him myself all the time, for the reasons mentioned on the ANB/I.

Fred-Chess 14:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that, but thanks for confirming. Just let me know.Gator (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gator: Would you put the semiprotect template on the Jesus article page? Newcomers may wonder what's happening otherwise. Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to help a newbie admin. Who knows? I may be there someday. 8-) --CTSWyneken 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to block indefinitely, but saw that you had given a last chance. You're obviously better at

Cheers, AnnH ♫ 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to Hall's requests while he is away for the month. For documentation of the vandalism claim see this. I randomly picked edits and found all of them to be vandalism. The block log also reveals a LONG pattern of vandalism from this IP. You cannot expect wikipedia to put up with 99% vandalims when 1% of the edits may be legit. The best course of action to take here is to have your system administrator cotnact me and see if there is something we can do to eliminate or greatly reduce the vandalism, yet allow for editing from good users. It is your fellow students who have done this to you, and no onee lse. All blame needs to be put squarely on their shoulders.

In the meantime, you are still able to use the site for education and research but you just can't edit from this one IP. Feel free to use other computers you may have access to. Until then, best regards.Gator (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not attacked or blamed anyone, as you can see clearly in my request. I was quite polite, I thought. Anyway, that's not what I was asking. As a contributor to Wikipedia, an RC Patroller and a member of the CVU, I know quite well that the chances of the block being limited are zilch, but that's not my request. I was wondering where the claim, "This address is blocked per request of the service provider" came from. I do challenge this request. I respect Hall Monitor very much, but even he can't make these claims without some sort of documentation. Thanks. --Tony^St 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob will have to give you the details but I've been on the TES website and seen them following our every move - gloating over Rob's blocks etc. The last post by the Count of the saxon shore was pretty virulent - quite worrying really - I'm glad you've given him time to cool down. Pansy Brandybuck AKA