This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - ... (up to 100) |
Would you kindly revert the blanket ban you have put on IP addresses of the form 79.73.XX.XX? My own falls under that form, and I don't see why I have been banned from editing Wikipedia until February. Many thanks. Uncantabrigian ( talk) 10:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Indeed I can edit, and I understand how blocking works for vandalism; I am just curious as to why a blanket ban is put on IP addresses which would have no relation to whoever may have been vandalising. Uncantabrigian ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Avi, Several people came to the page and asserted their points of view, myself included. I commented last, but no one answere my coments. This cannot produce a concensus. Is there a procedure? Historicist ( talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
User talk:79.73.105.166 is requesting an unblock. I'm obviously inclined to decline, given your block reason, but hoped you could tell me who the master is, since edits to the IP talkpage indicate a potentially positive contributor. Not bugging you (hopefully) but just want to make an informed decision. Cheers Fritzpoll ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
149.254.192.221 ( talk · contribs) is requesting unblock. This appears to be related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bruce99999, [1] but that's about as much as I know at this point. -- El on ka 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone immediately deleted the article "Uli Kozok" that I wrote created earlier today for lack of notability. I think that this was an improper deletion and that I can easily add the required indicators. (The subject is a German scholar of Indonesian languages sufficiently prominent as to have an article in the Indonesian wikipedia, which I translated and augmented.) I would appreciate a copy of the text to revise. Thanks. Bill ( talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 you blocked the IP range which my computer is within, completely preventing me from editing Wikipedia from home. I am a very frequent, good editor who has used the same computer to edit Wikipedia since July. I am not guilty of abusing multiple accounts, which is the reason you gave for blocking the range for six months. I have never had my account blocked, and I am sending this message from my account, but from an Internet cafe. Please modify the block you imposed, so that I am still able to use my account within the currently blocked range. I am the only person who edits Wikipedia from my computer; I am always signed in when I edit, I have never edited from just an IP number. Could you please exempt my account from the relevant IP range ban, as soon as possible - thanks. Werdnawerdna ( talk) 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing me to use my account to edit Wikipedia despite the block. I have never used proxies of any kind; I don't even know how to. I don't do anything disruptive, nor will I - all of the (over 3,000) edits I have made have been in order to improve articles. I have made some minor beginner's mistakes, which have been corrected, but I'm not guilty of any sock puppetry or of changing IP, which I also do not know how to do. All my edits are listed on my account, which should make it possible to prove it is not me that is doing whatever caused you to impose the block. Werdnawerdna ( talk) 00:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The ref at Ari Emanuel is broken as well. I would fix it myself but I can't figure out from the diffs what exactly you did. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: See this comment. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Gaby_de_wilde If you don't mind, there's one more account that should be checked... thanks! Guyonthesubway ( talk) 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Who, how many, names not prevarication pleas. What are you doing with the information. Who was the banned user you thought Lady C was? Giano ( talk) 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Saxsux is requesting an unblock for one of your checkuser rangeblocks. Would you mind taking a look to see if it's a problem for IPBE? Looks like he's been around for a while. Thanks! Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For reference, the rangeblock is 149.254.192.192/26. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for sorting that out - I really appreciate it. :) -- saxsux ( talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your response to me on Giano's page (not wishing to hog his talk page): In my opinion the problem was not that any CU policies had been violated (indeed, reading the policy makes it clear very little in the way of concrete policy exists as regards CU), but that the policy and associated pages gave the impression that the policies had been violated. The wording on those pages conveyed an idea of CU as a last resort; one that was applicable in only a very small number of cases; and one where CheckUsers would rigorously question whether a check was justified, whereas in reality it is often the principal method, its field of use is much wider, and little in the way of justification seems necessary. This disconnect between the theory and practise benefits neither the CheckUsers nor the non-CheckUsers, so I have made a start in rewording the pages to remove the misleading sections. My preference would be for the use of CheckUser to be governed more strictly, but, as it is, altering the policy pages to reflect the current practice is preferable to leaving them in a state where non-CheckUsers believe their rights to be greater than they are and CheckUsers are open to charges of misuse of the tool. Yomangani talk 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this case? Thanks, Enigma message 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you please run a limited, quick checkuser on user Goss9900? According to his user talk page, he writes "I just looked up my IP. It is 12.176.20.xxx and my IP locator puts it as Maryland. I am close to Washington, DC". That user was subsequently blocked. I am doing some research about Wikipedia. Specifically, the accuracy of are peoples' claims and to tabulate the frequency of ISP's used versus ISP's of IP editors. This should be a permitted checkuser request because the user, themself, is making an IP claim.
The question to you is even more general; Was Goss9900 editing from Maryland? It's up to you to confirm or not to comment if he was editing from 12.176.20.xxx.
If you wish, I shall inform you of the results of my research. It is intended to help Wikipedia. I have also gathered some information about IP users and will give you the conclusions of the research. My theory is that certain ISP's are more prone to trouble than others. I also have theories of location but I won't bias you by mentioning them. This specific editor is of interest because of ties to other users which make the research scientifically valid (a single user with no links has no value in my research project (Note: I corresponded with you as Uni111 and clearly noted it on my user page. I had to change names because an administrator was acting threatening but, as I said, I clearly noted it on my current user page of the Uni111 identity.) BBC5 ( talk) 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(<-)So file a WP:RFCU and bring your evidence there. -- Avi ( talk) 05:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you anyway but I will not ask for a RFCU because if someone blocks me claiming that I am Goss9900, even though I am thousands of miles away, you will not unblock me. No thanks, I'll mind my own business and let that other sock continue to edit. BBC5 ( talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was ok because I did not reveal the sockpuppetmaster's real name. I won't do it again.
It might be necessary to oversight that post as it was easy for me (out of shear curiosity and boredom) find the person that was being described. It essentially was the person's bio verbatim from the station website. An oversight is probably an order as that is about as close to outing as you will get. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 21, 2008 @ 07:12
I think CRBLEEB, whom you blocked, is also a sock of Seattlehawk94 based on my investigation. If you're curious, you could do a quick checkuser to confirm this but you don't need to. (it would prove that my investigative ability is good) I already am confident that I am right. So you may, at your option, list CRBLEEB as Seattlehawk94's sock. UN111 ( talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Viv Hamilton has been caught in a hard-rangeblock made by you. He has been around since February 2006. I came that close to giving him IPBE before consulting you, but... ehh I just couldn't do it. Too much messing around for my liking. Can you take a look? Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently we've got another user caught in your rangeblock of that Tiscali range--see here. Any chance this can be taken care of? Blueboy 96 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
He's caught in a rangeblock of yours and requests unblock. Could you take a look? Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)