This sounds like a personality conflict between two Wikipedians who can't
communicate their feelings in a friendly manner. I don't know the parties
involved BUT I know for SURE that the Wikipedia community as a whole is blameless. I
suggest that the individuals settle their differences privately and leave the
rest of us OUT of it.
Oops, seems like the forwarded message didn't get sent by the system. Here
From: JackSarfatti <sarfatti AT pacbell DOT net>
To: Flcelloguy <---->
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:23:58 GMT
I am starting legal action against Wiki this Monday with IRS
Attorney General & Registry of Charitable Trusts in Florida to
have tax exemption of Wiki removed because it is a vehicle for
domestic terrorists (invoke Patriot Act). I consider Chris Hillman such a
terrorist. At this point it will be up to FBI et-al to decide that. His
repeated vicious smearing of me at this particular moment in time suggests
he is a terrorist because of other stuff happening with me right now you
are, I assume, not involved with. Rita may delay me a few days if Florida is
Reply to sarfatti(a)pacbell.net directly
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Sean Barrett wrote:
> Oh, you can be sure that Florida will be hit hard. We terrorists have
> no qualms about taking out an entire state to silence a person as
> important as Mr. Sarfatti, whose consideration is all that is necessary
> to determine that someone is a domesticated terrorist.
> Crank up the Hurricane Machine, Eager Young Mindless Follower!
> What? The servers are /where/? Dammit! Shut it down! Shut it down
> NOW! We can't wipe out Florida, the Cabal won't like it!
I've been involved in a dispute with Taxman and others about posting any
links to articles on the OmniNerd domain. I have been blocked twice
concerning the issue and finally agreed with Taxman to follow his OmniNerd
gag order, meaning I can't even suggest an OmniNerd article be listed in a
WP article as an external link - no matter how the suggestion is worded.
After my block expired, I made some significant edits to WP pages (not
OmniNerd related) and also decided to put some effort into my user page
(Uriah923). I noticed that other users - even an admin, Jmabel - included
links to writings they had online. I did the same. Taxman then erased the
links and blocked me again because the articles I've written are on
If Taxman and others don't want OmniNerd mentioned in WP articles because it
is not "worthy", so be it. But, preventing me from listing the articles I've
written on my own user page is going too far. The articles listed there do
not have to be worthy of an encyclopedia article reference, or even of an
external link - they are just listed because I wrote them. Having the links
on my page might affect the PR of the articles, but if this alone is enough
to erase them then any external link on anyone else's user page needs to be
deleted also - and we all know that's just silly.
So, I hope someone who reads this will be able to look at the case and
recognize the abuse. My recent edits (since the gag-order agreement) have
been constructive and I plan on doing many more of them. I see nothing wrong
with having links to external articles I've personally written on my user
page as I do so.
It seems that a user on Wikipedia named Kelly Martin decided to delete a
page I had put up as a subpage of my Wikipedia page and the talk page of
that page. Also, an additional user deleted a couple images I uploaded.
I have no idea what the current rules of Wikipedia are, and whether or not
an admin has the authority to do such a thing, but I really don't care about
that. What I care about is that I don't have a copy of this content and I'd
really like to get it back. Can someone please send me a copy of this via
email or temporarily undelete these items?
Does our software automatically block users by IP - when their only
crime is to share an IP address with a vandal?
It should be possible for a trusted user (like me for example! ;-) to
log in from a banned IP range - as long as I can prove it's really me by
typing in my secret password.
Should we talk to the development team about this?
> >Jayjg set an IP block on this range for one month, which I
> think was a
> >huge mistake since it appears to be a dialup pool and a lot
> of people
> >were affected. I didn't find out about it until a few hours
> before the
> >block expired though, or I would have reversed it. Sorry about the
> >- Ryan
> Ryan, how would you suggest dealing with a banned user who
> has, in the 6
> months since his ban, been continually coming back to Wikipedia and
> disruptively editing using almost 50 different sockpuppets
> (some extremely
> sophisticated) and almost 20 different IP addresses? I refer you to
> [[User:Jayjg/Alberuni]] for more detail.
I don't do much editing. Occasional spelling corrections and a few
entries on talk pages and what have you. However, a few weeks ago I
found out that I was blocked. This means that not only can't I edit
articles but I can't take part in discussions on talk pages, make
suggestions on the village pump, or even edit my own user page. What
did I do wrong? Absolutely nothing.
It seems that my entire dialup range was banned because of one
butthead called Alberuni who likes to evade bans by creating sock
puppet accounts and apparently the only way to deal with this loser is
by banning any IP address he has access to which also happens to be
any IP address I have access to since we both seem to either share the
same ISP or he uses another ISP that uses the same Level3 Rent-a-pop.
I contacted Jayjg who placed the ban and he unbanned what was then my
current IP address but this only lasted until I hung up. The next time
I connected to the net, I was banned again.
Here's the ban in question...
# 20:32, 26 August 2005, Jayjg blocked 22.214.171.124/19 (expires 20:32,
26 September 2005) (contribs) (massive vandalism from this range from
banned User:Alberuni; we apologise for the inconvenience)
Even though it expires tomorrow I think this sets a bad precedent. Is
it really necessary to block such a large range of IP addresses for a
month to deal with one problem user? There has to be some other way to
deal with trolls that doesn't impact innocent users.
If it turns out that there is no other way to deal with trolls and
vandals then one idea might be to exempt logged in users from such
bans after a "probation period" of let's say 30-90 days. (or upon
request in some cases) This would minimize the impact of broad IP bans
on non-troublemakers but still allow you to catch sock puppet
PS. My real name and WP account are the same.
Tim Starling wrote:
> At least my proposal serves to highlight our differences in
> viewpoint. Tor supporters like to justify their existence from the moral
> high ground of protection against government persecution or industrial
> espionage. But what the bulk of Tor users are really interested in is
> obscuring their identity server administrators, and that carries with it
> a different set of ethical implications.
I can see the place of anonymity on Wikinews, for example - reporting
about something you don't want your name linked to as yet. But I
really cannot see that a case has been made for Tor-level anonymity if
the mission statement is "We're here to write an encyclopedia." Even
for regular open proxy anonymity.
Look at the history for [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Proposed decision]]
Enviroknot (aka, Kain the Scion) didn't like the decision we had in
progress, so he decided to vandalize the decision page by hopping TOR
While this was a relatively backwoods out-of-the-way page, it could very
well have been any article or articles.