SourceWatch talk:Report a vandal

64.65.233.112 is a non-portable address. It does appear to be assigned to a DSL user, but it is unclear how persistent the address is. I definitely do not object to stopping the vandal, but I do have reservations of IP address blocking of non-portable addresses without a time limit. Does wiki give the option of temporary blocking with a time-out period? For DSL/cable address pools, a long time out period could be used since most address are fairly stable. However, for dialup pools, IP blocking is useless, leading me to think that users should at least create an account before editing (see comments in separate talk page about this).

You can verify the nature of a given IP address by searching ARIN's whois db at http://www.arin.net/whois/index.html -- Termigator 14:40 19 Mar 2003 (EST)

"The IP range 142.177.*.* was banned on May 3, 2003 for repeated postings of unsubstantiated fabrications..."

It assumes that all of these 60,000 IPs are one person, it may assume that because something is challenged and one decides not to respond that no substantiation is available. As to the reference to Wikipedia, MeatballWiki and Meta-Wikipedia policy, that is a simple appeal to authority. It's too bad you can't see fit to define your own "ban" policy, tell a rant from a report, see the problem with so-called "hard security" nor find Greenpeace's "Open Campaigning" policy thread at http://act.greenpeace.org, but none of that is this IP's problem. Good luck with your project, and if you want solid contributors to stay, and put up with some rigid and judgemental editorial policy doled out with insulting terms of reference ("junk", "rant", "unsubstantiated fabrication"), I suggest you not make these statements entirely post the ban, when they are obviously hard to respond to. It is a weak service that bans for "beligerence" and then bans all discussion of the little tin god sysop and the failings of Wikipedia neutral point of view. You may like those people better than a propaganda-spotter should, but, you appear to be letting it get in the way of assembling the most solid articles. I invite you to review *all* the 142.177.*.* material and ask how many people in the world would be willing and able to contribute to such a degree, and then put up with your online politics. It appears you have learned nothing from that material, and are going the Wikipedia way. Sad.

Anonymity isn't the issue with content moderation; content presented as fact should be submitted with evidence and substantiation. If you think that IBM provides funding for PRWatch, show your evidence, and make a rational statement about the relevance of such information.

142.177.85.58 - I reinstated the ref to the actions in May last year in dealing with a user using a range of 142.177* IP addresses. While appreciating that there are many potential users would have that prefix it is not intended as an accusation. I have re-instated the mention of what occurred so that the historical log remains intact -- this may be useful information on the symptoms etc if a similar problem occurrs again. and thanks for adding the report on that other vandalism -- bob

I reverted a page blanking by 209.219.75.98.
 * Thank you -Maynard