Materialscientist

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:56 am

No one ever talks about him. Yet he is one of the worst blockers on Wikipedia -- 45,199 accounts to date since adminship 3 years ago. An average of 41 blocks PER DAY. Staggering.

Yes, I looked at some of his recent blocks. Most are obvious vandalism, about 20% are inexplicable, weird, pointless, improper, or were oversighted.

He cheerfully admitted to being an employee of NIMS, his first edit under Materialscientist was to create that article. Early on he did good content work in chemistry and nanotech, but by late 2009 he had turned into a zombielike patroller.

It's improper, that this forum goes on and on about Wikipedia corruption and reform, yet never discusses certain of Wikipedia's worst patrollers. MS has probably blocked thousands of people improperly. We might never know. And he's obviously an "expert editor", something that a lot of Wikipedians despise (read his RFA for some criticisms). Yet no one has the slightest idea of his real identity, or how much COI editing he has done.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:09 am

EricBarbour wrote:No one ever talks about him. Yet he is one of the worst blockers on Wikipedia -- 45,199 accounts to date since adminship 3 years ago. An average of 41 blocks PER DAY. Staggering.

Yes, I looked at some of his recent blocks. Most are obvious vandalism, about 20% are inexplicable, weird, pointless, improper, or were oversighted.

He cheerfully admitted to being an employee of NIMS, his first edit under Materialscientist was to create that article. Early on he did good content work in chemistry and nanotech, but by late 2009 he had turned into a zombielike patroller.

It's improper, that this forum goes on and on about Wikipedia corruption and reform, yet never discusses certain of Wikipedia's worst patrollers. MS has probably blocked thousands of people improperly. We might never know. And he's obviously an "expert editor", something that a lot of Wikipedians despise (read his RFA for some criticisms). Yet no one has the slightest idea of his real identity, or how much COI editing he has done.

You should talk to Artem R. Oganov about his long running dispute with Materialscientist. He got indefinitely blocked, then unblocked on the condition he didn't edit subjects of his expertise. He decided to wash his hands and walk away.

Some time ago I entered Wikipedia using my own name, which was a mistake. Now, due to the continuing smear campaign by the user Materialscientist, I want to completely withdraw from Wikipedia both my account an any mentions of my former relations to it. Now I know the identity of the user Materialscientist, and have proofs that he does not act as an impartial editor, but instead is involved in a conflict of interest with my group. Moreover, he uses every opportunity to attack my real name (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boron ... _Wikipedia). Personal attacks are unacceptable. In the above link, he explicitly lies about the content of my recent article, which other users found useful and wanted to cite, and turns it against me. You can read that article, and see for yourself where the truth is. I would like to ask you to take actions to protect my privacy, by unlinking my Wikipedia name ("luebuwei") from my real name ("aoganov") and forbidding user Materialscientist to discuss me on Wikipedia. Also, if all mentions of my name on the above talk-page could be removed, I would appreciate that a lot. Thank you for your understanding!

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... correction
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =292058307
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ontroversy

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:33 am

Given tarantino's links, it seems he was at one time blatantly acting as an agent of his employer because he was using "NIMSoffice" as his username.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:08 am

tarantino wrote:You should talk to Artem R. Oganov about his long running dispute with Materialscientist.

Yes, this is a major backstab, and I need to get the opinion of the victim. (I, too, suspect I've found MS's real name, and sure enough, he's a white American male. Once again he's doing a poor job of covering up his "precious secret identity".)

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:01 pm

tarantino wrote:You should talk to Artem R. Oganov about his long running dispute with Materialscientist. He got indefinitely blocked, then unblocked on the condition he didn't edit subjects of his expertise. He decided to wash his hands and walk away.
Some time ago I entered Wikipedia using my own name, which was a mistake. Now, due to the continuing smear campaign by the user Materialscientist, I want to completely withdraw from Wikipedia both my account an any mentions of my former relations to it.
See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... correction
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =292058307
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ontroversy

The troll remains, while the valuable contributor is harassed out of the project. I wonder just how often this pattern has been repeated?

If I were moderating a forum, I would make some effort to ensure that people like MaterialScience were NOT allowed to harass valuable contributors like Dr Oganov out of it, if only for the sake of the forum. The latter is the kind of contributor any forum wants; the former seems to be two-a-penny. The game seems to be a standard one: any user who reveals his own name is a target for harassment and libel, and then "put on trial" before an anonymous judge on anonymous evidence. What normal person would consent to appear before such a kangaroo "court"? Indeed the block given to Dr Oganov disgraces the site that hosts it, as it seems plainly unfair, even by Wikipedia's own low standards.

It's baffling, isn't it, that the best contributors have the worst chance of survival, yet no-one running Wikipedia seems to care.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:04 pm

roger_pearse wrote:...yet no-one running Wikipedia seems to care.

Roger, maybe it's because nobody is running Wikipedia.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:54 pm

thekohser wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:...yet no-one running Wikipedia seems to care.
Roger, maybe it's because nobody is running Wikipedia.

I know what you mean, of course: that none of the owners are actually taking any responsibility.

But from another point of view, all those little server-farms don't just appear, magically. They get paid for. Anything that gets paid for has a legal owner.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:56 pm

roger_pearse wrote:Anything that gets paid for has a legal owner.

Including the properties of absentee landlords.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:08 pm

roger_pearse wrote: The troll remains, while the valuable contributor is harassed out of the project. I wonder just how often this pattern has been repeated?

If I were moderating a forum, I would make some effort to ensure that people like MaterialScience were NOT allowed to harass valuable contributors like Dr Oganov out of it, if only for the sake of the forum. The latter is the kind of contributor any forum wants; the former seems to be two-a-penny. The game seems to be a standard one: any user who reveals his own name is a target for harassment and libel, and then "put on trial" before an anonymous judge on anonymous evidence. What normal person would consent to appear before such a kangaroo "court"? Indeed the block given to Dr Oganov disgraces the site that hosts it, as it seems plainly unfair, even by Wikipedia's own low standards.

It's baffling, isn't it, that the best contributors have the worst chance of survival, yet no-one running Wikipedia seems to care.

Look at this article Materialscientist created, Optical properties of carbon nanotubes. It's clear he's educated in physics. but at least half of the 300 edits he averages a day are dealing with perceived "vandals" and "banned users". That's not something normal encyclopedia editors or a working physics PhD would be doing, or should even need to do.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:13 am

tarantino wrote:Look at this article Materialscientist created, Optical properties of carbon nanotubes. It's clear he's educated in physics. but at least half of the 300 edits he averages a day are dealing with perceived "vandals" and "banned users". That's not something normal encyclopedia editors or a working physics PhD would be doing, or should even need to do.

This is why, at first, I suspected the snotty young man from UCSB who provided Picasa photos for MS to post on Commons: David Christle. One would expect someone like Christle to become a hostile patroller. He's not a full-time researcher or employee at NIMS, though.
And yet, as you said, MS evidently speaks and writes Russian well enough to be a gnome on ru-wp, making Dmitri Golberg a possibility. Perhaps a shared account, or else Golberg was passing information to Christle for content use.

The vast majority of NIMS employees are Japanese, and I can't picture a Japanese scientist pulling dirty tricks on English Wikipedia. Could be wrong, but it's just very unlikely.

Just heard back from Oganov. I'll show him what I have and get his opinion.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:01 am

thekohser wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:Anything that gets paid for has a legal owner.
Including the properties of absentee landlords.

Well said. Including the properties of absentee slum landlords who get dragged out of their hole by the police when the unmaintained gas boiler poisons their tenants with Carbon Monoxide, and emerge, blinking, in the sunlight and whining about how they "did everything possible".

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:55 am

I'm not sure if "necrobumping" is prohibited or otherwise discouraged here but I signed up to this site to discuss this administrator, so here goes.

He seems to be an admin that has done nothing to contribute other than over-zealously patrolling every page and blocking people. My first account (Electricbassguy) was blocked by him though I was a blatant vandal blanking the "4chan" page out of anger and frustration with their general internet usage. But my most recent account where I simply made an update to the "Quarter Pounder" page... it was just a couple minutes before Materialscientist removed it because it lacked a source even though I had put the source in the edit summary so someone else with more wiki knowledge could properly source it.

I ended up having to find a source and add it after he removed it. I don't have a huge story of being poorly treated by him but in general admins like this guy seem to be more interested in keeping control than contributing knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _IP_blocks

If you look here there seems to be a strong distrust of "schools" and a quarter of these long blocks are from Materialscientist.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:09 am

Electric wrote:I'm not sure if "necrobumping" is prohibited or otherwise discouraged here but I signed up to this site to discuss this administrator, so here goes.

He seems to be an admin that has done nothing to contribute other than over-zealously patrolling every page and blocking people. My first account (Electricbassguy) was blocked by him though I was a blatant vandal blanking the "4chan" page out of anger and frustration with their general internet usage. But my most recent account where I simply made an update to the "Quarter Pounder" page... it was just a couple minutes before Materialscientist removed it because it lacked a source even though I had put the source in the edit summary so someone else with more wiki knowledge could properly source it.

I ended up having to find a source and add it after he removed it. I don't have a huge story of being poorly treated by him but in general admins like this guy seem to be more interested in keeping control than contributing knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _IP_blocks

If you look here there seems to be a strong distrust of "schools" and a quarter of these long blocks are from Materialscientist.

Zombie topic a few days before Halloween? Who am I to judge?

Maybe I'm the guy who does most of the banning... muahahahah!

Seriously, though,
:welcome:

to Wikipediocracy!

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:23 am

Yeah Material scientist is one of the worst abusers of pointless range blocks. He often puts indefinite range blocks on schools and other group IP's and proxies "to prevent vandalism" even when that group has never done one edit. I have criticized this tactic for a long time as a pointless waste of resources and an abuse of the tools. We should not be blocking simply for the sake of blocking, there should be some proof of problems before the block is implemented.

MysteriousStranger · Unread post by **MysteriousStranger** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:01 pm

Kumioko wrote:Yeah Material scientist is one of the worst abusers of pointless range blocks. He often puts indefinite range blocks on schools and other group IP's and proxies "to prevent vandalism" even when that group has never done one edit. I have criticized this tactic for a long time as a pointless waste of resources and an abuse of the tools. We should not be blocking simply for the sake of blocking, there should be some proof of problems before the block is implemented.

Elockid does the same thing. Not indefinite, but if a range has caused problems in the past, he'll peek into it every so often and block any account that's been created. At least that's what it seems like. Checkusers in general are douchebags.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:04 pm

MysteriousStranger wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Yeah Material scientist is one of the worst abusers of pointless range blocks. He often puts indefinite range blocks on schools and other group IP's and proxies "to prevent vandalism" even when that group has never done one edit. I have criticized this tactic for a long time as a pointless waste of resources and an abuse of the tools. We should not be blocking simply for the sake of blocking, there should be some proof of problems before the block is implemented.
Elockid does the same thing. Not indefinite, but if a range has caused problems in the past, he'll peek into it every so often and block any account that's been created. At least that's what it seems like. Checkusers in general are douchebags.

I have seen that too, and there are others doing it as well. Checkusers should not be randomly using their access to look for problems unless they have been requested to do so. That is a violation of its use, not the least of which because its not very reliable and is prone to false positives.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:04 pm

He's very heavy-handed, but I doubt that he's consciously malicious, unlike some admins we could all name.

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:35 pm

Wikipedia as a whole is run by Neo-Nazis. [CENSORED]
Not joking either!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:25 pm

Electric wrote:Wikipedia as a whole is run by Neo-Nazis. [CENSORED]
Not joking either!

Let's get a sense of proportion. Wikipedia - is - only - a - web - site!

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:27 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Electric wrote:Wikipedia as a whole is run by Neo-Nazis. [CENSORED]
Not joking either!
Let's get a sense of proportion. Wikipedia - is - only - a - web - site!

Maybe, but what does that have to do with anything?

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:14 pm

Wikipedia has way too much power online. "Just a website" doesn't mean anything. People need to learn to read a book again.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:07 am

Electric wrote:Wikipedia as a whole is run by Neo-Nazis. [CENSORED]
Not joking either!

There is no doubt Wikipedia is run by neo-Nazis. Wikipedia's core editing demographics are primarily made up of young white men who primarily speak a Germanic language. Most neo-Nazis are young white men who primarily speak a Germanic language. I am an exception, as I am not white (see my avatar) and I am not a neo-Nazi.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:05 pm

Godwin's law (T-H-L)

Mike Godwin was General Counsel of the WMF, although that was after he wrote the law.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:21 pm

eagle wrote:Godwin's law (T-H-L)

Mike Godwin was General Counsel of the WMF, although that was after he wrote the law.

Yeah but MG just substituted nazi for troll, and hitler for sanger when it suited him.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:04 pm

lilburne wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Electric wrote:Wikipedia as a whole is run by Neo-Nazis. [CENSORED]
Not joking either!
Let's get a sense of proportion. Wikipedia - is - only - a - web - site!
Maybe, but what does that have to do with anything?

I think that the bit I objected to has been removed by a ninja. Quite right too!

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:45 am

I won't threaten violence any more, but the world would be a better place if this man no longer existed.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:36 pm

Electric wrote:I won't threaten violence any more, but the world would be a better place if this man no longer existed.

Take an issue you feel strongly about at Wikipedia and say something substantive and intelligent about it.

Drijfzand · Unread post by **Drijfzand** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:44 am

He is nr. 4 on the list of "most thanked" users in Jan 2015. 119, that's almost 4 per day...

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:59 am

I'm not here to make intelligent points, just to provide evidence to prove these people are not good admins.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:35 am

Electric wrote:I'm not here to make intelligent points, just to provide evidence to prove these people are not good admins.

Okay, but you haven't *been* providing evidence.

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:56 am

I feel this should suffice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _IP_blocks

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:51 pm

Electric wrote:I feel this should suffice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _IP_blocks

We've had a full thread about that.
What else do you have?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:27 pm

Of the first thousand blocks on that list, Gilliam is responsible for 461 and Materalscientist for 197. Why aren't you screaming about Gilliam? His reason is usually {{Schoolblock}}, which is also the reason for the great majority of blocks by others. What have you proved?

If anyone is energetic enough to analyse the complete list, please let us know!

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:46 pm

Drijfzand wrote:He is nr. 4 on the list of "most thanked" users in Jan 2015. 119, that's almost 4 per day...

That list is meaningless. At the top of the list was Ryulong:

Most thanked editors in 2015 wrote:351, Ryulong

who was thanked three times as frequently. Of course, Ryulong has been covered by other threads and was one of the most abusive and immature editors on Wikipedia. He was desysoped years ago, and during 2015 was banned by Arbcom from English Wikipedia and subsequently from Rationalwiki. So, having a high "thank" count does not mean that you are the nicest editor. Rather, it means that you earn kudos from your allies as a combatant during a major wikiwar.

Drijfzand · Unread post by **Drijfzand** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:32 pm

eagle wrote:
Drijfzand wrote:He is nr. 4 on the list of "most thanked" users in Jan 2015. 119, that's almost 4 per day...
That list is meaningless. At the top of the list was Ryulong:
Most thanked editors in 2015 wrote:351, Ryulong
who was thanked three times as frequently. Of course, Ryulong has been covered by other threads and was one of the most abusive and immature editors on Wikipedia. He was desysoped years ago, and during 2015 was banned by Arbcom from English Wikipedia and subsequently from Rationalwiki. So, having a high "thank" count does not mean that you are the nicest editor. Rather, it means that you earn kudos from your allies as a combatant during a major wikiwar.

Oh, I wasn't implying he was a nice or good editor. More an ironic comment...

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:14 pm

I'm just here to get attention on my posts. I don't have much to add. I'm more encyclopedia dramatica material than this site material.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:56 pm

Electric wrote:I'm just here to get attention on my posts.

Well, you seem to have that, however transient. Seems like the perfect time to post something of actual importance.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:22 pm

Jim wrote:
Electric wrote:I'm just here to get attention on my posts.
Well, you seem to have that, however transient. Seems like the perfect time to post something of actual importance.

Don't be this guy.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:22 pm

We're the young generation, and we've got something to say

Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
Hey, hey, we're the Monkees

Electric · Unread post by **Electric** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:59 am

I'm a doommonkey named Crystal.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:07 am

MysteriousStranger · Unread post by **MysteriousStranger** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:16 am

Okay, back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that someone with a good job and lots of expert knowledge wouldn't feel any need whatsoever to go online and block dozens of users per day and run various CheckUsers and contribute proportionally little content work. I wonder if he's low man on the totem pole at his job and needs the feeling of power he gets from being an admin and CU.

Reminds me a bit of Anthony Bradbury (T-C-L), who claims to be a doctor (most likely retired is my guess) but does nothing to improve medical articles. Perhaps when he left his practice he missed the feeling of being big man on campus. Who knows...Bradbury's super prickly at times, but I wouldn't count him nearly as bad as Materialscientist.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:44 pm

MysteriousStranger wrote:Anthony Bradbury (T-C-L), who claims to be a doctor (most likely retired is my guess) but does nothing to improve medical articles.

Plenty of people decline to edit in their areas of special expertise, because they know it would be too annoying, arguing with idiots.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:45 pm

One of the problems with this site (not that we don't see it on Wikipedia as well) is how certain members are so willing to just make shit up about people they have never met.

I've been an admin for seven years and a functionary for five. Not once have I felt a surge of godlike power from my ability to block someone, protect a page, or even peek at their IP address. I doubt Materialscientist feels that either when blocking some school IP for the billionth time. Dealing with school vandals is tedious, not exiting.

SneakySasha · Unread post by **SneakySasha** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:59 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:One of the problems with this site (not that we don't see it on Wikipedia as well) is how certain members are so willing to just make shit up about people they have never met.

I've been an admin for seven years and a functionary for five. Not once have I felt a surge of godlike power from my ability to block someone, protect a page, or even peek at their IP address. I doubt Materialscientist feels that either when blocking some school IP for the billionth time. Dealing with school vandals is tedious, not exiting.

Sezs the dude who wrote User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables (T-H-L)!

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:26 pm

SneakySasha wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:One of the problems with this site (not that we don't see it on Wikipedia as well) is how certain members are so willing to just make shit up about people they have never met.

I've been an admin for seven years and a functionary for five. Not once have I felt a surge of godlike power from my ability to block someone, protect a page, or even peek at their IP address. I doubt Materialscientist feels that either when blocking some school IP for the billionth time. Dealing with school vandals is tedious, not exiting.
Sezs the dude who wrote User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables (T-H-L)!

Yes I did. what's your point, exactly?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:05 am

Beeblebrox wrote:One of the problems with this site (not that we don't see it on Wikipedia as well) is how certain members are so willing to just make shit up about people they have never met.

I've been an admin for seven years and a functionary for five. Not once have I felt a surge of godlike power from my ability to block someone, protect a page, or even peek at their IP address. I doubt Materialscientist feels that either when blocking some school IP for the billionth time. Dealing with school vandals is tedious, not exiting.

The first problem with this statement is the idea they would be blocking them for the billionth time. Most of the IP's Materialscientist has blocked has never done one edit. Not a single one. Sure some of the remainder have done vandalism, but some have also done good edits too. But because its easier to take the lazy way out and block everyone to prevent a little vandalism they just permaban the IP preventing not only vandalism but good edits too.

Maybe if the admins weren't busy blocking all the school IP's for convenience (especially since we know have edit filters and Cluebot reverting or preventing most of the vandalism anyway) the Wikiversity project would gain more traction. As it is, its hard to edit when so many schools IP's are blocked.

MysteriousStranger · Unread post by **MysteriousStranger** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:07 am

Beeblebrox wrote:One of the problems with this site (not that we don't see it on Wikipedia as well) is how certain members are so willing to just make shit up about people they have never met.

I've been an admin for seven years and a functionary for five. Not once have I felt a surge of godlike power from my ability to block someone, protect a page, or even peek at their IP address. I doubt Materialscientist feels that either when blocking some school IP for the billionth time. Dealing with school vandals is tedious, not exiting.

I was merely hypothesizing, my good chum.

Drijfzand · Unread post by **Drijfzand** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:22 pm

Poetlister wrote:Of the first thousand blocks on that list, Gilliam is responsible for 461 and Materalscientist for 197. Why aren't you screaming about Gilliam? His reason is usually {{Schoolblock}}, which is also the reason for the great majority of blocks by others. What have you proved?

If anyone is energetic enough to analyse the complete list, please let us know!

total addresses (IPv4 ranges included, IPv6 ranges counted as 1)

Elockid: 3702105 (416 entries, + IPv6 ranges)
MaterialScientist: 633233 (631 entries)
MikeV: 514593 (56 entries, 55 ranges)
DeltaQuad: 271779 (30 entries, 28 ranges)
..
Gilliam: 657 (no ranges)

MysteriousStranger · Unread post by **MysteriousStranger** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:16 pm

Drijfzand wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Of the first thousand blocks on that list, Gilliam is responsible for 461 and Materalscientist for 197. Why aren't you screaming about Gilliam? His reason is usually {{Schoolblock}}, which is also the reason for the great majority of blocks by others. What have you proved?

If anyone is energetic enough to analyse the complete list, please let us know!
total addresses (IPv4 ranges included, IPv6 ranges counted as 1)

Elockid: 3702105 (416 entries, + IPv6 ranges)
MaterialScientist: 633233 (631 entries)
MikeV: 514593 (56 entries, 55 ranges)
DeltaQuad: 271779 (30 entries, 28 ranges)
..
Gilliam: 657 (no ranges)

What are IPv4 ranges counted as? Also 1? So that means Elockid has blocked an IP address or range on nearly 4 million separate occasions? Doesn't seem likely---he's not online all that much. Or are you counting the number of actual addresses?

FWIW, Elockid has always seemed to me to have more technical knowledge than the average CU.