![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() | Old archive material has now been moved to Archive "won" |
I neither know nor care who is right, but an edit war is an edit war and the IP is personally attacking the user in his summaries. Cluestick please? I'm tempted to suggest both of them, but I'll leave that to you. Half Shadow 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear co-Wikipedians, ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveJrobertson ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Also..
ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Russia, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Russia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Russian position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue.
CliveJrobertson ( talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you 'block conflicted' with Vianello over User:Alt Key. He placed an indefinite block notice for spamming, while at the same time you were blocking him three hours for disruption. Whichever way the wind blows on this one, the block notice and the actual block should be fixed to coincide. Cheers, -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you've clarified on their talk page. Cheers again, -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this, but I think you're absolutely in the right here, so I'm willing to let yours stand as-is. I already removed my notice. I believe I stuck the notice up by mistake after our blocks crossed paths. A short-term block is a lot more sensible, I agree. - Vianello ( Talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am aware. I replied. :).Mitch32( Transportation Historian) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think as you observed yourself, policy requires that Malke's revert after my WP:BRD undo be reverted. I do not want to do it, in order not to start an edit war, but as an admin, I think it would be appropriate for you to restore it while discussions take place, in order not to set an example that WP:BRD can be ignored, an admin can be aware of it and allow it to stand. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this and am wondering how this WP:CONTENTFORK came to be... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard, someone seems to have blanked my article Catholic views on Mary and caused it to be redirected to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). How can I get it undirected and get the article restored? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
About reverting my edit from RodHullandEmu's talk page, i just want back on wikipedia! LET ME ON! or you'll all suffer, yes, you'll all pay, yes!-- 89.241.164.44 ( talk) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
See this post by User:Tedickey. This seems to be a well-formed unblock request. As the blocking admin, it's up to you how to handle it from here. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
is not spelled that way ;) Jack Merridew 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You told me to drop a note here at the end of (last) week, and that you would now decide if you would do a full review and pass a judgment: [1] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard, I've been trying to improve the article, Catholic views on the Virgin Mary, but I'm continually reverted by History2007, as I was just now after working for a long time thinning it out and making room for new content. [4]. This is the same response I get on any Catholic article I edit. And now he's claiming that he's going to get the article merged. This is an article I started regarding another issue. It's already survived a nearly intractable AfD. I'd like to get things moving on it but it's been impossible. I've put off doing anything for a while now, but it's getting to where I can't do anything over there. Any help would be appreciated. Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. Hello. I am the User ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ), blocked, and of whom I had been falsely and wrongly accused, and improperly accused (The proper Sock-Puppetry Template was NOT used for example and for instance.), of being a so-called "Sock Puppet", and blocked. Requests for Assistance. Thank you very much. 77.86.106.2 ( talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For LessHeard. In appreciation of the excellent advice you give and kindness you've shown in being my mentor. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Of course, the mentorship thing is ongoing - but you have given me no reason to be anything other than supportive. May it continue.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that there was consensus but I also see the value in your conclusion and think it could work. However, there is already trouble. Would you mind popping over and clarifying or providing some advice. Thanks. Cptnono ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Appropriate Civility | |
Somewhat belatedly awarded to LessHeard vanU for his common-sense approach. pablo 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
I think I ought to mention that I have not advised anyone to fuck off for over two years, so I do believe in some moderation of expression. Just saying. Oh, and thanks. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to make sure you have no objections to this. [5] Regards, Sandstein 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - just to let you know, a discussion you closed is being parsed by a number of editors over at WP:AE#Shuki. Thought you might like to know. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
After spending an hour failing to get Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to cooperate with me. Now I asked for the block to be placed ending at December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.
I request this in good faith and in good standing understanding
Its finals and I need to keep on task thus a forced wikibreak may help. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Say the secret woid & win a hundred dollars". Anyways, I'm planning to make a sticker for my car windshield, which will read: "I found Jesus, I have him in my trunk". GoodDay ( talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I hit a button by accident on my watchlist and blasted some content from this page, and then had to restore it. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Lunalet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite this, [7] the editor is still active, and is all over that one AFD (which is apparently the reason his ID was created), and it's obvious he's either a sock or an impostor. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Has this IP had enough warnings regarding his/her vandalistic tendencies ? I am surprised that he/she has survived this long. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
When you've the time, I'd appreciate help with a very distressing situation here: [8]. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I think ya broke something there & I'm not sure how to fix it -without reverting-. GoodDay ( talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, after you placed the three-month block notice on User:174.27.246.236 as a sock of User:RasputinJSvengali, he/she apparently began the same edits as User:67.2.187.252. This is a list of known and suspected socks of this user, who was originally blocked for harassment of myself and User:Jefferson Anderson, who ended up retiring his account.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Rosencomet ( talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I want to report you what Omar-Toons is doing [10]. Regards-- Morisco ( talk) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at this article's talk page. Your input at this stage may be better than mine, as I seem to be not quite getting the message across. Or, perhaps, I have been too heavy-handed ? Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding [11], since the responses are buried in noise, "yes". Giano and a very banned user (and only those two persons) have tried both logins with past and current arbitrator accounts, as well as constructed URLs to hypothetical pages without authentication. Those actions are not normally visible in checkuser logs, but we took reports of security flaws seriously enough to request that a dev examine the server logs directly. The logs also do not show any success in the matter despite Giano having implied that he did reach contents.
"why is GR posting here" is a result of our (the committee's) decision to not sanction him for the attempt given that it was ostensibly for the purposes of "auditing" the security and that the ongoing election complicated matters. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Predictably, Commons has quite a few nice images that could potentially be used to illustrate various aspects of a certain body of mammals:
Hans Adler 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I started a new thread on the admins' board about the last edits by موريسكو(Morisco) (the same that I reported last time) and Bokpasa [13] for major edits on articles without discussion and without consensus.
Since you are the one who toke action (blocking موريسكو) on the last time, I though it was necessary to keep you in touch about that.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (
talk)
15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
User:RedKnight 1, who is no stranger to wikipedia policy, has called me an "idiot", and was markedly rude for a first encounter with me, i have never talked to him before or insulted him, yet he assume an arrogant, condescending attitude and threatens to ban me, yet i see that he is not an admin. "Learn to write an wikipedia article & stop manipulating Sources and putting them out of context to support your biased POV or I'll will have you banned.)"
He also deleted a massive amount of referenced information, with no explanation at all. I urged him to explain his mass deletion, yet his response was to put off the issue, saying he needed a day to reply, "(I do have a life)", which at an extreme, can be taken as a gesture that i don't have one.
seeing that he was the one who deleted a massive amount of referenced text and did not explain why, only claiming i an "twisting references", yet he gave no examples, I think the burden is on the deleting editor to give an explanation.
Arbitrarily claiming that i should be banned, and saying "Plus, I want to be civil, but this idiot" sort of speaks out for RedKnight 1's intentions on its own, any editor who wants to attack another can potentially say, "I want to be civil, but", is clearly trying to game the system by claiming civility while clearly violating etiquette. Дунгане ( talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
On the administrators noticeboard, section about Sark, you wrote: "Unlock and warn the two disputing editors that since they have not taken the opportunity to resolve their differences in the meantime that any edit warring will incur stiff sanctions." I would like to point out that I did take the opportunity to resolve the differences with the other editor, but he stopped responding. I would like you to explain what I am supposed to do to try to resolve the differences with the other editor when I have written a polite, reasoned, dispassionate argument (which you are able to read and which I invite you to read) and he has stopped responding. As for your threats of "stiff sanctions", you might wish to bear in mind that my contributions are being made for free, in my free time, on a voluntary basis. Please explain what "stiff sanctions" you can carry out against me that I should care about. If you feel like cancelling my account, be my guest and I will devote my free time and my knowledge to some purpose where it will be better appreciated.
La.coupee ( talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Saw you listed on WP:AMDB. I just blocked a user, but another admin questioned my intentions since I am involved in the dispute. Will you take a look? (see User_talk:Racepacket). If you feel a block appropriate, do I need another admin (perhaps you) to block instead? — Eustress talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha! Little LessHeard pretty evil! Have a Bishzilla Walk of Fame Star! darwinbish BITE 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
I notice that User:Greg Kane has been editing this article. The real Greg Kane is one half of this brotherly twosome (Hue and Cry). It may be coincidental, but said user's editing history is one article specific. The H and C article itself is not in bad shape, so maybe there's no big problem, but I thought you ought to be aware. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Sounds good, eh? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 08:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
at the [ uyghur people article User:Erkintarim is deleting referenced information with no explanation. Дунгане ( talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to remove that "enemies list" at the top of the User talk:Dylan Flaherty page? One editor removed just his own name, and I'm concerned that will "start something". Oh, and while you're at it, maybe semi-protect the page, to keep the IP impostors away from it? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Less! I remember you blocking Balubz123 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of Balubz ( talk · contribs), and recently Penaamiel ( talk · contribs) was blocked for some similar nonsense. 124.6.181.199 ( talk · contribs) has recently been active at the mall articles, and I believe it is an IP used by Balubz that somehow slipped the radar. Here's why: Balubz created this odd "sandbox-style" edit to his userpage, and the IP actually worked on it. [14] [15] [16] Why an IP would work on something like this on a user talk page is... unusual. I want to hit the page with a {{ipsock|Balubz}} and tag up the others appropriately, but I'd like your opinion first. Thanks :> Doc talk 03:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about my stupid error. Happy New Year, Mathsci ( talk) 10:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Said-akl.jpg a picture of Said Akl, who was born in 1912, so I can't see how it could be 100 years old. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether or not I should delete the revision (is there a policy?), but then I saw you were a sysop and could undelete it if you wanted to. ... discospinster talk 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This image File:Tashkorgan Tajik.jpg It clearly says All rights Reserved at its flickr location, yet someone uploaded it to wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Дунгане ( talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You know the one [17]. Its obviously well over and done now, but has been the subject of discussion. Can I counsel you not to be tempted to make such comments again, particularly on a project noticeboard. It is inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly where a block for civility is being discussed, for other contributors to be incivil. This applies more so where the other contributors are admins or other functionaries - those with any level of responsibility should show that they know better than to take cheap shots. I hope this was a one off, and there will not be any repeats in the coming year. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, your attention for this message. Thanks. -- Crisarco ( talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Alpha30 was an italian Wikipedian, now blocked indefinitely for contributions in violation of copyright: [18]. He wrotes: You are asked to "STOP WRITING ON MY TALK" I suggest you motivate your ABSURD NOTICES to other persons, however your warnings are meaningless because I'm away for a long time. Now your obsession to me, and that of your colleagues, has reached the limit of endurance. You persist to insult and attack me with insignificant and false accusations. I inform you that: "I HAVE NO CLAIM AT ALL". Then I impose to you the “BLOCK” for serious reasons: .... -- Crisarco ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi little LittleHeard. I seem to recollect that you took the Smatprt issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in hand when it had reached gridlock; would you like to return to the page? The article, and very much also the talkpage, are again suffering from POV problems and a static quarrelsomeness which makes me throw up my hands. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only admin who follows the page, and I have IRL issues which seriously need to take precedence. My attempt here to scare up an uninvolved admin for review had no result; after taking a look at the talkpage everybody suddenly remembered an appointment, I guess. I can't blame them, either. But you're so big and strong, perhaps you'd care to review it and come up with some brilliant solution? Bishonen | talk 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC).
Zweigenbaum As the accused in the action forwarded by Bishonen re: Shakespeare Authorship Question on Wikipedia, I wish to point out: 1)the summary article under peer review has been written by an interested party in the general question, and therefore cannot be a neutral party, since Tom Reedy is a known associate of the extreme advocate against Oxfordian research results, David Kathman; 2)Tom Reedy, the principal if not the single writer, has responded generally and specifically as the arbiter of work he himself has written, a clear conflict of interest in this context; 3)there is no evidence of any other contributions or suggestions by any supporting individuals nor evidence of accepted substantive suggestions from opposing individuals; 4)comments and revisions by objecting individuals have been met with resistence, personal and otherwise; 5)neutrality concerns have been treated with retaliatory censure; 6) the recent appeal to LittleHeard ('big and strong')[sic] regarding Wikipedia policies is outside the guidelines for resolution; and 7)it appears an interested party cannot produce a neutral point of view on this topic in a summary article, nor a member of the majority contingent achieve neutrality by appealing to an outside party, LittleHeard. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I am seriously concerned about Rodhullandemu. There are rumours circulating that he is drunk round the clock, and editing under the influence. Whether true or totally unfounded I think you bear some responsibility for looking after him. Just make sure you keep things in check. 86.160.112.109 ( talk) 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
please don't hit me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.56.33 ( talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page before I even noticed it. Have a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
on this section, the following alleged quote is given- "Talk of Arabs killing Blacks is a lie, the government of Sudan is a government of Blacks, with all different ethnic backgrounds. We're all Africans. We're all Black"
the source is finalcall.com, which appears to be run by the Nation of Islam (which in reality is a black supremacist organization and has little to do with the Islamic religion), and Nation of Islam openly supports the Presiden al Bashir, not to mention due to its status as a black supremacist organization, it spouts hatred of other races. I find the usage of the source questionable, what action should be taken? Дунгане ( talk) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible for an admin (or someone with proper authority) to scramble a user's password? (No details, please - just 'Yes' or 'No' or 'No Comment' will suffice.) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll want to remove the edit summary of what you just oversighted too, since it contained the same personal info. Thanks a lot! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to indicate that I replied to your entirely uncivil note on my talk page. Next time either learn some manners or stay off my page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding you new banner: VAT! What exactly is a VAT? I suspect it is one of those horrible and highly contagious diseases afflicting our less fortunate and promiscous editors - of which, in my experience, we have too many. If people take part in these dreadful unnatural practices, they can't be surprised if they get VAT, I have no sympathy. As though my life (what precious little remains of it) is not bad enough, with dearest Giacomo and his new page constantly pressing me to re-live that dreadful night when Irish liberationists burnt darling little Ballybuggery Castle to the ground, claiming I was an absent landlord - no doubt that horrid Mr Vintagekits was wearing his leprechaun suit and waving his tricolour from the highest tower as it burnt. While, I (like my fellow aristocratic editors) am in no way vindictive, I do so very nuch hope you will join forces with the aristocracy and establishment and keep him well and truly banned! Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) ( talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.0.233 ( talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I read your note at the top and see where you are coming from. I have a friend who is an analyst and has written numerous very complicated programs in LOTUS 1-2-3 DOS version and now has to battle with everyone moving over to Excel. My sympathies. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
--Nothing urgent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, they want to accept it, so maybe if you had a few more links showing that you guys have tried to settle the matter and failed. And there is a great need for further diffs showing tendentious/disruptive editing. BE——Critical__ Talk 02:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Was there a checkuser on NinaGreen and Smatprt? Nina came just after Smatprt was blocked, and started on the same article Smatprt had been editing. BE——Critical__ Talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage. 03:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less,
Thanks for taking a hand of this situation. I was (literally today) going to file a report at AN/I about the legal threats and outing issue had not this gone to ArbCom now, but I have hopes this now provides the option of taking the approach that has the least scope for escalation of the conflict. I do still wonder if requesting Oversighting of the outing edits would not be appropriate? I couldn't tell you how revealing of real-life identity the relevant slip-up was, but as I am myself quite protective of the distinction between on-wiki/off-wiki identity I am personally loath to let even small such stand.
Anyways… They may hate me for dragging them into this, but I would suggest GuillaumeTell and Wrad—who have both been involved both centrally and peripherally in editing the Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia for years, and who, I believe (I may be wrong), have dramatically reduced their participation as a direct result of this endless conflict—be added to the ArbCom case. I might also have suggested AndyJones, but he is little involved in Wikipedia lately, and has (IIRC) expressed a desire to not be embroiled in these conflicts. My one caveat is that I am ambivalent about the expediency of taking the long view—seeing this conflict as one, including the previous clashes on other articles involving different "anti-Strafordians"—or addressing the immediate issue (the actions and editors currently engaged at the SAQ page and collateral talk pages). The problem is systemic (and relates closely to Wikipedia's inability to deal effectively with so-called polite POV pushers), but trying to address more than the immediate conflict may be a practical impossibility for any mere human beings. And if scope is reduced accordingly, Guillaume and Wrad (and certainly Andy) may be allowed their peace as they've (perhaps more wisely) not involved themselves in the SAQ article and talk page.
I have been unable to contribute much to the "discussion" on the article talk page owing to sheer volume (and not a little disorganization), but I have been trying to keep up and intend to comment on the RfAr and any resulting case; I just need to read up on what, precisely, is expected there: I may be fond of policy and process, but I've so far managed to avoid having to know more about ArbCom than the fact that they exist and have some sort of semi-final say in the really ornery cases. Sadly it seems my ignorance is now in imminent danger of being challenged by first-hand experience.
In any case, thanks for taking this in hand, whatever the outcome, as there appeared no chance of a better outcome the way things were progressing previously. Cheers, -- Xover ( talk) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard. Given the current events surrounding the SAQ and related articles, I am considering appealing my topic ban. You wrote "You may wish another admin, or other senior independent editor, to review my conclusions and the relevant discussion, or may appeal the ban at WP:ANI, or request an Arbitration Committee case. " To start at the beginning of your list - how do I find/request a senior independent editor or admin to review your conclusions? Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Established custodian? I wish. You don't know how little time I've spent on that article/talkpage; I have such a low boredom threshold that it took the hero posting just above only a day or two to scare me off three years ago. I have, however, written some fluff and rhetorical flourishes about the great importance of fixing the situation on those articles in a lasting way, not just a Nina way, as if the arbs didn't know..! It's here. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
FYI [23]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Thanks for your message. In a funny way, I found his posts strangely compelling. It's the dogmatic certainties combined with the bizarre leaps from one topic to the next. I just wish I knew what he was talking about. "you keep ducking my question here as to the identity of a black magician who keeps addressing me and claims to be majoring in iconography at the University of Sussex". What on earth does this mean? Am I the "black magician" or someone else? Who claims to be "majoring in iconography" at Sussex, whatever that means? I certainly don't. The stuff about Duke university is weirdly fascinating, though clearly libellous. Paul B ( talk) 10:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Good decision to wipe that page. I hope you don't mind me logging the block at the evidence page [24]; I think these kinds of sanctions are interesting data points. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm bothered by this. Partially I'm not convinced that the DustinWestfall that is the 13 year old on YouTube is this editor, partially because of the other names. I'm tempted to delete it. Comments? Dougweller ( talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a separate suicide hotline for arbitrators, or do they have to use the same ones editors and admins do? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less, never worry about how you come across to me - I'll always assume ultimate good faith in you, and I know you weren't criticising (other than constructively). Oddly enough, ArbCom pages are really difficult to tweak, because once somebody has commented on a proposal, you can't really change it other than for typos. That's why I stoleadapted FPaS' proposals. Please feel free to re-use anything I've suggested if you can improve on it. I've not yet found time to analyse the evidence sufficiently to be sure of any proposed FoFs or Remedies, so I was content to leave the Principles broad for now. I guess any of us can come back and refine them as the other sections develop - what do you think? --
RexxS (
talk)
01:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU. I just read a comment of yours on ANI regarding indefblocking, and I was actually coming to the same conclusion. Would you be interested in collaborating on an essay on it? I just have written down some stakewords for now, but I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit tomorrow. If you want, leave some comments and interesting insights on the issue on talk (or just edit the bugger, cause knowing me, it'll end up half finished anyway). It's on User:Martijn Hoekstra/indef only. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [25] and leave your vote. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you asked at ANI, and since I previously observed your interaction with Dylan and Malke, I wanted to affirm your actions in those incidents. Not that you'll need it, you were already cheered on quite well; but it might improve your day. JJB 12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
…you have no idea what you've set in motion now. Do you really think the other party there will be able to resist refuting your argument, at length, in detail, and with vigor? If you thought the page was long now, I predict Wikimedia will need another fundraiser soon to pay for the storage. :-)
On a related note, I see what you're going for there, but I fear it will be lost on the intended recipients; it will only be taken like both “sides” are making equally weak arguments and are hung up on content (and thus out of scope in the context). --
Xover (
talk)
00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A creepy geologist's spell-check apparently :) Shell babelfish 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? What is your comment about? And yes, I did advise new IP to establish accounts before [27] or informed them about rules on Wiki [28]. I am also fairly certain that I noticed before that a IP account from area discussed in the article engaged in discussion regarding that aricle(although I don't have time to search for it). Also we had a problem with IP accounts from Germany vandalising Polish related articles before or entering highly POV claims to them, heh it dates to very very old Wikipedia time, when one owner was banned by Jimbo himself(search for Helga Jonat from around 2002). The IP user occassionally reapears it seems. Now can you tell me what is this all about? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Have that coffe if you're still awake, or maybe better some Horlicks, this time of night. Don't forget that you've made the best comment in this arbitration, although nobody seemed to notice it particularly: You continue to make demands and requests and to comment without understanding the culture and its practices and rules in which you find yourself; this lays at the heart of the issue as it relates to you. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Could you kindly take a look at this article. I think that the subject matter is borderline notable at best, and the article's wording is promotional, potentially libellous and decidely non-encyclopedic. No other article links to it either. In addition, I now suspect that it's main editor is one of the band (Ryan Cook). However, I was not aware of this latter detail when I placed the {POV} and {Refimprove} tags in August last year, when I also wrote my accompanying thoughts on the talk page. I am not very impressed with the reply from User:Ryucoo, but thought it wise to seek another's opinion, rather firing off my response. Thank you,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The dear and kindly Ms Mills is having a problem with an editor that wants to only show her good side. [31] Ta very much.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fear this may be escalating. [32] -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less,
I saw that you blocked an IP whose copyvios I had been reverting. I was just wondering: when dealing with accounts that repeatedly add copyright violations, where is the best place to ask an Admin to block them? Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you're familiar with my "AfD spree," I figured I'd solicit some advice :) A group of angry people who mostly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion policies are lousing my talk page with invective. I really don't have the time to deal with them. I feel as if most of them think that I am just clicking a button and deleting their favorite language's page out of spite! One commenter even suggested I search for references to improve the articles in question, as opposed to nominating them for deletion (the sheer irony). Do you know of anything that can be done to help these people understand what is going on, or, failing that, stop them from commenting on my talk page? Or must I be a martyr for Wikipedia? Christopher Monsanto ( talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I just read through the almost-ready Shakespeare authorship question ArbCom decision. I have not seen you around much since we discussed rolling our sleeves up and getting our arms dirty in this area, but you have my commiserations if you have been involved with what appears to have been yet another case full of heated discussions and wild accusations. Hopefully, the talkpage template notifying editors that a page is covered by the case will be known henceforth as the "SAQFAQ". Good luck with the DOS and COBOL - FORTRAN 77 is the one true way. - 2/0 ( cont.) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Was this intentional? I noticed it when going to the user's page to leave him a message about his frustrations at ANI. I can at least understand his frustrations. It happens and it's not anything intentional on anyone's part, but I can at least understand it. -- B ( talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That was a classic. And funny. And no, I didn't say I was going anywhere. :) Dr.K. λogos πraxis 02:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The user has made no edits not related to Spliced (TV series), suggesting major WP:OWN issues. As you said, indeed their "discussion" of my edits is basically namecalling, personal attacks and saying that I don't know a thing about the show because I haven't seen every episode yet. I think the personal attacks, combined with WP:OWN and WP:SPA, are big issues here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review continued discussion at WP:ANI#Outing comment. I appreciate that you did not invoke any formal sanctions, but nevertheless I am concerned that you have acted improperly with regard to edits by an anonymous user by conducting a revdel on their behalf and subsequently behaving towards me as though they had requested a redaction of the posted information. Moreover, you are setting a dangerous precedent in doing so. You're welcome to tell me “that was a dumb idea, don't do it again” and leave it at that, but citing a policy that is not applicable is inappropriate. The nominee of the ANI request hasn't been online to discuss the reasoning, but I would appreciate if you would try once more to explain how you have arrived at this conclusion against what I can only read as an explicit, common-sense exception in the policy text. — INTRIGUEBLUE ( talk| contribs) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just leave the poor guy alone?
Just what "disruptive editing" is he supposedly doing? (I can't see any evidence of any.)
As some-one well outside this affray, your block just looks like persecution and a power struggle to me - i.e. it looks like it's political, not functional.
I'll be interested to read your reply. Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
^WP:A.*
) on the principles espoused in that statement should you be so inclined. --
Xover (
talk)
13:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Hi. I believe that your block of Rodhullandemu was not necessary and ask you to reconsider it. Editors are not required by any policy to either actively participate in arbitration proceedings or to refrain from editing while labeling themselves as "retired". Even if Rodhullandemu's conduct may appear erratic, it is not disruptive to the encyclopedia and does not warrant a block. Sandstein 14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for a review on ANI. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Frank | talk 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
user Nanazo obvious is not Ragusino and DIREKTOR's ultra nationalistic trolling need to ban!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.209.50 ( talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Note. Ugh, awful section title. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I've done rangeblocks before, but I'm pretty far away from being the most technically adept admin on the block. My recent efforts feels wrong to me. Can you tell me if this looks right?
It's related to this ANI listing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU, I see that you temporarily blocked User talk:60.230.156.127 for vandalizing my user page (which is appreciated). However, this is the 2nd & 3rd time this ip has done so (in 2 days) as the day before he vandalized my user page in the same ---> offensive manner – but did so as User talk:124.181.121.211. Of note, his spat of vandalism is a result of a content disagreement when he was posting under the IP User talk:120.144.131.226 (they all have the same latitude/longitude coordinates). Thus, I was wondering if you could please block/permanently ban all three of the IP’s, as I really am getting tired of worrying about what anti-Semitic/offensive pictures he may be posting on my user page when I log off. The other option would be if you could give my user page semi-protection from IP’s – as this user has shown he will continually change his IP to keep going. Regardless of what you can do thanks for considering my request :o) Redthoreau -- ( talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I came to ask a favor but (nosey person that I am) I noticed something above that maybe you can assist with. First request----> I'm a Wiki Guide (recent volunteer). My second batch of New Editors contained User:Famously Sharp and when I went to welcome 'Famous', I was redirected to User:RexxS. As usual I assumed good faith but I did wonder what was going on. Maybe you can explain? Second request----> Can you, when ever you have some free time give a look at User:Buster7/Incivility and tell me a) what you think, b) any other talk pages/essays/sources/discussions you might be aware of, and c) who should I make sure sees my effort. This last request stems from the Banner that has been on top of all the Wiki pages for the past few days re:The Foundation and steps that may be in the wind to make some changes at WP. "TRA!" Buster Seven Talk 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to be blocked to the casual observer. [33] [34] I'm not a casual observer, and I remember Haus and am not surprised (though I had hoped he would avoid further controversial editing). Is the fact he doesn't show up as blocked some kind of glitch? Doc talk 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed this SPA editor came back putting the self-published book back into articles it had been removed from. You had indef blocked in December, then unblocked in January "per e-mail request." I indef blocked again, given the pattern of behavior has not changed and the user hasn't acknowledge understanding concerns with the edits. I was just wondering if something said in the e-mail was a convincing argument so I could unblock with a suggestion to discuss edits. Thought I'd consult the original admin block. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am informing you of this [35] discussion because of your involvement in this [36] previous ANI. Onthegogo ( talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() | Old archive material has now been moved to Archive "won" |
I neither know nor care who is right, but an edit war is an edit war and the IP is personally attacking the user in his summaries. Cluestick please? I'm tempted to suggest both of them, but I'll leave that to you. Half Shadow 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear co-Wikipedians, ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveJrobertson ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Also..
ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Russia, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Russia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Russian position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue.
CliveJrobertson ( talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you 'block conflicted' with Vianello over User:Alt Key. He placed an indefinite block notice for spamming, while at the same time you were blocking him three hours for disruption. Whichever way the wind blows on this one, the block notice and the actual block should be fixed to coincide. Cheers, -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you've clarified on their talk page. Cheers again, -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this, but I think you're absolutely in the right here, so I'm willing to let yours stand as-is. I already removed my notice. I believe I stuck the notice up by mistake after our blocks crossed paths. A short-term block is a lot more sensible, I agree. - Vianello ( Talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am aware. I replied. :).Mitch32( Transportation Historian) 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think as you observed yourself, policy requires that Malke's revert after my WP:BRD undo be reverted. I do not want to do it, in order not to start an edit war, but as an admin, I think it would be appropriate for you to restore it while discussions take place, in order not to set an example that WP:BRD can be ignored, an admin can be aware of it and allow it to stand. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this and am wondering how this WP:CONTENTFORK came to be... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard, someone seems to have blanked my article Catholic views on Mary and caused it to be redirected to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). How can I get it undirected and get the article restored? Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
About reverting my edit from RodHullandEmu's talk page, i just want back on wikipedia! LET ME ON! or you'll all suffer, yes, you'll all pay, yes!-- 89.241.164.44 ( talk) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
See this post by User:Tedickey. This seems to be a well-formed unblock request. As the blocking admin, it's up to you how to handle it from here. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
is not spelled that way ;) Jack Merridew 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You told me to drop a note here at the end of (last) week, and that you would now decide if you would do a full review and pass a judgment: [1] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard, I've been trying to improve the article, Catholic views on the Virgin Mary, but I'm continually reverted by History2007, as I was just now after working for a long time thinning it out and making room for new content. [4]. This is the same response I get on any Catholic article I edit. And now he's claiming that he's going to get the article merged. This is an article I started regarding another issue. It's already survived a nearly intractable AfD. I'd like to get things moving on it but it's been impossible. I've put off doing anything for a while now, but it's getting to where I can't do anything over there. Any help would be appreciated. Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. Hello. I am the User ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ), blocked, and of whom I had been falsely and wrongly accused, and improperly accused (The proper Sock-Puppetry Template was NOT used for example and for instance.), of being a so-called "Sock Puppet", and blocked. Requests for Assistance. Thank you very much. 77.86.106.2 ( talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For LessHeard. In appreciation of the excellent advice you give and kindness you've shown in being my mentor. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you very much. Of course, the mentorship thing is ongoing - but you have given me no reason to be anything other than supportive. May it continue.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that there was consensus but I also see the value in your conclusion and think it could work. However, there is already trouble. Would you mind popping over and clarifying or providing some advice. Thanks. Cptnono ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Appropriate Civility | |
Somewhat belatedly awarded to LessHeard vanU for his common-sense approach. pablo 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
I think I ought to mention that I have not advised anyone to fuck off for over two years, so I do believe in some moderation of expression. Just saying. Oh, and thanks. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to make sure you have no objections to this. [5] Regards, Sandstein 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - just to let you know, a discussion you closed is being parsed by a number of editors over at WP:AE#Shuki. Thought you might like to know. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
After spending an hour failing to get Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to cooperate with me. Now I asked for the block to be placed ending at December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.
I request this in good faith and in good standing understanding
Its finals and I need to keep on task thus a forced wikibreak may help. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Say the secret woid & win a hundred dollars". Anyways, I'm planning to make a sticker for my car windshield, which will read: "I found Jesus, I have him in my trunk". GoodDay ( talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I hit a button by accident on my watchlist and blasted some content from this page, and then had to restore it. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Lunalet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite this, [7] the editor is still active, and is all over that one AFD (which is apparently the reason his ID was created), and it's obvious he's either a sock or an impostor. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Has this IP had enough warnings regarding his/her vandalistic tendencies ? I am surprised that he/she has survived this long. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
When you've the time, I'd appreciate help with a very distressing situation here: [8]. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I think ya broke something there & I'm not sure how to fix it -without reverting-. GoodDay ( talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, after you placed the three-month block notice on User:174.27.246.236 as a sock of User:RasputinJSvengali, he/she apparently began the same edits as User:67.2.187.252. This is a list of known and suspected socks of this user, who was originally blocked for harassment of myself and User:Jefferson Anderson, who ended up retiring his account.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Rosencomet ( talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I want to report you what Omar-Toons is doing [10]. Regards-- Morisco ( talk) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at this article's talk page. Your input at this stage may be better than mine, as I seem to be not quite getting the message across. Or, perhaps, I have been too heavy-handed ? Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding [11], since the responses are buried in noise, "yes". Giano and a very banned user (and only those two persons) have tried both logins with past and current arbitrator accounts, as well as constructed URLs to hypothetical pages without authentication. Those actions are not normally visible in checkuser logs, but we took reports of security flaws seriously enough to request that a dev examine the server logs directly. The logs also do not show any success in the matter despite Giano having implied that he did reach contents.
"why is GR posting here" is a result of our (the committee's) decision to not sanction him for the attempt given that it was ostensibly for the purposes of "auditing" the security and that the ongoing election complicated matters. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Predictably, Commons has quite a few nice images that could potentially be used to illustrate various aspects of a certain body of mammals:
Hans Adler 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I started a new thread on the admins' board about the last edits by موريسكو(Morisco) (the same that I reported last time) and Bokpasa [13] for major edits on articles without discussion and without consensus.
Since you are the one who toke action (blocking موريسكو) on the last time, I though it was necessary to keep you in touch about that.
Regards,
Omar-Toons (
talk)
15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
User:RedKnight 1, who is no stranger to wikipedia policy, has called me an "idiot", and was markedly rude for a first encounter with me, i have never talked to him before or insulted him, yet he assume an arrogant, condescending attitude and threatens to ban me, yet i see that he is not an admin. "Learn to write an wikipedia article & stop manipulating Sources and putting them out of context to support your biased POV or I'll will have you banned.)"
He also deleted a massive amount of referenced information, with no explanation at all. I urged him to explain his mass deletion, yet his response was to put off the issue, saying he needed a day to reply, "(I do have a life)", which at an extreme, can be taken as a gesture that i don't have one.
seeing that he was the one who deleted a massive amount of referenced text and did not explain why, only claiming i an "twisting references", yet he gave no examples, I think the burden is on the deleting editor to give an explanation.
Arbitrarily claiming that i should be banned, and saying "Plus, I want to be civil, but this idiot" sort of speaks out for RedKnight 1's intentions on its own, any editor who wants to attack another can potentially say, "I want to be civil, but", is clearly trying to game the system by claiming civility while clearly violating etiquette. Дунгане ( talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
On the administrators noticeboard, section about Sark, you wrote: "Unlock and warn the two disputing editors that since they have not taken the opportunity to resolve their differences in the meantime that any edit warring will incur stiff sanctions." I would like to point out that I did take the opportunity to resolve the differences with the other editor, but he stopped responding. I would like you to explain what I am supposed to do to try to resolve the differences with the other editor when I have written a polite, reasoned, dispassionate argument (which you are able to read and which I invite you to read) and he has stopped responding. As for your threats of "stiff sanctions", you might wish to bear in mind that my contributions are being made for free, in my free time, on a voluntary basis. Please explain what "stiff sanctions" you can carry out against me that I should care about. If you feel like cancelling my account, be my guest and I will devote my free time and my knowledge to some purpose where it will be better appreciated.
La.coupee ( talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Saw you listed on WP:AMDB. I just blocked a user, but another admin questioned my intentions since I am involved in the dispute. Will you take a look? (see User_talk:Racepacket). If you feel a block appropriate, do I need another admin (perhaps you) to block instead? — Eustress talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha! Little LessHeard pretty evil! Have a Bishzilla Walk of Fame Star! darwinbish BITE 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
I notice that User:Greg Kane has been editing this article. The real Greg Kane is one half of this brotherly twosome (Hue and Cry). It may be coincidental, but said user's editing history is one article specific. The H and C article itself is not in bad shape, so maybe there's no big problem, but I thought you ought to be aware. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Sounds good, eh? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 08:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
at the [ uyghur people article User:Erkintarim is deleting referenced information with no explanation. Дунгане ( talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to remove that "enemies list" at the top of the User talk:Dylan Flaherty page? One editor removed just his own name, and I'm concerned that will "start something". Oh, and while you're at it, maybe semi-protect the page, to keep the IP impostors away from it? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Less! I remember you blocking Balubz123 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of Balubz ( talk · contribs), and recently Penaamiel ( talk · contribs) was blocked for some similar nonsense. 124.6.181.199 ( talk · contribs) has recently been active at the mall articles, and I believe it is an IP used by Balubz that somehow slipped the radar. Here's why: Balubz created this odd "sandbox-style" edit to his userpage, and the IP actually worked on it. [14] [15] [16] Why an IP would work on something like this on a user talk page is... unusual. I want to hit the page with a {{ipsock|Balubz}} and tag up the others appropriately, but I'd like your opinion first. Thanks :> Doc talk 03:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about my stupid error. Happy New Year, Mathsci ( talk) 10:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Said-akl.jpg a picture of Said Akl, who was born in 1912, so I can't see how it could be 100 years old. Dougweller ( talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether or not I should delete the revision (is there a policy?), but then I saw you were a sysop and could undelete it if you wanted to. ... discospinster talk 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This image File:Tashkorgan Tajik.jpg It clearly says All rights Reserved at its flickr location, yet someone uploaded it to wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Дунгане ( talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You know the one [17]. Its obviously well over and done now, but has been the subject of discussion. Can I counsel you not to be tempted to make such comments again, particularly on a project noticeboard. It is inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly where a block for civility is being discussed, for other contributors to be incivil. This applies more so where the other contributors are admins or other functionaries - those with any level of responsibility should show that they know better than to take cheap shots. I hope this was a one off, and there will not be any repeats in the coming year. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, your attention for this message. Thanks. -- Crisarco ( talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Alpha30 was an italian Wikipedian, now blocked indefinitely for contributions in violation of copyright: [18]. He wrotes: You are asked to "STOP WRITING ON MY TALK" I suggest you motivate your ABSURD NOTICES to other persons, however your warnings are meaningless because I'm away for a long time. Now your obsession to me, and that of your colleagues, has reached the limit of endurance. You persist to insult and attack me with insignificant and false accusations. I inform you that: "I HAVE NO CLAIM AT ALL". Then I impose to you the “BLOCK” for serious reasons: .... -- Crisarco ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi little LittleHeard. I seem to recollect that you took the Smatprt issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in hand when it had reached gridlock; would you like to return to the page? The article, and very much also the talkpage, are again suffering from POV problems and a static quarrelsomeness which makes me throw up my hands. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only admin who follows the page, and I have IRL issues which seriously need to take precedence. My attempt here to scare up an uninvolved admin for review had no result; after taking a look at the talkpage everybody suddenly remembered an appointment, I guess. I can't blame them, either. But you're so big and strong, perhaps you'd care to review it and come up with some brilliant solution? Bishonen | talk 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC).
Zweigenbaum As the accused in the action forwarded by Bishonen re: Shakespeare Authorship Question on Wikipedia, I wish to point out: 1)the summary article under peer review has been written by an interested party in the general question, and therefore cannot be a neutral party, since Tom Reedy is a known associate of the extreme advocate against Oxfordian research results, David Kathman; 2)Tom Reedy, the principal if not the single writer, has responded generally and specifically as the arbiter of work he himself has written, a clear conflict of interest in this context; 3)there is no evidence of any other contributions or suggestions by any supporting individuals nor evidence of accepted substantive suggestions from opposing individuals; 4)comments and revisions by objecting individuals have been met with resistence, personal and otherwise; 5)neutrality concerns have been treated with retaliatory censure; 6) the recent appeal to LittleHeard ('big and strong')[sic] regarding Wikipedia policies is outside the guidelines for resolution; and 7)it appears an interested party cannot produce a neutral point of view on this topic in a summary article, nor a member of the majority contingent achieve neutrality by appealing to an outside party, LittleHeard. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 18:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I am seriously concerned about Rodhullandemu. There are rumours circulating that he is drunk round the clock, and editing under the influence. Whether true or totally unfounded I think you bear some responsibility for looking after him. Just make sure you keep things in check. 86.160.112.109 ( talk) 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
please don't hit me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.56.33 ( talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page before I even noticed it. Have a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
on this section, the following alleged quote is given- "Talk of Arabs killing Blacks is a lie, the government of Sudan is a government of Blacks, with all different ethnic backgrounds. We're all Africans. We're all Black"
the source is finalcall.com, which appears to be run by the Nation of Islam (which in reality is a black supremacist organization and has little to do with the Islamic religion), and Nation of Islam openly supports the Presiden al Bashir, not to mention due to its status as a black supremacist organization, it spouts hatred of other races. I find the usage of the source questionable, what action should be taken? Дунгане ( talk) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible for an admin (or someone with proper authority) to scramble a user's password? (No details, please - just 'Yes' or 'No' or 'No Comment' will suffice.) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll want to remove the edit summary of what you just oversighted too, since it contained the same personal info. Thanks a lot! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to indicate that I replied to your entirely uncivil note on my talk page. Next time either learn some manners or stay off my page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding you new banner: VAT! What exactly is a VAT? I suspect it is one of those horrible and highly contagious diseases afflicting our less fortunate and promiscous editors - of which, in my experience, we have too many. If people take part in these dreadful unnatural practices, they can't be surprised if they get VAT, I have no sympathy. As though my life (what precious little remains of it) is not bad enough, with dearest Giacomo and his new page constantly pressing me to re-live that dreadful night when Irish liberationists burnt darling little Ballybuggery Castle to the ground, claiming I was an absent landlord - no doubt that horrid Mr Vintagekits was wearing his leprechaun suit and waving his tricolour from the highest tower as it burnt. While, I (like my fellow aristocratic editors) am in no way vindictive, I do so very nuch hope you will join forces with the aristocracy and establishment and keep him well and truly banned! Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) ( talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.0.233 ( talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I read your note at the top and see where you are coming from. I have a friend who is an analyst and has written numerous very complicated programs in LOTUS 1-2-3 DOS version and now has to battle with everyone moving over to Excel. My sympathies. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
--Nothing urgent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, they want to accept it, so maybe if you had a few more links showing that you guys have tried to settle the matter and failed. And there is a great need for further diffs showing tendentious/disruptive editing. BE——Critical__ Talk 02:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Was there a checkuser on NinaGreen and Smatprt? Nina came just after Smatprt was blocked, and started on the same article Smatprt had been editing. BE——Critical__ Talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage. 03:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less,
Thanks for taking a hand of this situation. I was (literally today) going to file a report at AN/I about the legal threats and outing issue had not this gone to ArbCom now, but I have hopes this now provides the option of taking the approach that has the least scope for escalation of the conflict. I do still wonder if requesting Oversighting of the outing edits would not be appropriate? I couldn't tell you how revealing of real-life identity the relevant slip-up was, but as I am myself quite protective of the distinction between on-wiki/off-wiki identity I am personally loath to let even small such stand.
Anyways… They may hate me for dragging them into this, but I would suggest GuillaumeTell and Wrad—who have both been involved both centrally and peripherally in editing the Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia for years, and who, I believe (I may be wrong), have dramatically reduced their participation as a direct result of this endless conflict—be added to the ArbCom case. I might also have suggested AndyJones, but he is little involved in Wikipedia lately, and has (IIRC) expressed a desire to not be embroiled in these conflicts. My one caveat is that I am ambivalent about the expediency of taking the long view—seeing this conflict as one, including the previous clashes on other articles involving different "anti-Strafordians"—or addressing the immediate issue (the actions and editors currently engaged at the SAQ page and collateral talk pages). The problem is systemic (and relates closely to Wikipedia's inability to deal effectively with so-called polite POV pushers), but trying to address more than the immediate conflict may be a practical impossibility for any mere human beings. And if scope is reduced accordingly, Guillaume and Wrad (and certainly Andy) may be allowed their peace as they've (perhaps more wisely) not involved themselves in the SAQ article and talk page.
I have been unable to contribute much to the "discussion" on the article talk page owing to sheer volume (and not a little disorganization), but I have been trying to keep up and intend to comment on the RfAr and any resulting case; I just need to read up on what, precisely, is expected there: I may be fond of policy and process, but I've so far managed to avoid having to know more about ArbCom than the fact that they exist and have some sort of semi-final say in the really ornery cases. Sadly it seems my ignorance is now in imminent danger of being challenged by first-hand experience.
In any case, thanks for taking this in hand, whatever the outcome, as there appeared no chance of a better outcome the way things were progressing previously. Cheers, -- Xover ( talk) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard. Given the current events surrounding the SAQ and related articles, I am considering appealing my topic ban. You wrote "You may wish another admin, or other senior independent editor, to review my conclusions and the relevant discussion, or may appeal the ban at WP:ANI, or request an Arbitration Committee case. " To start at the beginning of your list - how do I find/request a senior independent editor or admin to review your conclusions? Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Established custodian? I wish. You don't know how little time I've spent on that article/talkpage; I have such a low boredom threshold that it took the hero posting just above only a day or two to scare me off three years ago. I have, however, written some fluff and rhetorical flourishes about the great importance of fixing the situation on those articles in a lasting way, not just a Nina way, as if the arbs didn't know..! It's here. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
FYI [23]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Thanks for your message. In a funny way, I found his posts strangely compelling. It's the dogmatic certainties combined with the bizarre leaps from one topic to the next. I just wish I knew what he was talking about. "you keep ducking my question here as to the identity of a black magician who keeps addressing me and claims to be majoring in iconography at the University of Sussex". What on earth does this mean? Am I the "black magician" or someone else? Who claims to be "majoring in iconography" at Sussex, whatever that means? I certainly don't. The stuff about Duke university is weirdly fascinating, though clearly libellous. Paul B ( talk) 10:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Good decision to wipe that page. I hope you don't mind me logging the block at the evidence page [24]; I think these kinds of sanctions are interesting data points. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm bothered by this. Partially I'm not convinced that the DustinWestfall that is the 13 year old on YouTube is this editor, partially because of the other names. I'm tempted to delete it. Comments? Dougweller ( talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a separate suicide hotline for arbitrators, or do they have to use the same ones editors and admins do? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less, never worry about how you come across to me - I'll always assume ultimate good faith in you, and I know you weren't criticising (other than constructively). Oddly enough, ArbCom pages are really difficult to tweak, because once somebody has commented on a proposal, you can't really change it other than for typos. That's why I stoleadapted FPaS' proposals. Please feel free to re-use anything I've suggested if you can improve on it. I've not yet found time to analyse the evidence sufficiently to be sure of any proposed FoFs or Remedies, so I was content to leave the Principles broad for now. I guess any of us can come back and refine them as the other sections develop - what do you think? --
RexxS (
talk)
01:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU. I just read a comment of yours on ANI regarding indefblocking, and I was actually coming to the same conclusion. Would you be interested in collaborating on an essay on it? I just have written down some stakewords for now, but I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit tomorrow. If you want, leave some comments and interesting insights on the issue on talk (or just edit the bugger, cause knowing me, it'll end up half finished anyway). It's on User:Martijn Hoekstra/indef only. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [25] and leave your vote. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you asked at ANI, and since I previously observed your interaction with Dylan and Malke, I wanted to affirm your actions in those incidents. Not that you'll need it, you were already cheered on quite well; but it might improve your day. JJB 12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
…you have no idea what you've set in motion now. Do you really think the other party there will be able to resist refuting your argument, at length, in detail, and with vigor? If you thought the page was long now, I predict Wikimedia will need another fundraiser soon to pay for the storage. :-)
On a related note, I see what you're going for there, but I fear it will be lost on the intended recipients; it will only be taken like both “sides” are making equally weak arguments and are hung up on content (and thus out of scope in the context). --
Xover (
talk)
00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A creepy geologist's spell-check apparently :) Shell babelfish 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? What is your comment about? And yes, I did advise new IP to establish accounts before [27] or informed them about rules on Wiki [28]. I am also fairly certain that I noticed before that a IP account from area discussed in the article engaged in discussion regarding that aricle(although I don't have time to search for it). Also we had a problem with IP accounts from Germany vandalising Polish related articles before or entering highly POV claims to them, heh it dates to very very old Wikipedia time, when one owner was banned by Jimbo himself(search for Helga Jonat from around 2002). The IP user occassionally reapears it seems. Now can you tell me what is this all about? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Have that coffe if you're still awake, or maybe better some Horlicks, this time of night. Don't forget that you've made the best comment in this arbitration, although nobody seemed to notice it particularly: You continue to make demands and requests and to comment without understanding the culture and its practices and rules in which you find yourself; this lays at the heart of the issue as it relates to you. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Could you kindly take a look at this article. I think that the subject matter is borderline notable at best, and the article's wording is promotional, potentially libellous and decidely non-encyclopedic. No other article links to it either. In addition, I now suspect that it's main editor is one of the band (Ryan Cook). However, I was not aware of this latter detail when I placed the {POV} and {Refimprove} tags in August last year, when I also wrote my accompanying thoughts on the talk page. I am not very impressed with the reply from User:Ryucoo, but thought it wise to seek another's opinion, rather firing off my response. Thank you,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The dear and kindly Ms Mills is having a problem with an editor that wants to only show her good side. [31] Ta very much.-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fear this may be escalating. [32] -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Less,
I saw that you blocked an IP whose copyvios I had been reverting. I was just wondering: when dealing with accounts that repeatedly add copyright violations, where is the best place to ask an Admin to block them? Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you're familiar with my "AfD spree," I figured I'd solicit some advice :) A group of angry people who mostly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion policies are lousing my talk page with invective. I really don't have the time to deal with them. I feel as if most of them think that I am just clicking a button and deleting their favorite language's page out of spite! One commenter even suggested I search for references to improve the articles in question, as opposed to nominating them for deletion (the sheer irony). Do you know of anything that can be done to help these people understand what is going on, or, failing that, stop them from commenting on my talk page? Or must I be a martyr for Wikipedia? Christopher Monsanto ( talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I just read through the almost-ready Shakespeare authorship question ArbCom decision. I have not seen you around much since we discussed rolling our sleeves up and getting our arms dirty in this area, but you have my commiserations if you have been involved with what appears to have been yet another case full of heated discussions and wild accusations. Hopefully, the talkpage template notifying editors that a page is covered by the case will be known henceforth as the "SAQFAQ". Good luck with the DOS and COBOL - FORTRAN 77 is the one true way. - 2/0 ( cont.) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Was this intentional? I noticed it when going to the user's page to leave him a message about his frustrations at ANI. I can at least understand his frustrations. It happens and it's not anything intentional on anyone's part, but I can at least understand it. -- B ( talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That was a classic. And funny. And no, I didn't say I was going anywhere. :) Dr.K. λogos πraxis 02:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The user has made no edits not related to Spliced (TV series), suggesting major WP:OWN issues. As you said, indeed their "discussion" of my edits is basically namecalling, personal attacks and saying that I don't know a thing about the show because I haven't seen every episode yet. I think the personal attacks, combined with WP:OWN and WP:SPA, are big issues here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review continued discussion at WP:ANI#Outing comment. I appreciate that you did not invoke any formal sanctions, but nevertheless I am concerned that you have acted improperly with regard to edits by an anonymous user by conducting a revdel on their behalf and subsequently behaving towards me as though they had requested a redaction of the posted information. Moreover, you are setting a dangerous precedent in doing so. You're welcome to tell me “that was a dumb idea, don't do it again” and leave it at that, but citing a policy that is not applicable is inappropriate. The nominee of the ANI request hasn't been online to discuss the reasoning, but I would appreciate if you would try once more to explain how you have arrived at this conclusion against what I can only read as an explicit, common-sense exception in the policy text. — INTRIGUEBLUE ( talk| contribs) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just leave the poor guy alone?
Just what "disruptive editing" is he supposedly doing? (I can't see any evidence of any.)
As some-one well outside this affray, your block just looks like persecution and a power struggle to me - i.e. it looks like it's political, not functional.
I'll be interested to read your reply. Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
^WP:A.*
) on the principles espoused in that statement should you be so inclined. --
Xover (
talk)
13:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Hi. I believe that your block of Rodhullandemu was not necessary and ask you to reconsider it. Editors are not required by any policy to either actively participate in arbitration proceedings or to refrain from editing while labeling themselves as "retired". Even if Rodhullandemu's conduct may appear erratic, it is not disruptive to the encyclopedia and does not warrant a block. Sandstein 14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for a review on ANI. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Frank | talk 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
user Nanazo obvious is not Ragusino and DIREKTOR's ultra nationalistic trolling need to ban!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.209.50 ( talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Note. Ugh, awful section title. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I've done rangeblocks before, but I'm pretty far away from being the most technically adept admin on the block. My recent efforts feels wrong to me. Can you tell me if this looks right?
It's related to this ANI listing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard vanU, I see that you temporarily blocked User talk:60.230.156.127 for vandalizing my user page (which is appreciated). However, this is the 2nd & 3rd time this ip has done so (in 2 days) as the day before he vandalized my user page in the same ---> offensive manner – but did so as User talk:124.181.121.211. Of note, his spat of vandalism is a result of a content disagreement when he was posting under the IP User talk:120.144.131.226 (they all have the same latitude/longitude coordinates). Thus, I was wondering if you could please block/permanently ban all three of the IP’s, as I really am getting tired of worrying about what anti-Semitic/offensive pictures he may be posting on my user page when I log off. The other option would be if you could give my user page semi-protection from IP’s – as this user has shown he will continually change his IP to keep going. Regardless of what you can do thanks for considering my request :o) Redthoreau -- ( talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I came to ask a favor but (nosey person that I am) I noticed something above that maybe you can assist with. First request----> I'm a Wiki Guide (recent volunteer). My second batch of New Editors contained User:Famously Sharp and when I went to welcome 'Famous', I was redirected to User:RexxS. As usual I assumed good faith but I did wonder what was going on. Maybe you can explain? Second request----> Can you, when ever you have some free time give a look at User:Buster7/Incivility and tell me a) what you think, b) any other talk pages/essays/sources/discussions you might be aware of, and c) who should I make sure sees my effort. This last request stems from the Banner that has been on top of all the Wiki pages for the past few days re:The Foundation and steps that may be in the wind to make some changes at WP. "TRA!" Buster Seven Talk 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to be blocked to the casual observer. [33] [34] I'm not a casual observer, and I remember Haus and am not surprised (though I had hoped he would avoid further controversial editing). Is the fact he doesn't show up as blocked some kind of glitch? Doc talk 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed this SPA editor came back putting the self-published book back into articles it had been removed from. You had indef blocked in December, then unblocked in January "per e-mail request." I indef blocked again, given the pattern of behavior has not changed and the user hasn't acknowledge understanding concerns with the edits. I was just wondering if something said in the e-mail was a convincing argument so I could unblock with a suggestion to discuss edits. Thought I'd consult the original admin block. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am informing you of this [35] discussion because of your involvement in this [36] previous ANI. Onthegogo ( talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)