User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/August

Block

Hi. Can you please review the decision not to block at [1]? I (obviously) think a block is in order, but as soon as I explained why (most recently) my comment was simply deleted (perhaps so others could not see it?). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed, and I have to agree with the admin that declined the report, given the lack of recent activity. If it vandalizes again, bring it to my attention and I will certainly block. What brings you to my talk page today? :) Enigma^msg 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tx. I had thought that his two vandal edits just yesterday (at [2] would qualify as recent activity. I just came to your talk page as you've been helpful before with other vandals (and the admin in question had immediately deleted my last comments from the report page, where you or another might have seen them).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

With IPs, it doesn't qualify as recent unless it was in the last few hours, because many IPs are dynamic. Enigma^msg 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tx (though that doesn't seem to be the case here, as at least half of this IP's last 10 edits were vandalism, and the IP returned to the Youk article weeks later ... a sign that in this case it is not dynamic. Anyway, don't mean to take any more of your time. Tx for the thumb's up on the article -- there were actually some very funny quotes I found. Fun to find them.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Martinez trade done

the trade is done, confirmed by CBS sports and MLBtraderumors.com, reported on ESPN as done, reported on MLB Network done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunaja (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"

There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

CUTKD

CUTKD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Semi-protecting for a week won't do any good. The IP's were issuing these same "I'm gonna get you" messages many weeks ago. It should be permanent. My opinion is that CUTKD is engaged in some kind of game with somebody, but that's not wikipedia's purpose and threats of violence, even if they're in jest, shouldn't be tolerated when they look serious to somone who's not "in on" that game or whatever it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that account came to my attention when it popped up on ANI due to image upload issues. Checking it just now, it was created 3 1/2 years ago and then sat mostly dormant until a few months ago. The first threat of violence appeared in late May and has popped up frequently since. Meanwhile, the user was indef'd, but was then unblocked. However, he has made no article edits since the unblock and has not edited at all since July 22. In short, there's something odd going on with that account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like the user should be indef'd and the page deleted, but fine, will make permanent. Enigma^msg 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your first statement also, as it's probably either a sock or a compromised account. He was indef'd back in June and was unblocked based on a promise to behave, which he has arguably done so, in that he has edited nothing except his user page since he was unblocked, and nothing at all since 7/22 - under that ID, anyway. Maybe a "hard block" would be in order, to flush out any socks? As I said, there's something weird about that account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardblocks can only be set on the IP. Unless disabled, blocking the account does autoblock the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. Enigma^msg 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, if he ever does come back, maybe he could answer a few questions for us. :) Thanks for fixing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Memiors Of An Imperfect Angel

I am just adding a few imformation on it if you leave it on there i would b thankfull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changstafolife (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

huh? Enigma^msg 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When yer aboot...

86.146.156.226 (talk · contribs) is another in a long line of metal-observer IP trolls re-adding the link after its been removed. I had a chat with Hu12 about it and he said he couldn't blacklist the site just yet because it showed up in almost 1000 pages and he felt that would be too much collateral damage. Several user's have picked up on this and, so far, the number has been chopped down to 675. Once all the mainspace links are removed (leaving nothing but archived Wikipedia/talk pages he can go ahead and blacklist the link. Its a work in progress. If you could take care of that latest IP and rollback any leftover contributions that haven't already been rv'd... that'd be great! Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Case got to it before me. I'll use mass rollback on the IP and hopefully won't hit anything worthwhile. Enigma^msg 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

PS This IP 88.109.58.238 (talk · contribs) has gone like 12RR over the past 3 days re-adding his fancrufty peacock words to the Queen article. He's been given the 3RR shpeel. But chose to ignore it. He could use a week off. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. PS: Ping for your inbox. Enigma^msg 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ha Enigma^msg 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a complete and total f**kn*t would have been another good decline reason. I had read my talk page before. I am still a bit speechless and self-scolding that I had never heard of such a world famous Russian editor before. Makes for a good "why did you revert me?" answer though.... "WHY?? because I am the famous Wiki libs of En-WP... I can do anything! :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the other ping. ;) Enigma^msg 00:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

87.194.171.224 (talk · contribs) was this mornings metal-O re-adder. I think I got them all. Could you block n check. Its a IP that Prophaniti has had previous access to as he already has a block log (and you're in it :-D ) The Real Libs-speak politely 11:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Beaten to the block again! I guess I can look to see if the edits have been reverted. Enigma^msg 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh look...

It appears I have blocked one of your previous acquaintances (again). – B.hotep •talk• 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully expect the IP to be back after the two weeks are up. This is a persistent one. Enigma^msg 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be looking out for them. And the other one mentioned above. What comes after two weeks? Six months, isn't it? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it helps to be generous in these situations. Six months it is! Enigma^msg 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Protecting my user page an all, appreciate it :-). Jeff M | Talk2Me | BNosey - 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Enigma^msg 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When you're about .. part 27

The always troublesome Rock Soldier has deemed himself an expert on singing and vocalist range and he has decided that Youtube is the ultimate verification for his opinion. He has been adding "expert" personal analysis on many pages about vocal range and adding links to music videos to support his claims. The invisible verification for his content and the Youtube links is basically "just listen and you can hear it for yourself". His edits in this area have gone WAY overboard in recent weeks and he needs a sterm mention from a sherriff that this is not the right way to cite anything. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned. I see he's been warned by Pat (for edit-warring) and Stifle in the past. Check your e-mail. Enigma^msg 18:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "MO" IP warrior

User:Prophaniti stepped around the 2 week block on yesterdays IP and used 86.146.156.226 (talk · contribs) to continue his war over at wp:album. He has also revealed himself to have a new account... Catglobal (talk · contribs) so that he can circumvent semi-prots to still edit pages. Which he did... again... bypassing the 2 week block put on his IP of yesterday. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PS... it still wouldn't surprise me if Prophaniti, Catglobal, The "MO" IPs.. AND User:MetalKommandant... were all the same person. Add new account User:KezianAvenger into that mix too just because that account started at the same time Prophaniti "quit" and has a tendency to mirror some of Prophaniti's more frequent genre-war edits. (re-adding/deleting the same genres from the same pages that 'Prophi' did). Too bad a behind-the-scenes CU couldn't be done on these IPs and accounts to see if they all link back to the same keyboard. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Prophaniti indef. Autoblock should take out his IP for 24 hours. My connection today has been terrible, so I can't check to see if they're likely socks, but Catglobal has earned a block for edit-warring anyway. Enigma^msg 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All three now blocked. Just got the IP as well. Normal service has resumed, and I see that it's the same IP I saw Daniel Case zap. Reblocked for a week. Enigma^msg 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Lakkattoor

Hello Enigmaman, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Lakkattoor has been removed. It was removed by SpacemanSpiff with the following edit summary '(contest PROD: verifiable village, article was incorrect in saying it was part of another village, it was part of a Panchayat)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SpacemanSpiff before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Edit warrior WAY past 3RR

Ummm.. I think this fella has more than overstepped his boundaries as far as 3RR is concerned. He was issued a warning last night. Has ignored it and continued his pov push. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours. Yes, I'm a talk page stalker. ^_^ Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page stalking and eaves dropping is a good thing.... helps us all to "git-r-done" a lot quicker around here. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Enigma^msg 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing Larry Dolan Page

Enigmaman, I'd like to edit the Larry Dolan page. I have a reliable internet source and I'll share it with you.

Thanks, Shanleye (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Post here or on Talk:Larry Dolan and explain what you'd like to add. Enigma^msg 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely he's earned an indef by now

Either with edits like this or by his userpage itself. A single purpose personal attack account is what he' reduced his content to. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove the attacks and give him a final warning. Enigma^msg 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll block now. Worthless account, previously used for trolling, now used for personal attacks. Enigma^msg 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thou swingeth thy hammer with a mighty thwomp! The Real Libs-speak politely 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Queen of Hearts (poem)

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Queen of Hearts (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When you're about part XXVII

This IP 90.199.99.43 (talk · contribs) is A)a genre warrior B) a false info adder C)a copyvio image uploader or D) yet another IP of an old troll Scarian and I used to refer to "ol' 90.X".... the correct answer is.... "all of the above". A troublesome pest he is. Scarian has blocked many a 90.X IP... any chance you could follow that path as well? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not on the genre troll list! I blocked for 48 hours. The trouble is, I'm going to be gone for about a week. Check your Wikipedia e-mail. Enigma^msg 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this guy. He's been warring for so long (well over a year) using different IPs, I just gave up eventually on some of his edits. When he comes back, which he will, is there anywhere I can report it for a speedy block without having to go through all the bureaucracy? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to find an administrator familiar with the problem. I usually offer to perform such blocks, but I'm going to be away. You might try VS if there are any problems over the upcoming week. After that, feel free to report such things here. Enigma^msg 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey bud, if you have a minute, this guy is at it again from a new IP 90.201.141.34 (talk · contribs), still adding the same unfree images to the infoboxes, etc. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done I'm a little late, but better late than never. Enigma^msg 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Silver Movement Deleation

This page is credible. I do not understand what the problem is. I have valid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you want my article deleted? I wrote the article on a entrepreneur near Buffalo, NY. If you google him "Carson Ciggia", you will find his blog along with several news articles. He deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.31.228 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Blocked IP

Replied on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks & curious ...

hello Enigmaman - thanks for all your good work, and please excuse this "just making sure" question: you recently blocked 67.58.167.45, and although that appears in that IP's block log, there seems to be no notification of the block on User Talk:67.58.167.45. is that standard or ... ? (i'm the one who reported the IP, which is the only reason i noticed.) thanks again, and swing on. Sssoul (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's standard to leave the block notice, but sometimes I neglect to do it. I'll take care of it now. Enigma^msg 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

cool. thanks again ... Sssoul (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hobgoblein is questioning block

Just a heads up for you - User:Hobgoblein is questioning why they were blocked on their talk page. As this wasn't done in the proper templated format, it won't be picked up by the bots. As I am not familiar with the case, I thought I would let you have the honour of explaining (and yes, I do have sloping shoulders... *grin*). Stephen! ^Coming... 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. It was a pretty straightforward block, but obviously another admin will have to handle the actual request. BTW, I missed the joke. What do you mean by sloping shoulders? Enigma^msg 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckoned it probably was a straight-forward block, and seeing your name on it gave me confidence that it was all above board. However, it was an appeal on their talk phrase, and procedure has to be followed, which is why I thought I should drop you a line about it. As for the comment? It's a UK phrase that I guess didn't translate... Taking responsibility for somthing is sometimes described as "resting on one's shoulders". "Sloping shoulders" implies that I'm not taking responsibility, and passing it straight on to someone else (i.e. you). Also referred to as Teflon shoulders, due to the impossibility of making the responsibility stick. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. I suppose it will help whichever admin handles the request to see my reasoning, although I certainly don't often go to such lengths about blocks! Enigma^msg 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the reviewing admin will thank you for the detail! Stephen! ^Coming... 14:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase is tl;dr ;) No, I did read it, honestly. – B.hotep •talk• 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's my turn to ask for an explanation... tl;dr? Stephen! ^Coming... 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Don't worry about it - did what i should have done in the first place and looked for it on Wiki! Stephen! ^Coming... 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Yes, that was inappropriate, and I apologize. It's a result of the interface on my iPhone, which can cause me to activate rollback without realizing it. Just so you know I was aware, you'll see that I've already posted an apology on the talk page of the user I reverted and the user who had to revert me afterwards. Thanks for letting me know, anyway, as I might not have been aware. Mike Christie (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I should've checked his talk first. My mistake. Enigma^msg 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pauly Shore

When searching for BLPs that had lasting serious vandalism, I noticed you gutted the Pauly Shore article and, in the process, removed a lot of verified and relevant information, like many of his appearances and his Razzie award wins. While the awards are negative in nature, they're all true and verifiable. You also removed information on the reception of some of his movies, and some other information. Some of it is understandable as it wasn't sourced or was sourced to blogs, but removing TV and movie appearances seems unnecessary. Lara 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My objection was that the material was unsourced. If you want to restore it and source it, be my guest. I was rather liberal in removing content in that article, because it presented an imminent danger. Enigma^msg 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. I do not know much about Pauly Shore, but the sheer amount of "awards" designating him as the "worst X" seems to be presenting a slanted view. I assume he's good at something? The article when I first encountered it was a complete BLP disaster. I will not say that my edits necessarily made the article better; only that they removed wide swaths of questionable borderline-defamatory content. This was how the article stood when I first encountered it. Since I am hardly qualified to write an article about Pauly Shore, I did what I had to do. You be the judge of whether the article is better or worse than it was on February 2, 2009. Enigma^msg 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, some of it was sourced, to his own website in one instance. :p Lara 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That works. :) Now that I've got you at my talk, could you tell me what the heck to do with this? Enigma^msg 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Laird

Thanks for your help last time protecting Laird, the vandals are back and deleting the same section of the article. It has happened 3 times in the last day, while thats not too much the IPs look similar to last time and I have a feeling we will continue to have to rv these edits... RP459 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the Scots thank you! RP459 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for protecting Laird in August. Now that the semi is expiered vandals in the same IP range have removed the same content twice... I do not know if that satisfies the requirement to re-semi it with its past history, if not let me know I will keep reverting and check back in when it gets worse. RP459 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around. I see another admin beat me to the protection. Enigma^msg 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Braintree rock band

The rock band Braintree is significant because they are the only indie band to have had two full length albums in the top 200 indie release chart (put out by Nielson Soundscan) at the same time. They have been called "Chicago's hottest rock bands" by WLUP radio, one of Chicago's biggest radio stations. Their CDs have out sold most major label acts in the Chicago regional area. I appologize if I did not make that clear in the article the correct way. I am new to wiki. thank you Quintapus (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you get my last email? There seems to be a lot more evidence as to the importance of Braintree than in a lot of other pages about other indie bands. Let me know what I need to do to do it correctly. Quintapus (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

see here Enigma^msg 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.

Braintree has definately fit this criteria. If you check out this indie chart Braintree is at #172 [3] This web site does not always report the whole chart. But it is the NATIONAL indie release chart.

Then there is also this article written about Braintree in top40charts.com [4] Quintapus (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame me just for your intentions

I am challenging you to prove it my Sock. Why are you blaiming me for a Sock, when I am not using it. Infact, I have dispute with that so-called Sock. Please, don't blame, you are a nuteral Admin not a counter-part. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)--

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LineofWisdom Enigma^msg 07:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much dear. I could just hope such rudeness and revenge from you biased people. Now don't blame that 202.163.91.25, the user who just edited at Marwat and re-edited by you, is also me. I will see, what a shame would be brought to you, when you would be failed in your intentions to take revenge by making an investigagtion by me. I am shocked, how come an Administrator has called me a Sock without any investigation on one of the main Pages. This has ruined my position. Is there no body who could check you Administrtators? --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? "You biased people"? Speak in English and put your complaints where they belong. In other words, not on my talk page. Enigma^msg 08:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested two pages be semi-protected to prevent IP edits: Hermaphrodite and Intersexuality

Hi, I have placed two pages on the list because they are both subject to random IP edits inserting Lady Gaga on the basis of rumours about her being a hermaphrodite. There is no WP:RS, and as she has denied this there are WP:BLP issues around this. The rumours began on-line around two months ago, and there were 2-3 insertions every week, but since the posting of videos about this on Youtube and her denials last week, insertions have escalated to daily. It is always IP editors who do this, and it is a pain. Please protect the two pages cited against such insertions indefinitely - and when the rumours die down, or there is some form of verification available, then we can request the protection be lifted. Thanks. 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I guess. But given that it's borderline and it's the first protection, I'm starting with a week. Enigma^msg 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Mish (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pippa Black

Hi Enigma

I recently asked for the page for Pippa Black to be protected because it was being vandalised. This was declined by you and the reason was that there wasn't enough recent vandalism and I was to resubmit it if the vandalism increased. That's fine, I'm just wondering how recent does the vandalism have to be? For some reason her page seems to come in for a lot of vandalism so I may well have to ask for page protection again at some point but if the vandalism is too old, I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time resubmitting the request?

Also, is there anything else I can do to help Wikipedia combat vandalism? At the minute all I'm doing is reverting any vandalism I do see, issuing the user/IP address with the relevant notices, putting the page on my watchlist and then checking the affected pages every day to keep an eye on things. At the minute there's two pages in particular I'm keeping my eye on, Pippa Black's and the Neighbours page. The Neighbours page normally doesn't get vandalised but for some reason it's been vandalised 4 times this week by the same user. I'm hoping that as I've issued this user with their final warning today that this will now stop, however I would like to assist further if I can?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks for your help before with the Pippa Black issue.

--5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but I would say multiple instances of vandalism in the past two days. The last time the page in question was vandalized was over 60 hours ago. When it's reported, there needs to be one instance of vandalism in the last 24 hours, at the bare minimum, along with a few others in the past week.

Watching over articles, reverting vandalism, and warning/reporting vandals is all you can do, really. There's also asking for pages to be protected, but as you see, that has a certain minimum threshold. I'd recommend tools such as WP:ROLLBACK, WP:TW, and perhaps even WP:HUG if you want to make it easier. The last one is unique. You'll have to go to the page to read about it.

What I did and do is look at my watchlist a few times a day and check for vandalism to articles I'm watching. Then I use undo, rollback, and twinkle as appropriate, and sometimes report vandals to WP:AIV and articles to WP:RFPP. Before I became an administrator, I filed something like a thousand reports, I believe. Enigma^msg 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Enigma

Many thanks for the advice there.

--5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247

You may need to inform the IP user that he can't remove anything from his IP talk page. He is under the assumption he is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion your block of this IP was a bad one. See the IP's talk page and WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page for an explanation. In fact, if anybody should have been blocked then it's Neutralhomer for excessive edit warring against a user on the user's own talk page (Neutralhomer already knew it was a static address, and this was none of the exceptions in WP:BLANKING), a bogus vandalism warning and abusive use of the sockpuppet template very close to outing. Your cooperation may be needed to get the block reversed, so I would appreciate your comments in the AN thread. Hans Adler 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP reverted nine times and engaged in gross incivility. At this point, who was right about the WHOIS tag is no longer the issue at hand or the reason for the block. Note that I did not block for removal of the WHOIS template. I blocked because of edit-warring. If you want the edit-warring block to be lifted, another admin would be justified in blocking for incivility. I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't appreciate being called a "bully", being told that I am part of an abusive clan of administrators, being told "I have had enough of your bad faith and rude manner", and plenty more. I did try to explain things to the IP, but I was met with bad faith and tendentious editing.

One final point: If you want the IP unblocked, you'll have to talk to the three admins who upheld the block. Enigma^msg 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jpgordon has unblocked already so it's sort of moot. But still, I would be interested in a diff of one instance of "gross incivility". I couldn't find any in the edit summaries or in what is now on the talk page. "It is clear and obvious now that I am being bullied by the clan of administrators here." This was a correct factual statement at the time, a bit close to assuming bad faith, but understandably so in the situation. "I have had enough of your bad faith and rude manner". Here I would read "bad faith" as short for "bad faith assumptions" – a very common mistake –, which makes this again at least a very reasonable factual statement. "Why don't you grow up and show some decency if you have it in you." This was incivility, but hardly gross.

Overall, the IP was remarkably polite all the time. I can't stress this enough. Except for that last "grow up" comment the IP was extraordinarily polite and constructive. The IP merely disagreed with everybody else, which would not have been a crime even if he had been wrong. Hans Adler 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My semi-protection requests

Hi, I noticed you skipped my requests and would like to know why you skipped them and moved on to the others, If you decline I would like to know the reason why not just have it ignored, because I have to constantly edit those pages because their speculating deaths and fan fic for the following sequal since the film came out its getting tiresome I would appreciate if you looked at it instead of ignore it- thanks! The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can't make a decision on something, I skip and leave it for another admin. Unfortunately, it seems no other admins feel like handling RfPP requests today. Enigma^msg 03:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'll see if they protected and if not I'll seek a 3rd opinion, but if i dont get a reason I'll re-submitt tomorrow thanks anyway for your response The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Monday morn and Wikipedia is still here... AKA... When you're aboot part 53.5

Just checking in this Monday morn and I see that User:04parrw still refuses to follow consensus and sources that his favourite band is no longer a band. This lone user has gone through many an IP sock trying to re-add his pov (which really = re-adding false info) in to the Queen and Queen discography articles. And has gone past a final warning to do so. A semi-P will stop him from IP socking. But won't stop his account. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, although I considered the IP behaviour as part of the account's behaviour. Looking at just the account, one may question the block. Enigma^msg 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sheriff. Our little town is safe for a while. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1960s in heavy metal music went off its prot today and our IP troll jumped on it right away and blanked a whole bunch of ref that Bardin had put in to stop the IP from pressing his own pov in the first place. PS... this IP is also the same "metal-observer" IP user... so no good will come from him. 86.153.18.124 (talk · contribs) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1960s has actually been unprotected for a month and a half, but now that our friend is back, I'll reprotect. Enigma^msg 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as well, although I'm a little nervous about this one. Enigma^msg 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry. Especially where Bardin stepped in on the page and added reliable sources for all the content that the troll had been repeatedly blanking before. Persistent habit of disruptive editing. And a completely valid block for a repeat offender. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Braintree rock band

So I have left you messages providing you with proper evidence of the rock band Braintree being on a National Chart which fulfills one of Wikis requirements. I have not heard from you at all. If I don't hear from you soon I will assume that you will not contest if I post again. And if I have been doing it wrong, please let me know so that I do not make the same mistake. Quintapus (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommend you ask another administrator to look at the deleted page. Enigma^msg 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Paint Me Black

Thanks for helping with the pagemoves/deletions, and for blocking Das Ansehnlisch. It took ten hours to get his mess cleaned up. I can't imagine someone being allowed to run rampant for as long as he did. Radiopathy •talk• 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've painted it black. Now an admin will have to perform the history merge, I suppose? Enigma^msg 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the history moved just fine, since the page you deleted (Paint It, Black - if you're keeping score) was a copy and paste; the one I moved (Paint It Black) contained the entire history from when it had been moved by Das Ansehnlisch. Radiopathy •talk• 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the users involved in this fiasco recreated the Paint It Black page and put in a redirect to the correctly spelt article. Problem is, there are four possible uses of that term on a disambiguation page, and this one needs to be redeleted. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Never mind: it's redirected to the disambig page. Let's see first if it stays that way. Radiopathy •talk• 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be me then. I've clearly given my reasons for the redirect at Talk:Paint It Black. Further discussion (and not edit warring) should take place there. --JD554 (talk)

17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No sooner did I speak than JD554 reverted my edit. I think a little "time out" would be appropriate here. Radiopathy •talk• 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The disambig page makes more sense as the redirect target, so I agree with you about that. However, JD's edits are not vandalism, and should not be labeled as such. I suggest it should be left as a redirect to the disambig page, unless other editors chime in on the talk and agree with JD's view. Enigma^msg 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP: Kundra

Enigma: Per NPOV the controversial edition by SusanLesch should be excluded from the page during the lockout. Please revert back to rev. no. 308597795 on BLP: Kundra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorTwo (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Enigma: Per US-Law Kundra was not "convicted" as alleged. Definition (Conviction): The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (PBJ- Community service is not conviction). Please make the changes as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh goody. Socks. Should I block both of you? Enigma^msg 13:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:RFPP

Xymmax and I just processed a dozen requests [5]. If folks like I can remember to check RFPP a little more often, hopefully that will make it a little easier on you. Thanks again for doing the drudgery protection work that few others wanted to tackle! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. :) I don't mind doing a lot of RfPP work, but it gets frustrating when there are no other admins looking at them for close to 48 hours. When I "signed up" to be an admin, RfPP was going to be my main focus anyway. thanks for the help, Enigma^msg 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any benefit to a non-admin looking in from time to time? I obviously can't protect an article, but I could (theoretically) mark a clearly incorrect request as declined, and explain why. I've done this at WP:AIV from time to time with no complaints, but I don't know if similar actions at WP:RFPP would help or just complicate things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind it. I used to do it occasionally before I became admin. As I recall, though, SoWhy didn't like it. Enigma^msg 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if I do decide to try to help, I'll start out slow, and see if anyone starts screaming. Thx. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne

I replied to a comment of yours there, though by the time you get this, you may have to check at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive. NW (Talk) 22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I noticed that you semiprotected the Lockerbie bomber's page. I have only little experience with Wikipedia, but wondered whether such an action is meaningful and contributes to the well-being of Wikipedia. The reason given was "excessive vandalism", so I studied the history to find the vandalism. One change was labeled "vandalism" where in reality it was an attempted correction, a grammatical misunderstanding (someone changed "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man" into "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain carrying a dying man", clearly interpreting this "bomber" as the airplane instead of the man) and I noticed five IPs actually engaging in vandalism (67.193.163.252, 208.58.54.28, 24.188.28.254, 71.240.26.75, 75.168.199.213), but in all cases the vandalism was reverted almost immediately. That is the advantage of a current event that interests people: there are more readers, so vandalism is corrected quickly. All in all, it seems to me that semiprotecting a page like this under these circumstances, where nothing unusual happens is counterproductive. It prevents more than half of the visitors in correcting some detail or adding new developments, so does more harm than good. I think. (In fact there are important new developments that are not covered, possibly because people are prevented in adding them.) 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Donna Freedman

I'm just looking for a little advice about this page. This is a page for one of the Neighbours characters and the other day someone edited it saying that her mother was rumoured to be returning to the soap. There was no reference supplied so I googled this rumour and could find no evidence of it being true so assumed it was vandalism and took it out putting in the notes that if it is true then to resubmit quoting a referenced source. I looked again today and have found someone has resubmitted it but no source, again cannot find any evidence of this being true but this time have added the citation template to the page instead of deleting the rumour.

What I was going to do is give it a day or two for a refence to be submitted, if nothing is submitted I was going to delete the rumour and explain in notes that citation was asked for and none submitted so that is why it's been deleted. I'm just wondering, is this the best way to handle this? --5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is back

I guess the week's protection on Hermaphrodite is over, because Lady Gaga is back via IP editing. Any chance of putting the protection back? Mish (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

When you return to Wiki-online-ness

Could you pay attention to this post and see if you have an opinion/path for me. Thanks! Have a nice day! Libs. 142.167.164.145 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)