User talk:Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive VII

ARCHIVE LIST

Suspected Socks

Well, I'm going to let him say what he wants to. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Class (Stub, Start...)

When you rate an article on its class, please be sure to capitalize the class name (i.e. {{FilmsWikiProject|class=Start}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject|class=start}}) or else it will not be removed from the Unassessed category. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Completed the 24 hour block

I completed the block , now user:BhaiSaab is stalking my edits and keeps reverting my homepage putting the sockpuppet tag on it. Could you tell the guy to cut it out. --CltFn 01:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have died down, and you did commit sockpuppetry. Iolakana•T 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

American Psycho

The talk page of American Psycho says you are active in improving the article. I suggested many improvements to the article on the talk page, albeit rather hastily. I am interested to know your opinion on these, and whatever other comments you might have. Cheers. Rintrah 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you track down sources and improve the style of the Themes and Symbolism section? I will try to reorganise the article appropriately, and summarise it when I get my book back. Rintrah 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin

Hi there, Following your suggestion on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin, I asked for a check user. The check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin has shown "that Wright, Creighton, and Wise are sockpuppets". These accounts are Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise. Other accounts were too old to be checked. So as an administrator who has shown interest in this case, what are the next steps to be followed? Nunquam Dormio 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked. Thanks, Iolakana•T 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

A Barnstar!

The Sockpuppet Star I, Mr. Lefty, award Kilo-Lima this Sockpuppet Star for doing a great job helping to root out abusive sockpuppets. Keep up the good work! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LiveScience

Greetings, administrator unit.

It appears as if you protected the LiveScience.com page. You may wish to create a protected redirect page to Imaginova, the owner of the Space.com, SpaceNews.com and LiveScience.com web sites. What was the reason for deleting the page instead of upgrading it to something useful? (Ideally, the "PROD" reason code could have been a link to the codes list, which presumably exists somewhere.)

Wikiborg 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is best to wait until there is consensus to delete these, then protection could come in. Iolakana•T 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Jessica Lunsford

Unsure if Im supposed to notify you or if the arbitrators are but I listed you as a party of interest in Request for Arbitration: Jessica Lunsford. Cumberbund 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Changes to Socksuspect2 template

I made some changes to the {{socksuspect2}} template to hopefully help investigations in the future by clarifying who is being accused of being sockpuppets and who the suspected sockpuppeteer is. Take a look and let me know if there is any problem with my changes. I was unable to get the sockpuppeteer entry to fill in automatically due to my lack of experience with the nuances of templates, maybe you can figure that part out. Neil916 (Talk) 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: GreekEconomist

Hi, Kilo-Lima. Just to clarify, you meant it's "unlikely" that GreekEconomist is a sock, correct? Thanks for your time. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't rule out that it is possible. I thought that it was unlikely, but you are welcome to add the username to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cretanpride. Iolakana•T 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I did that before, actually. I was asking for a new look at the situation; sorry if I didn't make that clear. Thanks for taking a look at it, and I'll now consider the matter overwith. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: LinkBot

Hi Kilo-Lima,

You left a message on my talk page about 3 months ago asking about LinkBot, and what's up with it. Well, I thought you might like to know that there's now an on-demand web-based tool that does what LinkBot did, without leaving all the messages on talk pages. It's described at User:Nickj/Can We Link It. It's currently only temporary until a longer-term home is found, but if you want to give it a go it's up now and will be at least for the next few days. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Kilo-Lima, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sending my name to check users.

Sir,

My I request you to explain why name is suggested for WP:RFCU? You must have read the evidence and my defence. I do not see any reason for my name to be either blocked or send to check user.

Please read my comments wherever I have posted. Do u find any of them against wikipedia's policy? Do you think I have ever violated the policies and guidelines Insted if you read the accuser's comments/edits those are more atocratic/hypocritic, intolerant and totally against Wikipidia's policy. (I am not complaining against him as I am not interested in fighting such idiotic "block" war, insted of prooving my point of view which I believe in.)

Please do not block my user name as it is against the freedom of expression for which wikipedia stands for.

Thank you.--Bodhidhamma 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Need you advise/help, please

User: Pia I'm going to remove your post from this talk page as per Admin User:Redvers because you appear to be giving out personal information about another editor and we don't allow that. WorkingHard 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

- Have a great day! Here's a nice coffee for you from Esperanza!! Jam01 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Very happy wiki-birthday. --Bhadani 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And the same from me :) -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 20:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, dear friends. Iolakana•T 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Worth a read

Someone's detailing of abuse to you was recently deleted from your talk page. You can read the material here. --Kevin_b_er 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

StrangeApples(Autoblocks • block log)

Collateral damage from AOL user block, please help clear --64.12.116.72 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and User:Ehinger222

You've archived the stuff at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ehinger222, but I don't know what the conclusion of the case is. It doesn't indicate whether there is insufficient evidence or whatever the decision is... Am a little confused. Can you enlighten me? Cheers, Dibo 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

there's a reoccurrence of the same sort of edits by another IP on the 60.225.*.* range that bear remarkable resemblance to edits by the ip's and logins listed here by an anon user operating from 60.225.216.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as can be seen from his contribs.

What do I do - the page has been archived, the previous sockpuppet tags remain, do i renew the case (and how would i do that), do i wait until the 10 days expire and then renew, do i leave it? I'm confused. Sorry, this is the first time I've involved myself in sockpuppet stuff. Incidentally, Topcattheirrefutable essentially admitted to sockpuppetry as I found out through CattleGirl on my talk page- "You may be interested to see a message posted on my talk page from Topcattheirrefutable. There he admits to having sockpuppets. I replied on his talk page. Thought you'd be interested, especially considering i noticed that there hasn't been a conclusion yet on the sockpuppetry evidence page. CattleGirl 07:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)"

The exchange went as follows:

"== RE: Dear CattleGirl ==

Thankyou for your concern in the dispute. I essentially use no rules on wikipedia except the general convention of being wikipedian and attempting to improve the encyclopedia. I am the Ehinger but I am not Ehinger222 which is a different character. I have literally hundreds of created sockpuppets, but most of them are only used to create pages and are used once. I have literally contributed thousands of valid edits to wikipedia and have improved the enc yclopedia n areas very varied from Atlantis to the Basque language.

If I want to have a little fun at the expense of an i.d. that devotes its time almost exclusively to compiling"evidence" against me(most of it wrong for that matter), than is it really such a bad thing? Have a geeze at Dibo's account fr the month leading up to October 1st. The dude only came on looking for me. Oh ... and I am 90% sure that he is Tancred. They both eroneously assert tha soccer should be referred to as football which is stupid and wrong and thay continually troll by insisting on it in articles that they have done nothing to create or contribute to.

Comrade

13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Topcattheirrefutable

You're welcome for my concern in the dispute. I want Wikipedia to be as peaceful as possible- and that, to me, means that if we follow all the rules and protocols then there will be non reason for that peace to be disturbed. If you are the Ehinger, you ARE a sockpuppet, and actually, i would not be the least bit surprised if Ehinger222 was you as well, considering the usernames are so similar. However, if you only use them once, then what is the point of creating them? Really, it is 'taking up' usernames that other people can't use in the future.

Even though there are some types of sockpuppetry that is fine on wikipedia, you do not fall under those headings. From what i can see, Dibo has gone to a fair bit of work to outline this sockpuppetry, and i have had to revert your userpage a number of times as well. And also, Dibo can come on whenever he wants- if it was the month leading up to this, him signing on probably led him to see you and your sockpuppets.

I know this defence is sounding a lot like i am taking sides, but i personally do not see the similarities between Dibo and Tancred. I've looked at their edits on that page a number of times, and can't see the resemblance. Also, even though they might agree on the same thing, doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same person. And if you don't mind me saying, i haven't come across an edit where either of them troll. However, if you are going to accuse them of sockpuppetry, you may want to pay attention to the rules, as the case won't be considered if you are not following protocol and entering it in properly.

You said before: If I want to have a little fun at the expense of an i.d. that devotes its time almost exclusively to compiling"evidence" against me(most of it wrong for that matter), than is it really such a bad thing? Well, firstly if it is wrong, you can comment on why it is wrong on the evidence page against you, however i think the case may have been closed, you may have to check the archive. CattleGirl 07:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cattlegirl, I can remove the SP tag because I follow no rules and in 99% of cases I am entirely wikipedian. Protocol does not apply for me. 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Topcattheirrefutable

Remove it if you want, however i am going to revert it back, because i do follow the rules. It applies to the rest of us, and i for one do not see how you can be an exception if the rest of us make an effort to keep the peace and abide by the rules. However, i am going to check if you can remove it from your page yet, if the case is still open. However, last time i checked you had to keep it on your page for about another 8 days, 7 now. CattleGirl 07:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)"

JonStamos

Hi. I noticed that after posting the evidence page against User:JonStamos and his sockpuppets you replied in the Conclusions section Obvious. I was wondering what would happen next- are they going to be blocked, or what other action against them would you take? Thanks, CattleGirl 07:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked. Iolakana•T 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsmorse47's back with a new puppet

Hi. Sorry to bother you but you were the closing admin on this sockpuppetry case. I was sort of happy that this whole thing had been sorted but he's back with a vengeance [1] under the username Judgenot77 (talk · contribs). By the way, what's the correct procedure in this case? Should I open a new case, even if this happens less than 24h after the initial block? Thanks for your help. Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Account has been blocked. Thanks, Iolakana•T 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Xenomorph (Alien)

You should consider nominating that aricle for Good Article status (through Wikipedia:Good article candidates) because it looks really good. Cbrown1023 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Block

I've undone your block on 165.228.129.12; its a major IP in Australia and that particular address is used by Parliment House and other addresses in Canberra and has affected good, registered contributors. --Peta 00:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Australian federal politicians vandalise wikipedia in their spare time? Such would explain the raucous behaviour in Question Time during parliamentary sittings. This is a good laugh for my day. Rintrah 06:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Kilo-Lima, User talk:80.58.205.39 has struck again this time at Opus Dei. For your information. Thomas 02:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:124.2.76.130

Page needs semi-protecting I think. --Alex (Talk) 16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been dealt with. --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

question about you stripping my article

Hi, I'm Raidon and I am the one that did the research and wrote the article about the artist Adeyto.

I have noticed that you stripped a large amount of my writing. My sources were IMDB data, the artists official site and artists official blog (that's if you can read Japanese). You mention "please see WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:RS" but I consider your stripping was overzealous.

At least you could have refrained from stripping her "Photographer" information and the information about TV CF because this information is available and verifiable on artists official profile.

Besides you, I have noticed users 70.128.102.13 and 67.183.24.157 that are aggressively slamming this artist but are not doing ANY other contributions to Wikipedia. How about banning this trolls?

Numata raidon 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I re-inserted the Photographer data and added various verifiable links..... Numata raidon 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

QuasiKraMuc (talk · contribs)

Hi, I mentioned this at WP:AN/I but nothing has been done. User:QuasiKraMuc is an obvious sockpuppet of permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) and as such should (as I understand it) be blocked on sight. He has left an insulting message in my user talk page, and also vandalized Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd) continued KraMuc's edit war in User talk:KraMuc and Louis Essen. Can you help? ---CH 19:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Cheers, Kilo•T 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kilo! ---CH 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet resolution

Thank you for not blocking my account. I am somewhat confused by what you wrote on my userpage. Does this mean I cannot edit any articles previously edited by PStrait? (I don't intend to start an argument; I just want clarification so that I don't violate any WP rules). Herbertmarcuse 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Ha ha- that would require a lot of free time that I don't have. Please take me off of your list. Thanks Joe 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thanks for blocking the socks!! Addhoc 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are much welcome! Kilo•T 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: No reason given for requested protection.

The reason for semi-protection was noted under Paradise Lost (band), and also spoke for all the articles above it (Tiamat (band), Rotting Christ, Crematory, Moonspell, Diabolique (band)). Perm-banned editor User:Leyasu has been using a sequence of IPs beginning with 81... and 86... to incorrectly change music genres and intentionally insert spelling and typos in articles. I would like for you to please reconsider semi-protecting these pages - the long history on each one speaks for itself, and it's becoming day-to-day thing for me (and several others) to remove this banned user's abusive sockpuppet edits. --Danteferno 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello, the use from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curandero101 (2nd), has evaded his block by using an IP, User:58.164.210.64. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks, Kilo•T 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User is also using User:203.3.65.10. All of these appear to be from Queensland. Thanks for the protection on the article. Ciao, MARussellPESE 12:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Hopefully, they'll give up. Thanks, Kilo•T 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Curious blocks

I see that you've blocked Cogito ergo sumo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ex post factoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently on the basis of this report, and I'm rather curious as to why you decided to block them.

Even assuming that they are all operated by the same individual, E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not banned, so there's no inherent limitation on his ability to create new accounts. The three accounts in question can't even really be considered sockpuppets, as have entirely non-overlapping editing periods:

• E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs) - prior to August 18
• Cogito ergo sumo (talk · contribs) - August 27–October 15
• Ex post factoid (talk · contribs) - October 17

There's no policy, as far as I know, that generally forbids the abandonment of old accounts for new ones (announced or otherwise); and the sole blockable action that could have occurred here—evasion of the block on Cogito ergo sumo (talk · contribs)—didn't actually take place, as Ex post factoid (talk · contribs) first edited after that block had elapsed.

So, why the blocks? Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... You make a good point. I was only seeing it from the report's view. However, I still feel that the similarities in usernames seem to indicate otherwise. I'll unblock. Kilo•T 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if all three accounts were the same person, but that's not, in of itself, something that requires blocking. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh God... :( I understand the techicallity about the "non-overlapping editing periods"... but what about his edits using anonimous IPs [2] Look IP of last edit instead of his registered account? He claimed to be two different persons, in order to give the impression of "consensus" on the Talk page of North America. What can be done? I already filed a request for investigation... AlexCovarrubias 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do you have anything more specific on that last point? Skimming the conversation, I can't see anywhere that the IPs actually claim to be two different people. There's nothing wrong with editing from different IPs, and the participants in the discussion seem to be aware of the fact that it's the same editor behind both. (The fact that he's argumentative isn't really unacceptable per se; many people are. You may want to request opinions from outside editors to determine where consensus lies in terms of the actual content issue in question.) Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done when a registered user uses a anonimous IP to edit. It is clear that he edited anonimously to prevet his "main" account from being blocked. Cogito ergo sum and his anonimous aliases has been editing the same articles in the same period of time e.g. North America, Central America, Oceania, Borg Star Trek. 142.150.134.55 contributions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.150.134.52 contributions, 142.150.134.53 contributions, 142.150.134.50 contributions, 142.150.134.49 contributions, 142.150.134.56 contributions, 142.150.134.57 contributions, 142.150.134.60 contributions, 142.150.134.61 contributions, etc. His IP range varies from 142.150.134.49 to 142.150.134.79. In the same period of time, check Cogito's and E Pluribus Anthony. He edited using anonimous IP when using those accounts to avoid complaints and blocks. AlexCovarrubias 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If evasion of 3RR or blocking by using IPs occours that is a matter for investigation at the time. But as it stands the 3 accounts allthaugh quite likely the same person do not constitute a violation of WP:SOCK. Can the report and the tags on the users pages be updated accourdingly? Agathoclea 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediators needed!

Hiya! I'm contacting you because you're listed on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as "willing to accept assigned cases" if you find it interesting. Well, we've got a bit of a backlog, and I was wondering if you'd look over the current list of new cases (I've copied it here for convenience) and tell me if you'd take any of them? I'd really appreciate it! :D

• 2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy
• 2006-10-07 Joe Sharkey
• 2006-10-08 BSA
• 2006-10-08 Nicole Kidman
• 2006-10-09 Hinduism
• 2006-10-09 Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples
• 2006-10-10 Udit Raj
• 2006-10-12 Sweetest Day
• 2006-10-13 Scott Davis and Miami,Queensland
• 2006-10-13 Unification Church
• 2006-10-14 Personal attacks
• 2006-10-14 U.S. Roads naming fallout
• 2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo
• 2006-10-16 Turkmenistan
• 2006-10-16 Vigile.net as a source

I think you might be interested in the Joe Sharkey or Nicole Kidman cases, if you like to work with biographical cases. If you want something challenging, you may want to give Hinduism or U.S. Roads naming fallout a try. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

informal request for comment

User:Jayjg has indef blocked me (again). I posted the whole story to user:Centrx, because I have been in contact with him before. Thought you might like to know. 87.78.178.9 (user:Subversive_element) 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I figure there's no personal attack any more. Is it because I'm blocked? So blocked users may be personally attacked according to WP policy, is that correct? 87.78.158.224 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarner Sockpuppet issue

I'm very confused about your sockpuppet decision related to user Sarner and myself. I'm not a sockpuppet of Sarner and have in fact disagreed with him on certain issues. And I don't seem to be blocked. Can you explain to me what is going on? Thanks. StokerAce 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Like StokerAce, I'm confused. The case seems to be archived (by you), does that mean it's closed? The message on the case page is very unclear. What does it mean to "take this to WP:RFCU"? If indeed the case is closed, does this mean I can remove the "sockpuppet" entry on my user page? Thank you. Larry Sarner 13:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Margera

Just wanted to say that when you reverse someones edit you might want to check if the edit is correct or not. I made an edit to the Vincent Margera page where someone earlier had said that the finnish word "vittu" means "David Bussy" when it actually means "cunt". That was changed by an antivandalbot, but when I contacted the person in charge of the bot and he changed it back to my version. Anyway, the teenageboy (which I guess it is) changed it back to David Bussy, and then I changed it to pussy which wouldn´t get caught by the bot, but then you changed it back to David Bussy, thereby perhaps contributing to harassing someone. So, make sure your edits are correct or just don´t do them! /Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.253.25.54 (talk • contribs) 13:15, October 24, 2006.

I'll check this out. Kilo•T 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. Perhaps you should include a minor summary of why you did change it, so that it never looked like vanadlism, in the edit summary? Thanks, Kilo•T 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungry girl troll

As you may know the "Hungrygirl" troll has been stalking me/trolling me so far four of his/her usernames have been blocked: User:Hungrygirl, User:Twentyboy, User:The Gayboy and User:Cutiepie guy — I believe a checkuser may now be in order to determine if there are any socks lying in wait? What do you think? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems correct. Would you be willing to do the honours? :P Kilo•T 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet issue

I know I had to fix it but have chosen not to. With the issues i have with Cryogenic it makes it look to petty. Ill let others concern themselves with this. Thanks.Quode 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But I don't see why you blanked the page that was auto-filled from the template. Kilo•T 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz

I can't follow your reasoning on this one. Firstly, you've blocked the IP address for being "used to avoid 3RR detection." The user in question acknowledged responsibility for the edit 6 minutes later, without any prompting that I can see, so it hardly counts as attempting to avoid 3RR detection, or even using a sockpuppet. Surely some good faith can be assumed here. Secondly, it was that user's first edit to that page for more than 24 hours, so I cannot see how 3RR comes into it at all. If there's something I'm missing here I'd be glad to hear of it, but otherwise I cannot understand why you have issued this block. You appear to be offline, so I'll also make a note at WP:ANI. --Cherry blossom tree 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking on ANI for the section - could I have the link? Agathoclea 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FKilz, though there's no real thread there. --Cherry blossom tree 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cherry blossom tree - he should not be banned for this, it is unfair. His error rate for logging in is non-negligible (admittedly I did not check well enough). I therefore have subsequently assumed good faith.

A separate issue is why he was making this edit - it is a circumvention of the consensus building process. This is the only outstanding issue in my book, but being as he reverted his IP edit, that issue does not relate to the IP edit, but more the edits afterwards, and his breaking the 3RR afterwards, which again does not involve the IP edit. Widefox 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this edit (and subsequent ones) were bad. I haven't looked at the whole issue. This block seems to have been issued for using a sockpuppet, though, which I cannot agree with. I think we seem to agree here. --Cherry blossom tree 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we agree. Widefox 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. That's wrong. I have responded at the noticeboard. Kilo•T 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say with regard to my initial comment? If you made a mistake then that's fine but if you think you're right and I missed something then I really would like to know. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 22:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP

I am not an admin, but do you think I could help? Agathoclea 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be most helpful, yes. Kilo•T 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for ya

I just now posted a request for clarification re:Fwdixon case at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets--posted there as your response might assist others unclear on similar matters. SD Doxmyth 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will check this out. Thanks, Kilo•T 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Coffee as this week's WP:AID winner

– ClockworkSoul 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hello Kilo-Lima - I saw that you had made some edits to the article on Vegetarianism in the past and was wondering if you were interesting in helping out with a discussion on the talk page? - Talk:Vegetarianism. I'm all for the article being NPOV, but am not sure about some of the recent comments? Regards, GourangaUK 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work and dedication to improving Wikipedia (and an Admin, no less!), I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 19:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Blondie peer review

Hi, I'm glad you nominated Blondie for peer review. I hope it gets a good response. I don't know what I can add as I did a lot of work in the article and pretty well ran out of ideas. I think it needs to be fleshed out and go into a little more detail but I don't know exactly how. If I can think of anything that I think may be useful I'll address it on the peer review page. I just wanted to acknowledge your message and let you know that I don't know what to suggest. Cheers Rossrs 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Utzchips

Hi, I saw that you tagged this case with:

"This should be taken to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 12:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)"

I went to WP:RFCU, (never filed before) and under the section Does your request belong here? is says

Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block. No checkuser is necessary.

Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block. No checkuser is necessary.

I will take this case to checkuser if you think that is the right thing to do, but I think the part about "does your case belong here" suggests that the request does not belong there, because the evidence is obvious.

Perhaps I used too much evidence, so I will highlight the points that make the case fall under the "obvious" bit.

1. AvinSanjih (talk · contribs), Funnimilk (talk · contribs), MonMonstah (talk · contribs), SBruz10 (talk · contribs), 24.91.163.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are all single use accounts created during the Afd discussion and used to vote, delete other editors' votes and or change other editors' votes.
2. Both Utzchips (talk · contribs) and 24.203.42.57 (talk · contribs) have signed comments with Utz [3], [4]

Please advise me if there is really a reason to take this to RFCU. Thanks --BostonMA ^talk 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)