User talk:Viridae/Archive5

Archives Template
1:28/04/2006-25/06/2006 2:25/06/2006-26/07/2006 3:26/07/2006-24/08/2006 4:24/08/2006-12/01/2007 5:12/01/2007-14/07/2007 6:14/07/2007-14/02/2008 7:14/02/2008-06/06/2009

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave a new message at the end. Alternatively, you can add your message at the end of the appropriate section listed in the index below. I will respond to a post you make on your talk page, copy and pasting your comment over. Please do the same. If I post on your talk page please respond there to keep the conversation readable. Add new sections for new discussions.

Dresden Codak

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dresden Codak

Can I get you to review your close of this, please? You've called it "no consensus" when there is a "no reliable sources" reasoning to delete and reliable sources with non-trivial mentions are not provided. - brenneman 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the non consensus. Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Viridae^Talk 08:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

January Greetings

Happy January 15th, 2007 Viridae. Did you know i have created over 60 articles? You can see them by viewing the bottom of my talkpage. Merry... January! --Chikinpotato11 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ip ban on 204.193.6.90

your ip ban on 204.193.6.90 is a ban on a school what happened that made you ban that ip? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapuft (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

If you'd like to hear from him in the WP:AN/I thread...

...you should probably drop him a note on his talk page. As far as I can see – following an admittedly very cursory examination – nobody has followed up with The JPS during this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't checked. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Block precedent?

Hi. I'm curious about this block? A six-month block for an IP with three edits ever? Is it an open proxy? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh never mind. I see now it's probably a open proxy. Sorry to bother you... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Viridae^Talk 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User 71.60.67.39

I was under the impression that physical threats were a reason for an immediate block, which is why I reported this user. TimVickers 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they were more a case of a school aged child being idiotic, the primary offence being vandalism. Viridae^Talk 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can Admins edit the Edit summary? If this threat could be removed then I would be less concerned. TimVickers 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant edit it, but as it was an uncontructive edit I can delete the edit entirely. Doing that now. Viridae^Talk 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bacteria article has now disappeared, is this normal? TimVickers 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it and am in the process of restoring the 2200 revisions. I have to do it in bacthes because I'm getting an RSI checking all the check boxes. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Sorry to bug you but my heart stopped for a moment! :) TimVickers 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have done a massive amount of work on the article, Barnstar coming your way when I finish with this! Viridae^Talk 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Thanks also for all that revision work. Ironically, after all that the moronic vandal didn't take the hint and re-inserted exactly the same threats. TimVickers 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment- Please provide Third Party Input.

If you could check this out and provide your input, it would be appreciated. thank you. TheGreenFaerae 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tr%C3%B6del

Please, I need to get a full consensus of all users who can provide input before the 48 hour deadline passes. As you handled the ANI, your input could porve very important tot eh RfC. TheGreenFaerae 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I was afraid it would be unlsited before it had a chance for review.TheGreenFaerae 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kuru RFA

Thank you for the congrats and for your vote. It was actually a little creepy, since I was flipping through your logs for samples of speedy deletion edit summaries when the "new message" bar popped up. Here's to hoping I don't live up to my incidental namesake! :) Kuru ^talk 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection requested

I had long and way out of line-terrible argument with mkil who was vandalizing marciano and other pages, i also asked him not to talk to me or leave me any more messages, i do not want to talk to him, all messages are left on marciano dispute pages, tell him never to contact me again. Also Marciano page should be locked longer and mkil not allowed to be there. I have evidence he was logging on under some other ip 58.8 and had some of his friends join in on the "fun" He was warned not to revert many times in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Third_opinion Most of the info is here. Boxingwear

I will make my decision when the protection is removed - I may contact another admin to watch over it for me and reprotect when the protection runs out over the weekend when I am away. Protection is not meant to be permanent, it was placed in this case so editing diputes stopped being fought in the article space. If this behaviour continues, I may just hand out blocks to whoever I think is involved. Viridae^Talk 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, i agree, but you have to look at the broader picture, on talk, right now, people agree with me, i also requested protection from mkil above, did you read that... i mean, wow. On a different subject... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Complaint This user deleted the lineal champions, we need to recreate it, reasons are given above and there are other people who agree with me, i can not believe why good articles are killed on wiki, bad remain...Boxingwear

If you'll look at the Marciano page, BoxingWear was told in no uncertain terms by another editor that my edits were not "vandalism." I requested a third party opinion that resulted in a strong chastisement of BoxingWear. He/She continues to assert that my edits are "vandalism" and that I log on under different IP addresses (which is false -- I welcome any attempts to trace IPs to see the truth of this). BoxingWear continues to attack me and refuses to recognize my good faith edits as legitimate. MKil 04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Over the last few months Mkil did not contribute anything of value on marciano, except cause problems, you suspended innocent person, who knew a lot on boxing. Most of the things mkil wrote on marciano over time has been disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.175 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

How to do things

What is the code to put things into archive, to merge or rename article or to put music or square on my talk page. Boxingwear Is there any way you administrators can find out if some other user has been using different ip, in order not to reveal who he is like mkil?Boxingwear

whaa? vandal?

Last spring I was looking at the group, The Residents, listing and found it full of mistakes and suppositions. I made extensive corrections which as manager and historian of the group seemed a rightful responsibility. Acutally I am the only authority for this subject as I also oversee www.residents.com. I am even named in the article as a participant in the group. I made all the changes under my real name as I was not playing games. I just discovered that back in June all my corrections reverted back to the errors and I was branded a "vandal" for removing other people's erronous speculations where it seems to me the person who revereted the material back to the errors is the vandal. I had a message from you from June that I am now resonding to claiming this. Maybe it was you who vandalized my corrections. I don't know since I am not a power user.

Anyway, I do not monitor The Residents page nor will I start doing so, but do wish that the term vandal was not generously handed out to us authorized individuals. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page for The Residents remains flawed and by naming me a vandal I guess it will stay that way. I do not understand allowing the ignorant to freely speculate on Wikipedia while blocking the knowledgable from correcting data.

Hardy Fox <email removed> www.residents.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hfox (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Huh? I never warned you for vandalism. 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Irwin

Could you help me please? I have received my first warning on Wikipedia (I think from you). Last October there was vigorous debate regarding a quote from Germaine Greer inserted on Irwin's page. After this debate it was edited out and it remained that way for a couple of months until one person inserted it again. Based on previous discussion I and others deleted repeated attempts to insert it again. We suggested that this person read the archives – it seemed to me this person had not read the discussion. The last suggestion to this person was to discuss it before reinserting it. There has been extensive discussion and (at the risk of only presenting my side) all but two people did not want it reinserted for many good reasons. I am confused as to why the person making an insertion in these circumstances gets protection whilst another who removes this with the consent of the discusscion page gets blocked. What should I do. It seems unconscionable to permit this insertion. Alan Davidson 12:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I have now noticed you warned both of us. That does seem fairer. Many thanks. Alan Davidson 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Be slow

Hello dear still discussion is going on page so u can not Vandlize my page before it. Khalidkhoso 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some countries mention Hezbollah as terrorist but some does not? Does this make it terrorist .what will you write on it? Artilce .Just need answer then I will change my user page and should stop vandalizing my page. And u sent me are for personal attacks ,I am not attacking on it ,I am writing some thing that most of communities think and write I can show you material if you want regarding it.

Khalidkhoso 10:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to say any thing ,it is like taking decison to Hanging some1 and later asking him "Do you have any thing to protect ur self" .u lokced my page and u took decison (now why invitation for disscusion,it is over my side).what else i would ,Say.But fine i would not use flags on my pgae(Just inWikipedia). when u r going to allow me to edit my Userpage. Khalidkhoso 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

U guys Own Wikipedia ,if u would not say i would not do it.i do not take parts on topics where my time is waisted and my work gets lost(as today).i just want to give some artilce to wikipedia that are not known to peoples around the world,that's it,other then this i do not have to do any thing here

Khalidkhoso 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you do not have to warn me ,When u attakced my user page it was My 1st warning for me and i could not do any thing and can not any thing.You do not have to tell me what u can do and u can not.Beacuse i know this.I thought my user page will get Unlocked by u,well i would not ask for it.i better wait for 24 hours. Caio Have Good day. Khalidkhoso 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it is more then 24 hours ,u have still put lock on my userpage?can i ask u why? u mentioned that u will removed it with in 24 hours. Khalidkhoso 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

You userpage is now fully protected because you have continually reinserted the content in violation of policy. Please note that a protection if preferable to a block, and it was one or the other because of the policy violation. I have chosen protection however to allow you to discuss it here and at WP:ANI (see the bottom of the page). ViridaeTalk 10:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i waiting for it to be done Please. Khalidkhoso 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting a "prod"

The article, 1936: Horror, was deleted via "prod" apparently without any discussion. I would ask that this be rectified. Thank you in advance. The Bearded One 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod deletions don't have discussion. I will undelete it for you. Viridae^Talk 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize.

I will get a username next time. But I sincerely apologize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.5.94.15 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow what was 68.162.20.124 hangup on you?

He's banned for now (4 days it says) geez what you do. Funny that they thought it was you doing the reverts and it was myself and other editors taking care of business. Glad its taken care of for now. See you around. --Xiahou 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I did reverts my userpage got hammered by 151.198.134.190 which was obviously a sock of User:68.162.20.124, oh well, he's been blocked for 31 hours now! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, I gave him a {{npa4}} warning. Viridae^Talk 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you ask me what's written in arabic before deleting the template? Do you really want to provoke me? Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you want to bring more racism to wikipedia? Embargo 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've taken this to WP:AN, to try and stop a revert war, I've asked the user to stop adding it, however, he keeps on doing it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the opportunity to be nice.

Hello! If we want to make a neutral encyclopedia, we will need people from all over the world cooperatig with our efforts. Certainly, if Embargo adds non-neutral material to articles, that would be a problem. But maybe they're quite reasonable. Let's talk with them and see! --Kim Bruning 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol

Hey Viridae i want to be "Recent changes patrol" so can you Guide me how to start work and how to do things here?

thanks ciao Khalidkhoso 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration regarding Trodel

Because you have been working so hard to try to resolve the dispute, I am requesting that you once again help in resolving the dispute. I am filing a request for Arbitration, as it has become clear that Trodel will not abide by any decision we try to come to in the RfC. You won't be asked to do much, I think, just give your statement, much as you have for the RfC. Your help would be most appreciated. TheGreenFaerae 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#.7BFinal_Resolution_for_dispute_between_Tr.C3.B6del_and_TheGreenFaerae.7D

VegaDark

Hi. Thank you SO much for the offer. As I'm sure he's been active enough that many people will have seen much of his work, I'm afraid I'll have to accept only one or at most two co-noms from people familiar with him. I'm sure he'll welcome your support, though, and I hope you can help me out with my next nomination. Thank you again for the support! It's really appreciated. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I will most definately support his RfA when it is posted. Viridae^Talk 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Drini deleted your comments from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

[1]

AFAIK, this is disruptive behaviour.

I asked for all the comments (and my original text, rebutting Drini´s defamation against me) to be reposted again [2], and Drini deleted my petition and posted new defamatory (i.e., false) stuff against me [3].

I was receiving good ideas about what to do from other administrators until Drini came and started posting factually false nonsense [4] about me (as Drini recognized [5]). Drini was called to enter the fray from the Spanish Wikipedia [6].

I think that this Drini´s behaviour is outrageous, and I ask you for help. What can I do?.

Randroide 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so bad. False alarm, maybe

Well, the situation is not so bad as I thought (albeit is neither a good one).

Drini pasted the whole discussion in a different linked page [7].

I missed that pasting. I thought the text was deleted.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Nonetheless, any comment?.

Randroide 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

A user/SPA has requested a copy a deleted article (deleted per AFD as NN). I don't see anything in the article that is sensitive - but a quick scan of policy scan reveals no guidelines. Is dumping a copy into his userspace kosher? Kuru ^talk 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just undelete then move it to a subpage of their userspace. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I had already indef blocked that CaptJebus guy before you left your warning, so I replaced your warning with an {{indef}}. I didn't think a threat like that even deserved a warning, but feel free to revert me and remove the block if you feel it was inappropriate. Kafziel ^Talk 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. Viridae^Talk 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

CN

Hi Viridae. I've replied regarding your hijacking re-redirecting of WP:CN at Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard#Template updates. Picaroon 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd Trivia Vandal

I found this ip address 68.165.76.174 just pop up on the project today and add toomuchtrivia tags on any page he was on. I reverted all changes, but I wasn't sure what type of warning to leave on the talk space. I will leave a message though, and I would appreciate admin looking in on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGreenFaerae (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, not sure whats going on there. Try posting this over to WP:ANI. Viridae^Talk 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:DrAndyWho

Hey. No problem. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedies

I wasn't aware notability was remotely relevant to G11 spam ... Chris cheese whine 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well considering you tagged it without the use of s epcific template, I took the most obvious one - db-bio, which meant notability applied. As it WAS a bio and not selling a product specifically, that was the appropriate action. Viridae^Talk 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I would agree, if it weren't for the fact it was a bread-and-butter merge (duplicate articles), and reverting the redirect was effectively a POV fork. User:Mais oui! also seems to have a history of edit warring, ironically using the summary "reverting edit warring by User:X". Chris cheese whine 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the other users behaviour yet, just your statement. I am looking into what is going on. It would be a damn site easier though if you two stopp removing stuff from the respective talk pages. Viridae^Talk 12:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, it's a duplicate article. There are no changes to discuss. User:Mais oui! is merely being stubborn. Chris cheese whine 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In which case, it should be easy to get consensus from the wider community. However if you continue to edit war (this applies to both of you) you WILL be blocked. Step away and calm down. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

blocking vandals

Hi, you removed an ip that I re-requested at the admin intervention page. Rather than reporting the same IP for the third time, and risking being regarded as a vandal myself, I just wanted to bring it to your attention that new vandal edits came from this ip. Making it 5 in just over 2 hours. Please deal with it in a way you see fit, I will stop monitoring this IP and get out of your way.

Thanks! Sander123 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just re-report in future, if they have vandalised since a RECENT final warning then report them. I was offline. Viridae^Talk 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal of IP address

This and this and this is NOT a content dispute. I am resubmitting to WP:AIV. Real96 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have absoloutely no idea if that is a valid nickname or not, hence the removal. It does look like a content dispute though. 06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deltas are called Deltas. Zetas are called Zetas, not broads. Broad is an offensive American slang for woman. I thought you knew, but I forgot you are from a different country. Sorry for the hostility. Real96 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the term as you spell it, but not as the vandal did. I will block them if they aren't Viridae^Talk 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) broads can be spelled as BRAWDS. The vandal has stopped now (thank goodness!) If the user vandalizes the pages again, I am reporting to WP:AIV, because he/she has passed level 4. It's kind of like slang in America is different around the world? cheers! Real96 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They have stopped because I blocked them. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so much! :-) Real96 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NP. Viridae^Talk 07:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Viridae/Archive5

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Your indefinite block of User:Dora Nichov

Viridae, I came across Dora Nichov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s unblock request and would like to talk to you about potentially shortening the block from indefinite. From what I can tell the user has gotten annoyed and made some silly comments to IPs: 'I'm warning you..., You know, I hate vandals..., 'Didn't I tell you to stop!?, 'LISTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I tell you to stop -- STOP!, If I could, I WILL ban you! Or do anything so you will be banned!. More importantly, the editor made two comments containing the phrase "I'll kill you". I don't want to minimize the significance of such comments, but I do think that, in context, even the target wouldn't take them as serious death threats: test1|Dora Nichov Plus I'll kill you if you vandalize my userpage again., and Stupid vandal, I'll kill you the way I kill moose!. Certainly, such comments display horrible judgment, are absolutely not acceptable, and warrant a long block. That said, I don't see how this is either a personal attack placing another user in danger or a pattern of persistent personal attacks (the two applicable situations warranting an indefinite block that I see in WP:BLOCK). Finally, given the editor's history of positive contributions, an indefinite block probably has the net effect of doing more harm than good to Wikipedia. I would instead suggest shortening the block to two months. In light of the serious reasons behind the block, I feel I need your consent or acquiesence rather than reducing the block myself. Thank you for your consideration.--Kchase T 10:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this and consider the block. It was that diff in paticular that sparked the indef. If you want to reduce the block, feel free but I don't think behaviour like that shoudl ever be tolerated. Viridae^Talk 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A small heads up... Dora Nichov is now editing under anonymous IP (and not being very clandestine about it, either). See his Talk page. Thanks... Denn333 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Further to your intervention at User talk:217.44.98.169, please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:81.155.34.127_reported_by_User:Mais_oui.21_.28Result:.29. --Mais oui! 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not refactor my comments

as was done with this edit. While I realize your intentions were good and likely would have made the change myself if asked, I would like to be able to type and format comments as I choose. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. Just remember that it specifically says at the top that it isn't a vote. So xfd/rfa style bold text like that is strongly discourage. Viridae^Talk 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You reverted my redirect on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors - twas not vandalism, there's a consensus of sorts for this experiment on Talk:Main Page. Cheers --Monotonehell 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects don't work when there is text below them. Viridae^Talk 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've rectified it now.. I was a bit confused, but then I saw your edit on the talk page. --Monotonehell 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD: The "Super Stunt" Page

I was under the impression that Articles for Deletion had a five day review process? I just created the article on 2/20/07, it was vandalized repeatedly, and then deleted the same day. I don't recall seeing any votes for Speedy Delete or a Speedy Delete template. It would have been nice to have more than 12 hours to address the complaints and find more sources.--Notmydesk 10:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV. Yes the set length of time for AfDs is 5 days but many articles reguarly don't last that long. Viridae^Talk 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason this article needed to be deleted in less than a day? It would have been nice to have at least a chance to address the issues raised on the AfD page.--Notmydesk 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmydesk (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The consensus was that it was unsourced, unencyclopedic and highly likely to remain unsourced. There i sno point in letting the AfD run its course in that sort of situation (hence why many afds are closed before the 5 day time). Viridae^Talk 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There was an external link to a column on the Minneapolis Star Tribune's website that covered the events written about in the article, which should count as a source. I would have been happy to point this out on the AFD page if it hadn't been deleted so quickly. It appears you didn't follow the external link, nor apparently did anyone else who voted for deletion. This is why it would have been beneficial to wait longer than a single afternoon before rushing to delete the page. Again, I don't know how I'm supposed to address the feedback given on the AFD page if the article is deleted before I even have a chance. Could this be why there's a five day period... so people have a chance to edit the article and address the reasons it was proposed for deletion?--Notmydesk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The "Super Stunt". Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Notmydesk 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:British Royal Consorts is up for discussion

The link is here. Your comments would be most helpful as you deleted the category on December 2nd but it was subsequently recreated. So we now have both Category:British Royal Consorts and Category:British royal consorts. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad we can work together. Rlevse 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i know i messed up

i realized that what i did was not funny, and would like to appologize. yes i did vandalize 3 pages. and it was only to illustrate how unreliable wikis can be to a friend. anyway i would like to know how i can get unblocked. do i have to do some positive contribution? 7areega 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't blocked. If you are blocked under another username let me know. Viridae^Talk 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

my ip is blocked, i had to fiddle for a long time till i managed to log in to post here. i think i clicked a "secure login" link. then created an account. :) thnx for your time.7areega 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit anything about Steve Erwin...

(I did not edit anything about Steve Erwin...) Hi! I got "spanked" a little for editing away the statement on the Wikipedia page on David Icke which stated "as an indisputable fact" (that's the impression) that The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion is "an Anti-Semitic Hoax". This has not been proven to be the case in any way and is simply a subjective statement, of course also adding to the "Anti-Semitic allegations" against Mr. Icke that are really quite ridiculous. I have read several of his books and I have not seen any statement by Icke condemning the Semitic race. (definiton of Anti-Semitism). He HAS on the other hand condemned Zionism many times. Something that also many Jews have condemned. Anyway.... Icke's message is a message about waking up to the Truth (opening one's eyes) and questioning consensus reality. And what the Wikipedia page hardly mentions at all; he documents thoroughly through his writings and lectures the criminal and unconscientous activities of the most powerful individuals and corporations on the planet. Whether they be reptilians or not. But "Anti-Semitism" and "Right-wing" something-something is what catches the eye of the reader. And this is certainly very far from "objective". greetings, Bjorn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjornyvan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Unsure of how to report a vandal

An anonymous user under the IP address of User:74.109.244.5 has vandalized many pages [[8]], despite several warnings on the talk page. I am unsure of how to report this vandal, and knowing that you are an administrator I thought that I should let you know about this user. MelicansMatkin 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't see any recent vandalism (ie in the last few hours), however if you do find someone vandalising in the future, give them a warning using one of these templates (starting with the level one and moving through to level 4 as appropriate). Then if they continue after the level 4 warning, report them to WP:AIV. For more information see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Viridae^Talk 00:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Hi Viridae, I understand your concern. I have sent an unblock request to you via email. If you need more information, pls let me know asap. Thank you! --WikiInquirer 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Thanks for unblocking me. However, before I continue to solicit responses, I would like to wait for your reply. If you think it's ok, I shall carry on. --WikiInquirer 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

(edit conflict)As you can already post here you are already unblocked. I had a closer look and it seems legitimate, however mass spamming of talk pages seemd and intresting way to go about it. I am also interested as to why you require the participants to have signed up before Jn '06? Viridae^Talk 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Having now read the email, I see how you picked the names. I no longer have any problems with what is happening. Thankyou for your speedy response and the politeness you have shown in light of the block. Viridae^Talk 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cave Clan site

Hi Viridae,

firstly thanks for taking the protection off the page. I don't really appreciate your comment "Lets see if people can behave" but hey this is the Internet and communication works in different ways...

Anyways, onto the topic in question... there is a constant 'dark cloud' hanging over the Cave Clan wikipedia page, that is a person who (amongst creating different usernames that are really the one person, him) was once an accessory of the CC (I don't think he was ever a member...) but is now vehement in his revenge on us, and an integral part of this is defaming us here because Wikipedia is for some people the first reference for info on some things. I'm not sure of his reasonings but he loves to paint us in a bad light - see his web links http://www.urbanadventure.org/main/stuff/ildraino/caveclan.htm and http://www.urbanadventure.org/main/stuff/ildraino/wikipedia.htm.

I don't know if you've read through the blab in the talk page on CC wiki but he has used a lot of different usernames to put forward his posts. His aliases are: hibou, UrbanExplorer, Raresaturn (recent creation), Panic!, Gunny... anyway I think you get my gist (I've listed them on the Talk page too). All the posts read in a similar vein, I hope you can notice that.

Just wondering; is there any way to check on IP addresses of the posts that have been made by the above and any users onto the Talk page? I would like to know what ones are associated with all the users who have made posts. Also this would ascertain the above statement further.

Finally... I was wondering (have talked with other CC people about this too) if you'd like to meet us, Cave Clan, to get a gauge of who we are and what we are about ('larrikinism' is something that can be as close as it gets to explaining our whole character). You can email info@caveclan.org for... more info, or browse www.caveclan.org for more (endorsed?) info. Thinking this would give you, a wikipedia admin person, a better idea of who we are, what we do, how we are organised etc. This is to support a definite NPOV being described on the CC wiki page e.g. homophobia, KKK comments removed permanently (as if we'd allow people like this to join or be associated with us...)

Anyways (final one) I hope you can understand what I'm saying above, overall that the CC wants a 'NPOV' cemented for its description here, Because at the moment some of it is, to put it simply, 'shit'.

Thanks Dmnscar 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to file a request at WP:RFCU. Only checkusers can see registered users IP addresses, to check for people using multiple accounts to edit abusively. Viridae^Talk 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA mistake

Hello, I'm sorry about the RfA confusion. The RfA looked malformed, because I have made that mistake when I nominated ProveIt. I did find answers afterall to the questions. What threw me off, was probroly the fact that there were no votes or comments, and that the edit count box looked incomplete.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I guessed it was an honest mistake. Viridae^Talk 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent 3RR report

Would you mind expaining how you came to the conclusion that no 3RR violation occured here?

Um, Rayis just unilaterally removed your decision from the heading. You might want to check it out. The Behnam 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you do not think the rules should apply in this case, thanks --Rayis 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained at the report. You have not demonstrated 4 reverts. Viridae^Talk 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the user admits that he has done 3RR and 1 likely other one! overall there have been 5 "undoings of edits" and definite 4 reverts --Rayis 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate the violation in your report and appropriate action will be taken. You failed to do that so the case was closed, No block. Viridae^Talk 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say it is very interesting that I can't find the last time you edited the 3RR notice board yet you suddenly showed up to close this nomination. --Rayis 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:TINC. Viridae^Talk 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, Behnam has been blocked and his appeal has been declined. You're welcome to have a look (if there's a greater history, here, I'm not yet familiar with it). – Luna Santin (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Here's The Code For {{further}}; If You Know How To Make It So That We Can Use Infinite Arguments, Please Be My Guest:D100110100 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Further information: [[{{{1}}}]]

Question regarding reporting vandals

Hello, I noticed that you removed the request for Admin. intervention regarding the IP addresses 64.179.53.224 and 80.188.72.172. For the first you stated, "no recent warnings," although the last warning was less than a month ago (February 22, 2007) and his user page consists entirely of vandalism warnings and blocks. For the second you stated "no recent vandalism" although the incident I reported took place only a couple days ago (March 6th). This user's talk page also consists only of warnings about vandalism. Can you please specify for me what the time limit involved in reporting vandals amounts to (e.g., is there a policy regarding recency of activity or warnings). This would prevent me from providing spurious reports. In this case, however, I don't see that these two IP addresses have done anything but vandalize Wikipedia, so I hope this matter can be given some attention. Thank you. ◄Zahakiel► 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent warnings means within the last 12 hours or so for IP addresses (that doesn't apply to logged in users) because unless you can show the IP is not dynamic we may be blocking someone for someone elses previous offences.

In the second case, we do not block vandals who are nto currently active, ie within the last half hour or so unless in ccases of very malicious or wide spread vandalism. Blocking is punative not preventative. Hope that clears things up. Viridae^Talk 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes; I see the need for the distinction. ◄Zahakiel► 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete

I notice that you've interpreted the result of the AfD on double posting as "merge and delete", and I figured I should point out that actually going through with this (merging the material and then deleting the page it came from) is probably illegal under the GFDL. Section 4 B of the GFDL requires that modified versions of a document must include a list of five of the primary authors of the original version and in Wikipedia this requirement is met via the article histories. A merge without a copy of the article history being preserved somewhere on Wikipedia would therefore be unlicenced, and a copyvio. I'm moving the double posting article back to its original location, merging it, and then turning it into a redirect; as far as I'm aware this is the proper way to preserve article history in this situation. Bryan Derksen 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats quite fine by me. Viridae^Talk 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Embargo

Actually, sir, I took Twasnow's advice and changed it from "This user supports armed resistance to Israeli hostilities" to "this user supports resistance to hostilities". Now someone else, replaced it from "This user supports resistance to hostilities" to "This user supports resistance to Israeli hostilties" because he thought I had every right to keep, since other people can express whatever views they have. "This user supports cats to dog hostilities" should dog hostilities occur is acceptable. Now every one has witnessed Israel's last war, and we can all agree Israel is a disgusting murderous state. I can see you try your best to provoke me, thankfully till now it hasn't worked. Good thing not every one on wikipedia is biased against Arabs and Muslims. You are asked to leave me alone, or remove every single political userbox on Wikipedia. Regards. Emбargo 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The word hostilities was wikilinked to massacre. And I saw that you were the user who changed it, absoloutely unacceptable and you know it. Viridae^Talk 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "This user supports resistance to hostilities" was accepted by everyone. The link to massacres was always there. Your racism and flagrant bias makes me sick. Another user thought I had the right to add Israeli to hostilities because everyone on Wikipedia expresses his/her political views. You know I'm right, you just decided to protect my userpages under false pretext. Another attempt to provoke an Arab into getting blocked. Unprotect my userpage or delete every political userbox on Wikipedia. You are abusing your administator rights. Racism and flagrant bias could have very serious consequences. Avoid double-standards and unprotect my userpage. Emбargo 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, where in WP:USER does it say I don't have the right to have that userbox? I think "Hezbollah=Murder Inc." is attacking someone. Supporting Lebanese resistance to Israeli hostilities or Canadian to American hostilities, should they occur, is not attacking someone. But I guess you know that, you're just too racist and biased to accept it. Emбargo 00:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder and leader

Oh and you are quite welcome to continue to console yourself with the thought that you are being picked on because you are an Abrab. I really don't care what nationality or upbringing you come from. That userbox is nothing more than political soapboxing and as such is not welcome on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for an answer to my request, no for you to comment on the few words I wrtoe in the end. Another way of getting out of it. You are asked to unprotect my userpage. Again, your flagrant bias and racism is quite obvious. Reply, if you will, to what I said earlier. Again, either you leave me be or you delete every userbox expressing support to anything. God you people make me sick. I hope your next reply isn't a comment on "God you people make me sick". Emбargo 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You userpage is not being unprotected because I don't see any change in your attitude and i have no doubt you will immediately replace the offending userbox. The quote from Jimbo answered the other part of your query. And once again you accuse me of rascism without any grounding whatsoever. Viridae^Talk 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is a short list of users who have userboxes expressing support of Israel. User:Snickerdo User:Kmweber User:Dana I am allowed to show support for resistance when Israel is hostile, as it was when it attacked last summer and destoryed my home. You people just do not want to accept the fact that Israel hated by most people. Showing support for resistance isn't hostile, is it? What the movement resists is what is hostile. I think 60 years ago, you would have allowed the French to express support of resistance to Nazi hostilities. Emбargo 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of those users have the userbox supporting a "free an independant state of israel", which, while frowned on, is not as overly offensive as yours. We have covered this territory before, maybe its time you saw reason...? Viridae^Talk 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

'Sigh'

Huh. To think you'd have something else to do beside going through my contributions. Thankfully, I do not have as much time to contribute to Wikipedia and I'm not willing to discuss this any further. I assume you have seen my correspondants' userpages? I am willing to reinstate the usebox that hasn't received any complaints and that an admin proposed, by removing the 'Israeli' part, so that it reads "This user supports armed resistance to hostilities.". It is not in violation of policy, nor does it offend anyone. This is a good gesture, and I await your reply. Emбargo 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair as long as "hostilities" is not wikilinked to "massacre". I will unprotect your userpage if you confirm that this will be the case. Viridae^Talk 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I think you know I have the right to keep it, and you know this formulation has been agreed on, and the link to massacres has always been there. You're just abusing your rights as an admin, and abusing my act of good gesture by removing what disturbed people about this userbox. Israel does commit massacres, and massacres are to be responded wth resistance. I removed the Israeli part so that no one is offended. Should you decide not to unprotect my userbox, I will discuss this with another admin. Emбargo 13:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It wasn't the mention of israel that I was complaining about in the first place but the use of the wikilink to massacres. Viridae^Talk 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Hello Viridae, I noticed you unprotected this page. There's been a lengthy feud on the talk page (spanning two archived subpages and most of the current one) which is still unresolved. I haven't really been part of it, but I watchlist most HP articles and just thought it would be unhelpful to the discussion. However, I'm not too acquainted with protection rules, so if there's something against having a page protected for a month, I understand. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It seemed excessive. I have got my eye on it. Viridae^Talk 05:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're Waiting

I'm waiting on you to change the code.100110100 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for some sort of ban on 70.92.175.102

This ip has edited many pages of which you have issued him a warning for one and today edited the Wikipedia Admins entry. I issued him a warning at which point he accused me of harassment and lied about being friends with an administrator which turned out to be untrue when the person mentioned came forward. This can all be found on my user discussion page. Can something permenant be done about this? I don't enjoy being accused of harrasment because I tried to edit a vandilised article! --Rboxer 10:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Ok. I want to resolve this and go one with my editing. I will change the content of the userbox and replace it with "This user supports armed resistance to Israeli hostilities." Hopefully, we won't have to discuss this matter any further. Emбargo 11:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. I will unprotect. Viridae^Talk 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. Please roll this back. [9]. It has broken over a thousand mainspace articles.--GunnarRene 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was a protected edit request. Obviously didnt work. Viridae^Talk 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hostile User Boxes

I stumbled across this userbox business by accident while tracing another edit. It seems a bit sick. Anyways, another user User:Wa3ad7 also have the massacre userbox.

Embargo on the other hand keeps leaving messages going on about racist Zionist pigs, I hope Embargo stays with userbox vandalism and doesn't start editing articles again. 148.63.236.141 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

just a question

are you jewish, or are you just against Hezbollah because of the propaganda that jewish/americans put through to the people? there is nothing wrong with my template. please do not start an arguement with me. Yahussain 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No I am not jewish and no i do not have somethin in paticular against hezbollah. Your userbox however violates WP:NOT and WP:USER - it may be considred overly offensive to some peopleand therefore has no place within the userspace. PLease remove or change it or it will be done for you. Viridae^Talk 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chacor RfA Talk Page

I like how you enforce the blanking of my thread by protecting the page. I made it clear in the now-blanked thread, that I was not "soapboxing", but simply expressing my views on the talk page, as the nom had been pulled by the time I was able to get back to the RfA to discuss. That the four of you chose to tag-team me, and then protect the page to enforce your edits is against all that Wikipedia supposedly stands for.K. Scott Bailey 06:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

if you wish to discuss other editors behaviour please do it in an appropriate forum not a now closed RfA. Try WP:RFC... Viridae^Talk 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

Hello.
I'd like you to reconsider your block of Certified.Gangsta.
Please look here.
It isn't that I'm lovey-dovey with gangsta. (frankly, I know little of him and don't even care)
However, I'm very much concerned with how rules are applied, especially in related cases.
Case in point:

• Ideogram violates 3RR. No question about it. Definite infraction. He isn't punished.
• CG comes close to violating 3RR. He's reported by Ideogram. He is punished.
• These two obviously have quite a bit going on between them. They have an ongoing conflict with eachother. The only way to not take sides is to treat them both identically.
• They are not both treated identically.

CG really should have simply received a 3rr warning. At least that would've conveyed the same sense of "you're on the edge, but you get a reprieve" that Ideogram got.
More importantly, when two editors are at odds with eachother, admins treating one demonstrably better than the other really sends a bad message. Consistency and fairness are necessary if anyone is to take the position of 'admin' seriously. Have you noticed how many editors have been 'retiring' lately? How many seem to have problems with admins abusing the system? Inconsistent application of rules certainly isn't going to help that.
Ultimately, the decision obviously lies with you, but just try to consider this: Which is the worse evil?
Irrefutable evidence that, when two users have a conflict, one can receive far better treatment than the other, independent of their actual actions?
Or lifting a block, and giving a possibly problematic editor enough rope to hang himself, if he really is a disruptive problem? Bladestorm 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see C.G's talk page. Viridae^Talk 09:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding our past disagreement

You may be interested in reading my comments here as I have completely changed my mind about the issue. I now believe your thinking was correct.--BirgitteSB 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was still on my watchlist so I saw it, but thanks for letting me know. Viridae^Talk 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:UW strawpoll

I've created {{uw-vblock}} and {{uw-dblock}} for you, I've not gone through the relevant redirects yet on the overview but let me know if you want any more. Cheers ^Khukri 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Viridae^Talk 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Viridae. I think you should help me with this user who has been reverting everything I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.30.182.60 He has reverted one of my edits in the article List of billionaires 2007. The IP should be blocked. Emбargo 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Word-Acorn

Thanks for your intervention. I'll keep an eye on related articles. --RFBailey 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

assistance

I seek administrator assistance. User:Emerson7 monitors my edits and reverts them whevener he feels like it. In the articles "List of billionaires (2006)" and "List of billionaires (2007)" he reverts my addition of the Lebanese flag next to Carlos Slim Helu's name, and does it sometimes with using an IP instead of his username. Get him off my back, if you will. As much as it may bother "Emerson", Carlos Slim Helu's parents are both Lebanese, his holds the Lebanese citizenship and visits his country very often. Emбargo 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you calmly and politely asked him why he is reverting all your edits? That would be the first step. Viridae^Talk 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, and now I am blocked. Please see my userpage, I hope it's a joke. Do something about it, if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.201 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that and I suggest you take it up with the blocking administrator. Refer them to our conversations if you wish. I suggest not editing from the IP you are using, but using the email this user function. Viridae^Talk 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No Viridae, it's your responsibility. I have made concessions, you can't profit from this and tell me to contact the other admin. Restore it and explain to him. Embargo 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You also mentioned that you have noticed the removal of the userbox. With everything we've discussed concerning the userbox, it would be your responsibility to restore it and deal with whoever waited for me being blocked to blank my userpage. Otherwise will show you have been playing it dirty and you show absolutely no good faith. What I think you should do now is contact whoever blanked my page and get him off my back as well as anyone who tries to approach my userpage. Embargo 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have it all wrong. Just because we have had a now-sorted-out past disagreement doesn't mean this makes me your protector. Please take it up with the person in question. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Embargo's Hezbollah userbox

Hey there, I've followed this controversy from afar for awhile. Looking at Embargo's page, it appears that this version is the one that you and he compromised on?

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

This user supports armed resistance against hostilities.

There's others popping up now, Proabivouac [10] and Avraham [11], who seem to find even that one out of bounds. Is there a special dispute/conflict resolution for userpage space? If so, this issue has been bouncing around for ages, and should probably see a solid resolution soon. Tarc 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we compromised on that - mainly for the sake of not arguing, but polemical statements have no place int he userspace. The main reason that was compromised on was 1. because it is far less offensive than what was there and 2. because in its toned down its not too much worse than many of the other politically motivated userboxes. I am not sure about a dispute resolution process for this userbox, you could try a WP:RfC on the userbox itself. Or email arbcom and see what they say about it, maybe they have another idea as to the best way to go about this. The amount of hassle caused by these things is ridiculous, especially because in its previous incarnation it was quite obviously offensive. Viridae^Talk 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question pertaining to WP:AIV

Hi, I was wondering why you cited "no recent warnings" when you removed 68.161.68.171 from the noticeboard - the anon had received an "only warning" for extensive vandalism on March 21, but still persisted in inserting deliberate errors. Can you clarify your rationale? Thanks! +A.0u 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

IPs are often dynamic, so a IP vandal must have received a warning for the most recent bout of vandalism (ie within a few hours at least) before they can be considered adequately warned and be blocked. That doesn't apply to registered users however. Viridae^Talk 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for helping with the vandalism caused by Tennis Bossman. Tennis expert 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs.Viridae^Talk 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV for 987654321zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba

You removed my AIV report of 987654321zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba saying it was not a violation because it was not random. I wasn't reporting it because it was random (as it is not), I was reporting is for being excessively long, which is also prohibited. —dgies^t_c 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RFCN. Viridae^Talk 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

IPs not being warning today

Just so you know, you removed two IP's, which you said "haven't been warned today". However, where I am, it is still the 24th, and no matter where you are, one of those warnings was only 4 hours ago. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - got my times mixed up. Post them here and Ill block. Viridae^Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Their talk pages are here and here. However, you may be right about the first one, as the last warning was about 14 hours ago. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead an blocked anyway. Viridae^Talk 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@

Peehead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No offense, but don't you see the above as an obvious "excretory functions" username violation? I would like to hear your reasoning on a possible good-faith motive for the name. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was Peehead I would block it but its not [12] so I am assuming good faith and allowing the possobility that it doesn't mean what you think it to mean. Hence the direction to WP:RFCN. Viridae^Talk 02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I have been afflicted with a (hopefully) temporary case of illiteracy. Please forgive my mistake... RJASE1 ^Talk 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF? This person was username-blocked by another admin. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

well if you know another place my friends and i can talk tell me about it because you have to lay off us people cause youhave been vandalized 19 times--Masterlauryn 15:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)masterlauryn

Not my job to suggest alternitives. Just find somewhere more appropriate. Viridae^Talk 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on user page

An anonymous user vandalised my user page. I am unfamiliar with handling vandalism. I will revert the edit but I ask, if possible, that you can help take action. Thank you. --Shamir1 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned. In future you can warn them yourself with an appropriate message from WP:UTM Viridae^Talk 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV / 62.68.72.212

See WP:ANI#SummerThunder. The OCD claims are SummerThunder's current MO. JuJube 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• He's editing from 202.156.14.10 (talk · contribs) now. JuJube 05:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CANVASS

Yes, we did discuss about RFCN, on the RFCN talk page and actually we disagreed with each other. So I believe it is not canvassing. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problems. Just checking. Viridae^Talk 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

username

Well, it's too late for me to answer your question at the noticeboard. I'm slow. I considered it inappropriete because it was similar to this one that was blocked, and for the multiple ha's in it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I gathered that might have been the problem, and I support one that was previously blocked, but not this one. Having something on the end gives people the ability to tell it from all the other hahaha usernames (if there were some) Viridae^Talk 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I have moved it as you suggest. Thank you for suggesting that. Danny 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mstatz

User:Mstatz is a sock of Jj0909jj. Why did you revert my edit to his page? Would you like me to post diffs proving it? Nardman1 23:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, the notice you placed is 1. meant for the talk page. and 2. Incorrect, as he wasn't blocked as a sock, he was blocked for trolling. Viridae^Talk 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I changed the tag to a more appropriate one. Proof is this [13]. Chrisaldous is also a sock of Jj0909jj. User's modus operandi includes randomly changing the present tense to the past tense [14] [15] and obsession with the windows xp logo. [16] [17] [18] [19]. Also random 2 or 3 word edits to other people's user pages. Nardman1 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wandering through..

I've seen several dozen examples, lately, of the hard work you are doing, and I just wanted to say that it is appreciated and respected. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 09:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the block on the IP attacking my page - they took exception to me blocking them on Books and then Commons! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

Apologies but it used to say at WP:USERNAME that they could not contain the word "wiki" and I think that has been removed, indicating its allowed now?? Anyway sorry for any inconveniece and happy editing! Tellyaddict 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly it has been removed, policy can be pretty fuid sometimes. Viridae^Talk 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpages

Maybe you should see these userpages User:Politicallyincorrectliberal and User:Matt57. I'm surprised no one has delt with them. I believe the two accounts belong to the same user and I call for his immediate block. Obviously, this user inserts his extremist POV to Islam-related articles. Emбargo 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, none of which are as offensiveas your original. The second one I can't see anything offensive about at all...? Viridae^Talk 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"This user supports armed resistance to Israeli hostilities" is more offensive than "I strongly oppose the religion of Islam for being the most evil, hateful and violent doctrine ever introduced to mankind" and "This user strongly opposes fascism in all its forms, including Islamofascism, and the new Hitler in Iran"? I'm sorry but I may have to discuss this with other admins and possibly report you for abusing your admin "power" because now I see the logic you use and the camp you support. Emбargo 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Samsung Electronics/Youngjoon Shin

Hi, you might remember putting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Electronics on protected last week because of the edit war I had with Youngjoon Shin. I'm hoping you could protect it again, and block Youngjoon Shin. Once again he merely deletes my comments on the Talk Page and revert the article. I suspect he is also the one leaving me insults here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rmdsc , under the ip 221.148.48.216 since the behaviour of the two strongly correlates (log on times, articles editted etc).

I have tried understanding Wikipedia's resolve disputes policy, but it seems to me that most of the steps talking to the other side. In my case Youngjoon Shin refuses to talk to me at all, so I would appreciate it if you could take a look into it. --Rmdsc 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and sympthise, but he hadn't be warned on his talk page about removing other peoples comments. I have no done so. If he continues to remove your comments, drop me a note on here and I will take action. Viridae^Talk 06:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really appreciated the Super duper strong support in my RFA:-) I was a bit thrown by some of the opposes based on the same answer you liked (especially for including as an aside in their stated reasons that my contributions are mostly bot type work without actually looking to see whether that was true), but kind words such as yours are what I'll take to the bank.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs, you seem like you will make a fantastic admin - good luck and have fun. Viridae^Talk 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re [20]

The Arbitration Committee found the accounts to be sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein#Multiple_accounts. John254 22:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Viridae^Talk

Bring Back Deleted Images

I can't beleive you deleted File:Wingo the Nissan Silvia.jpg and File:Snot Rod the Plymouth Barracuda.jpg!!! I liked those images!!! Please bring them back. I want to make a "Cars (film) gallery". Don't deleted anymore images!!! --TimySmidge 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

The imageswere deleted because they had no rational for copyright/no source info. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen

I don't care if they had no rational for copyright/no source info. I want those images and I want them soon. The longer I wait, the longer it'll take for that gallery to be made, got it!!! --TimySmidge 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

Not happening, for the reason already stated. Viridae^Talk 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please

I am begging you. My sister and I absolutely love those pictures. I want to print them, but now I can't. Please, do what you can. I'm sorry about the above, but I desperately need those pictures. Please reconsider not bringing them back. Plus, Boost and DJ's pictures stay, why not Wingo and Snot Rod's. Also (I hate correcting) you wrote "images" and "were" as one word. By the way, I'm a Cars fan. --TimySmidge 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

The deleted images did not have any copyright rational, and per your post above I doubt you are about to [21] add any. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Rational? Which post? I left three. --TimySmidge 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

The on directly above this. Viridae^Talk 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The "by the way"? Okay then, how do you add one? Did you like the images? Do you hate me? I want you to answer all of these questions. Also, could you respond on my talk page. --TimySmidge, Protector of everything Cars (film) 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

Per the top of the page, I prefer to keep all conversation n the same place. You upload an image by choosing "Upload file" from the toolbox on the left hand side of your page (with the default skin). Make sure you choose the correct licensing or it will just be deleted again. I do not care either way about the images or yourself. Viridae^Talk 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Viridae. Now, I must ask, what are "correct licensing I should be warned about. Also, what's a "viridae"? --TimySmidge 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

Vridae means "Virus famly". Correct licencing means making sure you choose the correct licences when you uplaod the file. t will be explained on the uplaod page. Viridae^Talk 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried such, but when I did, I got terribly confused. Could you either give me step-by-set insturctions (including giving me the correct license) or doing it for me? And, honestely, do you hate me? The truth is good. Also, you never told me which response you're third answer was talking about. Hello, pay attention to me!--TimySmidge 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

RFCN closure

We had an edit conflict as I was posting the result of research with several links. I posted what I had begun writing before your closure. I did not comment thereafter on your closing remarks. However, please be aware that your saying the username "does not specifically claim to be a religious figure (however much that phrase is associated with one)" appears to misplace the line drawn by policy, which excludes even names "that refer or allude to ... The names of religions or religious figures". Furthermore, Eagle_101's question whether the name "provokes" is answered in the strongly affirmative. Please reconsider. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the user is ultimately good faith (see the edits) I don't wish to reinitiate the dicussion. However if you find another admin willing to folowo it through after seeing the dicussion, feel free. Viridae^Talk 08:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, "good faith" would only be an issue in deciding whether to disable account creation when blocking ("In these cases it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username is believed to have been created in bad faith."). "Good faith" does not make a username acceptable if it violates policy, just as "bad faith" would not make a username unacceptable if it obeyed policy -- the question of user conduct would be entirely distinct from username acceptability in either case.

Since you wish to refer the discussion to someone else, I'll copy this thread over to WT:RFCN for wider discussion. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi, I am reporting an editor who is engaged in edit-warring. User:Certified.Gangsta has done a huge number of reverts on this article alone in the last few weeks. Certified.Gangsta was recently warned and blocked before but he has continued edit warring. Protecting the article is useless, once it is unprotected, Certified.Gangsta will start another round of revert war. Certified.Gangsta is clearly ignoring the intent of the 3RR rule, only a block will stop his disruptive edit warring. Please reply here. Thanks. LionheartX 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have both been edit wwarring, and the only reason I have not taken action was because the most recent clear cut case was 2 days ago. Let it be, sort it out on the talk page. Viridae^Talk 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

KirbyTime

Kirbytime removed the abusive message you took out. This is his 3rd trolling episode. How many times is this user going to be blocked and warned, continued to return and wreck havoc here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

good call. DR seems to be the way to go. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BuickCenturyDriver

Hi Viridae, I'm intrigued to hear your thoughts on Buick, now, evidence seams clear that he was involved, but does what he did merit an indefinate block given his past experience? I'm thinking that maybe an unblock may be for the best for a full explanatin on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would fully support that, and was considering an unblock myself. I firstly find it hard to believe that given the users good history that he would hijack an admins account. If that was the case, once again given his history I would support unblocking still, perhaps on a good behviour bond. The checkuser evidence is like genetic evidence in a court of law - ie it places the defendant at the scene but can never prove that they did it. Either way, I would like to see him provide an explanation - there is no risk of further disruption, so I can see no harm in unblocking him. Viridae^Talk 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, at a minimum, the checkuser evidence shows that all of Buick's recent edits and AndyZ's block of Ryulong came from the same IP within one minute of each other. The least incriminating explanation would be that Buick saw the main page go down, recreated it, then logged in to AndyZ's account (using the password given in the deletion log) and decided to play a prank on Ryulong. It would be nice if he would acknowledge this. He claims to be on wireless, however if another Wikipedia was using the same wireless connection then there would be multiple edits and users showing up in the checkuser. At a minimum I think a more forthcoming explanation is required. Thatcher131 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need an explanation, I think it's clear that BCD is involved in this, I would say though, that if he is willing to admit fully what he has done, we should allow him to edit it - a prank or not, it's serious, but BCD hasn't exactly been the worst wikipedian prior to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, above I assume that BCD was only responsible for the block on Ryulong using the password exposed in the deletion log. If BCD was also responsible for hacking Jiang's account and vandalizing the sitenotice, he should be banned with extreme prejudice. Thatcher131 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the IP that deleted the main page was different to the one that blocked Ryulongs (same as BCD's) so it actually seams like a high probability, although I am concerned that BCD created a new main page saying where's the main page?, that seams totally unacceptable to me, and rather disruptive. This is a tough one. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the creation of a new main page in that way, I would have been confused - as long as it wasn't him that deleted it. Blocking Ryulong was dissruptive, but considering his history, not something worth an indefinite block. I am resigned to the fact that he probobly did do the second action, but I don't believe he deleted the main page. Viridae^Talk 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Feels good to be back, I fully thank you for your support. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are!

I hate you, I think you are an idiot, and you're contributions are stupid. --64.24.40.3 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)64.24.40.3

Who are you again? Viridae^Talk 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Email

I've just emailed you, so hopefully you'll get it soon. Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Username report

I asked the user. Should the report be removed now, not being a clearly offensive username afterall. It seemed clear, but since you're not sure if it stands for the Ku Klux Klan, the report probraly doesn't belong there.--U. S. A. 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you or another administrator remove the report.--U. S. A. 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• If the user does not respond at all, should I report or not, and how much time should the user have to respond?(I would think at least a day)--U. S. A. 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Give them 3-4 days to respond. When you re-report, take it to WP:RFCN. (and if you do re-report, make sure they have made an edit and tell me you are doing it - I would like to follow the report). Viridae^Talk 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• But presuming they don't make any edits, I shouldn't re-report the account?--U. S. A. 04:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You can if you wish, but having a username blocked when they aren't going to edit anyway achieves nothing - they still remain in the users log either way. If they have an offensive username and they start editing, that is when it is going to offend people - go through the users log and you will find thousands of offensive names. However, blatantly offensive usernames are ussually blocked either way, as they are likely created to cause trouble. I don't think this is the case in this situation, but I leave it up to your judgment as to wether you think this is blatant enough that it still warrants a block on the off chance they edit and offend/cause trouble. Viridae^Talk 04:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The block, unblock, and immediate re-block of Shaunybot

Re: WP:RFCN#Shaunybot: For the record, this name was reported to WP:UAA; Cbrown1023 imposed a username block at 01:46, 10 May 2007, and the RFCN section was accordingly closed; mitigating information was offered, to which Cbrown1023 replied, "I'll just re-open the RFCN case, be sure to post this there"; Cbrown1023 lifted the username block at 10:28, 10 May 2007, "for rfcn debate"; but then you re-blocked at 11:50, 10 May 2007, closing the debate at 11:52, without the mitigating information ever being posted for discussion. Not a whole lot of "debate" gets to happen in less than an hour and a half. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it is quite simply a violation - we aren't going to change the policy now to suit one user. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaunybot

This user is having a rant on their talk page probably because the block you applied does not permit account creation (they should be allowed to choose a new username). Unless there is something I've missed then th block should probably be changed. Thanks. GDonato (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks for your help. GDonato (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restore OneChild

You deleted OneChild as an expired prod. Could you please restore it to my userspace so that I could add the following references to the article, which I think are enough to establish notability?

• The Toronto Star
• ugnayan.ca - The Filipino Connections. March 04, 2007. Support for Cheryl Perera of OneChild for Brick Award and help save more children!!! By Fr. Shay Cullen
• The Underground. Volume 26, Issue 05. Fighting the Battle
• one80 - Innocence Lost

Thank you. --Eastmain 02:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done at User:Eastmain/OneChild. Viridae^Talk 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have added the references and tried to improve the article. I moved the article to OneChild, its original name, since I think the article is acceptable now. --Eastmain 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I have responded to administrators about CBW actions. I think, it satisfiies you. I am also sure that wikipedia is not managed by Ghosts. There are some real people behind it and have some professional senstivity in their conduct. CBW must be a person and frankly I am not interested to know his/her whereabouts but I am really concerned about the way wikipedia as a public domain information hub is being managed. Dispute settlement must be at the center stage of any such activity. Try to learn from www.wto.org ;)

yes Wikipedia does have quite a number of dispute resolution process in place. Hav a read of WP:DR. However the first and formost of those is rtalking with the user on their talk page or that of the article. Viridae^Talk 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

r u an admin? please tell me how i can get admin assitance for Last stand, there is a user there called Miskin who just undos everyone else's edits, i counted and he's undone 8-9 edits of others in the last 2-3 days...is this allowed?

Thanks

Thanks for understanding my point of view. Frankly, I may not have that much time to go through all those documents which a couple of people coming to the rescue of CBW are mentioning. If there is something specific, please let me know and I am ready to make correction. For example, if anyone of you thinks that sentence 'a' to 'd' needs changes or disclosure of source or whatever, then I can do that. I am sure it will facilitate your work and improve the content on wikipedia. The bottom line is we should be part of solution than a source of conflict by pricking people with blocks and unilateral truncations and adding frivolous information. In the case of Iman Ali, I can speak to her about the whole episode.

My bot request

I have put in a bot request for the new bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC NameWatcherBot. Since you have expressed concerns about the bot I thought I would point you to it so you can participate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanks for the notification. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Faniman

Thanks for getting the guy to stop. I will of course walk away from this as I doubt there is little that he and I could achive together. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist-facsist

Hey, I noticed that you blocked User:Anarcho-capitalism for being a sock of Billy Ego, and said ArbCom said so. Anarcho-capitalism was one of the best editors in economics-politics-related topics though I disagree strongly with his views. How could he be the "fascist" Billy-Ego be the same person to the libertarian Anarcho-capitalism? It doesn't make sense a person can be fascist and libertarian POV at the same time, it's like being both abolitionist and pro-slavery. What was the ArbCom's sock judgment based on? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Viridae^Talk 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

wrong impression?

Don't get the wrong impression. Alison's reduction to 1 week was done in discussion with me through email. What wasn't discussed was the original unblocking by dbachmann. That's the disturbing thing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was refering to. Viridae^Talk 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you will be able to back up with diffs your characterization of Dbachmann as "an admin with a conflict of interest, having had many interactions with Miskin previously". If one editor has had many interactions with another editor, it does not make them either friends or enemies. I believe an admin who is informed about Miskin's pattern of behaviour is better qualified to block/unblock him than an admin who knows him by hearsay, that is, from e-mails by Miskin's opponents or from bigmouths active primarily on ANI and IRC. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was him who stated that he had helped Miskin thorough his early stages of being a wikipedian and calming down. Hence conflict of interest because he has history and hence shouldn't be changing another admins blocks on that user without consulting them. Viridae^Talk 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your unblock

See my comment re your unblock. [22] FloNight 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)