User talk:Freakofnurture

ARCHIVES
	I am older than a lot of famous dead guys. A lot of famous dead guys didn't-live-as-long-as-me. Oh sure, they accomplished more, in a lot less time, But they are dead and what good does that do you?	I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane! — Samuel L. Jackson

A request

Hi, Freakofnurture. In February, you opposed my RfA candidacy, stating that '[my] apathetic approach to sockpuppetry and other forms of ban evasion cause[d] [you] great worry'. I have now been an administrator for almost 2 months, have not encountered any serious problems or accusations, and personally feel that I have become secure in my role, and am competent to deal with most administrative issues thrown at me.

However, your opposing comment also caused another user to oppose, another user to almost oppose, and another to comment 'that first opose (sic) was quite convincing, but you'd still make a good admin'. I know that you are an experienced user and sysop, been around far longer than I have, and dealt with far bigger problems. My RfA was just one of the occasions when I was reminded that your opinion holds a lot of weight with many members of the community, myself included (I still don't disagree with your oppose of my candidacy, I found it a very valid argument; I have opposed people for far less reason).

Basically, what I'm trying to say (in a twisted, tortured, roundabout way, because I try to ask for help as little as possible :) ) is if you have some time to spare, would you mind looking over my administrative actions, and telling me what you think? I would appreciate an honest opinion. The problem is that I'm generally quite nice to people, so people are nice to me, and potential problems can get glossed over amidst the smileys and candy. Naturally, I'm not expecting a massive review - frankly, I'm not expecting anything at all. If you have time, and if you feel this merits your attention, please consider dropping me a line.

Thanks a lot, – Riana ^ऋ 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this is just sick...

Please don't vandalize WP:DEFCON...mmkay? Real96 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• F.o.N. I thought it was funny. And the section header is just over the top. — MichaelLinnear 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just passing by spreading some cheer--Dakota

That seemed rather unjustified

I think your closing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner shows a bit too much personal POV. If you have a problem with me, take it up on my talk page please. A grand total of two (out of over thirty) editors quotably support your take that I should be "admonished" (in one case) and have "rotten tomatoes" tossed my way (if I recall correctly, in the other). Please re-read and note that the former said he was joking. I've already been told off by two people (notably both opposed to the views I was presenting) for being what they felt was overshadowing of that particular MfD debate. So I not only backed away, I self-reverted a whole bunch of my comments. If you want to just kick me while I'm already trying to make peace, well, then go ahead I guess, I don't see that it's particularly constructive. For the record, I strenuously object to your closure summary as not actually reflective of consensus on the merits (it should read "no consensus" - the objections, while less numerous, were overwhelmingly more substantive). The other half of your closure summary is hard to interpret as other than a personal attack with a less than 2 out of thirty-something support ratio. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

here's a quarter

Ah yes, you've noted that there wasn't a sufficient vote count in favor of admonishing you. You could take your excitement to admonishment review and wait for your sense of humor to catch up. —freak(talk) 14:20, May. 4, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bogus MfD closure, and then some

It has been requested that your attention be brought to the above discussion. Lexicon (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your "keep" closure, I really hope you will apologize for making that personal attack in image form. I expect it was a lapse of judgment on your part; it would be brilliant of you to repair the damage. ··coelacan 07:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, 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 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies

The issue is bigger than just page deletion; half of the deliberately vandalistic or vicious personal attack accounts I see these days are using TOR proxies that have been "soft-blocked". Because there are so many TOR exit nodes, soft-blocks do absolutely no good whatsoever; there's always a new exit node to be found. The account user just fishes around till they find an unblocked TOR proxy, then they're free to do what they want. When open proxies are blocked, then they're forced to use their own IPs. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The people were still using TOR proxies to evade detection; if they had been blocked, they would have been forced to reveal their own IPs. Regarding AOL, at least they'd have to pay for it, and AOL IPs generally stick to a fairly small range, so they'd still be identifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's already pretty convoluted; most people won't think of doing that, although your publicly publishing the idea will certainly make more of them think of it. And in any event, the bad password problem is going away, as people are forced to get new passwords. The real issue is the vastly more common instance of people using the open proxies with non-admin accounts for various kinds of nastiness. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Main page vandalism, or password cracking, which are recent and ephemeral problems. I'm talking about run of the mill nastiness. There's lots of it out there, and people are getting away with it using TOR proxies. That has to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMY

By the way, Air Force Amy made it back to the mainspace, so you may want to restore User:Freakofnurture/WP:AMY. (I admit, I really only noticed Air Force Amy was gone when you deleted WP:AMY ... and that was one of the reasons that prompted me to rewrite it!) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Here's a suggestion; you stick to your area, and I'll stick to mine, I haven't got a clue who you are to be perfectly frank, but I'm not going to come over here and tell you how to start administrating Wikipedia... which might I mention Uncyclopedia isn't. I'm always on #uncyclopedia on Freenode IRC if you really want to have a whine. otherwise, I shall bid you a good day. -- Olipro 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thought I'd add this since it doesn't look terribly good if you have people coming to your page, anyway, just wanted to say it was nice talking to you the other day and it was good to clear up the mess of that little impersonation troll, cheers! -- Olipro 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
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 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt case

You added two links to the Brandt case page; the first was appropriate but for the second I think you just inadvertently cut and pasted the wrong link (it was totally unrelated). If you had something else in mind, please feel free to add it, or let me know and I will. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Smiley

Here is a big smiley wishing you a happy day.8-)--Dakota

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, 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 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

COI posting

Hi, you posted on an admin's noticeboard posting, on me, here [1] I was sort of hoping you would have a look at this COI post I made: [2]. I do by large agree with MangoJuice's assessment (bar a few reservations), but I think he's far too lenient on User:Sparkzilla, after all those stunts he pulled off, trying to have me indefinately banned for "frivolous edit warring" and for "attempting to reveal his identity" and what not. I would be very happy to hear what you think on the matter. Thank you. Heatedissuepuppet 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)