User talk:TFOWR

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

sco-1This brouker can contreibute wi a laich level o Scots.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

“ Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree. ” — Moonriddengirl et al

Click here to leave a new message.

Davegp sleeper sock

today some of davegp's eastender named socks were blocked, i think i found a sleeper jackbranning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can you block it as it was missed when bradley was blocked (and possibly fell off albert square pub)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it, but I'm not familiar with Davegp so it may take a while (and I may get you to punt it to the admin who blocked bradley). TFOWR 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

he has been blocked now by anemoneprojectors, another sock successfully whacked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I meant to get back to on this one - I saw that davegp hadn't been blocked, and I got confused. I'll check this out again now - I need to know who the sock master is for stuff like this. TFOWR 10:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Twelfth Doctor is the sock master apparently--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's not entirely clear. AP and I had a discussion about the subject at User talk:AnemoneProjectors#User:Bradleybranning, but personally I think their MOs are different, though they share an obsession with British soap operas. Daveygp is monotonously prolific, witness Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daveygp. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah i saw that, he has got loads of socks more than Jack nove! you can tell Davey is obsessed with soap operas some of the socks are named after the coronation street characters as well, i'm off to the SPI to sift through the evidence--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell 220.101 that I'm sorry

Hey, TF, and can you please tell tell 220.101 that I'm sorry for what I did to his user talk page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do, though I suspect 220.101 stalks my talk page and will see this - and I'm also certain they'll appreciate your apology. It takes a bit of getting used to - different editors have different rules for their talk pages. I tend not to mind what happens here, for example, but many editors do. Anyway, on 220.101's behalf - apology accepted, and thanks! TFOWR 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I drop in to have a look at what's happening, though your contribution are probably more informative. Also a way to tell if you are online. And Wayne, I will get an account if and when I want to, Okay? As for archiving etc, I suggest you always ask before you 'fiddle' with another editors pages, unless there's vandalism or some policy violation. :-) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, 220.101. Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! I couldn't revert the vandalism on Huggle because it had difficulties showing later reversions on my user talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandelbrot

Just a reflective note, we updated on the 16th, the article was getting 1500 hits an hour. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Blimey - that's good going. The article went from 850 views to nearly 1000x as much by the 17th... I should pay more attention to page views for stuff that gets on ITN. I wonder how few the stubs I decline speedies on get?! (Off to check now... I reckon the only views will be from me...!) TFOWR 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Zeka Laplaine - 78 views last Sunday ;-) Better than I thought... TFOWR 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recently take a little more weight to views, what I was commenting on really was for the future. Although it was the weekend and there is no hurry and the unblock request was a bit curt and we did get on it pretty soon .. it is in high traffic situations like that a priority situation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Auriculotherapy

Hi TFOWR, (so much for my 'WikiBreak!) >:-(
You may want to cast you Admin eye over this article. Mass re-write by a newby without any edit summary. Books in 'references'list includes one written by someone with a great similarity to the username of the editor.ie "Soliman N. Soliman’s Atlas of Auricular Therapy. Rockville, MD: Alternative Medicine Publishers; 2006." the editor is Nadersolimanmdpc (talk · contribs). I was in the process of adding some tags (dubious, clarify etc) when they removed the cleanup templates, so I restored them. I have welcomed the editor, gave them a template about edit summaries, but the 3 edits after that still were had no summary. I then gave them a COI template.(whew!) Hope I haven't bitten them! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't look right now, I'm also on a wikibreak (enforced, unfortunately - too much real-life in the way...) I'll throw it open to me friendly talk-page stalkers... anyone fancy taking a look? TFOWR 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Know the feeling <sigh>, no worries! It can always be reverted right back if needed!- 220.101 talk^\Contribs23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Huge favour!

You're allowed to tell me a hundred times "I told you so...!" I need my sandbox back. Is that possible? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Of course it is (I'm fairly sure I said I'd restore it if you needed it back). I'll do it now - two seconds... TFOWR 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean The Ezra one? If not, let me know and I'll delete Ezra, and restore the one you actually meant ;-) TFOWR 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

...And does this mean you are no longer retired? If so, welcome back! TFOWR 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks the like the talkpage has been restored but not the actual subpage - that's still a redlink. Sorry I haven't been back here earlier, things have been a little hectic. Shades of last summer ... On the fence about retiring, but of course forgot to grab some stuff I might need off the page before asking you to delete. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm an idiot - sorry about that. Correct page now restored. I hope the "seasonal" issues work themselves out OK, and that you manage to come down off the fence on the right side, but if not all the best. No worries about deleting/restoring - it's what I'm here for ;-) TFOWR 09:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks got it and appreciate the help. I'm curious - the page had a few views during the period it was deleted. How it that possible? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Chan has continually edit-warred with me

This user has been trashing the history of the Peter Sutcliffe page. As a sidenote he has been harrasing me on two pages; this one [1] and this one; [2]. He also refactored my comments on the latter page, to attmept to portray me as supporting his side in a user dispute on the petersutcliffe.com website, a website which has been legally trashed. I don't appreciate having my contributions illegitimately slung mud over like that. He is in breach of numerous community rules, and deserves a several hour ban on his account. Thank you.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How can there be a wheel war when neither of you is a wheel? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant edit-warred, sorry.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"He" is a "she", thanks. GwenChan 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Gwenchan, do not refactor my comments, and there will be no more problems in the future, thanks.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored nothing. Feel free to continue with your complaints and request for me to be blocked. GwenChan 02:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm tied up today, and I don't have any familiarity with the article in question. Without diffs I can't really comment on refactoring posts (beyond saying: don't do it), but WP:ANI would probably be a better venue in any event. TFOWR 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia must put this website on her ban list.

Wikipedia has not banned the inclusion of this website: [3], which fabricates untruths about a person apparently still living. The information about the website on [Peter Sutcliffe]'s page is still in the history. For one thing, the link needs to be gotten rid of from the page history. Secondarily, this Sutcliffe website could easily be adde dback by proponents of the theory it espouses- which is a nonsense theory- and I am worried about problems with the website. I will correspond further via your wikipedia email.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no familiarity with this article. I'd suggest WP:RSN for concerns about the reliability of sources - the regulars there are superb at sorting the wheat from the chaff! TFOWR 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

something completely unrelated

Hi TFOWR, just need some outside sysop input here - specifically User:Cybermud has opened a SSPI against a user whom he now admits probably isn't a sockpuppeteer. When I gave an outside view (not as an admin) he responded with a series of ad hominem remarks. The situation is beyond tolerable levels of incivility and assumption of bad faith, and his comments are wildly off topic[4][5][6]
For clarity I did have dealings with this user before where he complained that my warning to an IP who was forumizing[7] was inappropriate[8][9]--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cailil. I'm tied up today - too much real-life stuff keeping me away. I'll take a look Monday. TFOWR 14:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem TFOWR - but this needs somebody else to step soon. The WP:SPI clerks seem to be taking a long weekend ;)--Cailil ^talk 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A clerk at a BISE-related SPI recently commented that it was tl;dr - I suspect lengthy SPIs put them off! In this case you and Cybermud seem to have swapped roles with HighKing and BritishWatcher ;-)

Seriously, though: my advice would be to drop it at SPI, continue at NPOVN (if relevant - I've only skimmed SPI so far, and saw NPOVN mentioned), and I'll follow up with Cybermud at their talkpage. Once I've restored my caffeine/blood ratio to normal levels.

Regarding the SPI, I suspect that "SPI is not a fishing expedition" will apply at this point: with only Sonicyouth86 listed now aren't two accounts to compare, so SPI isn't relevant - that may, too, be why the clerks aren't stepping in. You'll probably know as well as I do that SPI volunteers - clerks, checkusers - have a hands off, terse approach - they'll avoid saying anything unless they have to, until they have to, and when they do speak it'll be to provide a bare minimum of information. Right now it looks like there's no reason for them to step in - there's just one account listed, they have a perfect excuse (tl;dr) to stay away, and there's little they could do anyway.

Anyway - I'll drop by Cybermud's talkpage in a wee while and try and ratchet things down. TFOWR 09:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning Could you remove the part about the WP:GFDL since it's no longer compatible with Wikipedia and since WP:CC-BY-SA supersedes it. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:41pm • 08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'fraid not - I don't know the first thing about copyright ;-) The talkpage will have copyright-clued up folk watchlisting it: stick a {{edit protected}} tag on it. Alternatively, Moonriddengirl (talk) would probably do it, or at least would vouch for the edit. TFOWR 10:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Righto I stuck edit protected on the talk page. Cheers TFOWR. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:21am • 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerned

Editor Grayshi (talk · contribs) just yesterday removed an entire article and redirected it, without discussion or any attempt to merge it. Just doesn't seem right. Granted the article needs work and is pretty much unsouced, but I know it is important to the people of my own and surrounding communities. I am willing to merge the two articles, rather than lose what some have put a lot of work into. Grayshi is not even an admin and it seems to me to be way beyond bold and presumptuous. I can undo it but I wanted your opinion first. The article is, well, the diff is Southern California Chinatowns because Grayshi just unilaterally zapped the whole thing and redirected it. I am writing you also because I am feeling very red-headed about it!  ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's a perfectly legitimate thing for a non-administrator to do. We encourage exactly this sort of boldness. Administrators aren't funnels through which every single content decision has to be poured. Content decisions are made by the editor community at large, of which administrators are a sub-set. What isn't legitimate is to do the same thing twice, with no discussion on Talk:Southern California Chinatowns or elsewhere. You should remind Grayshi of Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss and Wikipedia:Edit war. This was boldness; this was the reversion to the status quo ante; but discussion is lacking.

  Another thing that administrators are not is police. Neither "administrator" nor "sysop" accurately describe what we are. (I've used "trusty" before now, to make the point that we're the same as everyone else, except trusted with some rather more dangerous tools.) We're the charity shop volunteers with the abilities to show people out of the shop door onto the street, to throw items in the bin, to retrieve them from the same, to padlock various things so that normal volunteers cannot change them, and to rapidly mop up various spillages in aisle 27. We're only middle-men inasmuch as every editor is a middle-man.

  It's the responsibility of everyone in the editor community to apply peer pressure to editors whose actions are suboptimal. Wikipedia:Editing policy is one of our most-overlooked official policies. The peer pressure in this case would be you and Ucla90024 going to User talk:Grayshi, reminding xem of the BRD cycle, and asking why the "D" part appears to be missing. Talking to other editors — in this case directly — is the first step in any dispute resolution.

  You should also sort out the problem by addressing the underlying issue in dispute. Find out which parts of the article Fong1994 supports, and cross-link the prose to the citation. Find supporting sources for the other parts of the article. Mercilessly apply the sword of verifiability. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi DocOfSoc, how's it going? I'm catching up with things now but in the interim I'm glad to see you've got some excellent advice from Uncle G. Uncle G's quite right - changing an article into a redirect is a perfect example of being WP:BOLD. There is, of course, nothing to stop you reverting the change to a redirect. Beyond that I'd recommend both of you discussing any further changes. TFOWR 09:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for wisdom...or experience...

Hi TFOWR, hope you don't mind me coming here and asking a question ~ you're a fairly new admin, so you probably remember what it's like not to be one of the all-knowing, and for quite a long time i've noticed you and figured your head was on straight. I was looking through a conflict i was, regrettably, involved in about a year ago, and i notice that the talk page of the article has been archived, maybe to hide the disagreements that happened; i have no issue with that. What does surprise me, however, is that the page was edited at some point prior to being archived, so that it no longer is a correct record of what happened. To be specific, i can easily point to at least one of my comments that was completely removed here, and that isn't the only pruning done. My question is, do i ignore this? reinsert the missing comments silently? reinsert them and add a note at the beginning of the archive? note that the archive is incomplete at its top? I don't know, so i turn for your opinion.
On a completely irrelevant side note, have you changed your sig recently? It's seemed to be slightly more muted; i preferred the previous edition.
Thanks, and Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lindsay, no worries. This does look somewhat "shady" to me. I'll have a closer look and a think about it and comment further later today. TFOWR 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE

Hi TFOWR, I've added the template and "Arguments For/Against" sections to Storm Warning (novel) - hope that's OK, not sure if the procedure is to wait for you to add the sections or not. Don't think there's any harm in me adding it. You may also want to check out the [latest contribution from Triton Rocker] if you get a chance. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not looked at BISE, but I (or rather my alternate account) saw that the TR issue had ended up on AN/ANI? I need to do some catching up today, I'll comment further once my clue-levels are restored. TFOWR 09:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR was blocked for a year. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've caught up enough to see a one year block. Blimey, I've been trying to suggest for a while that the admins previously monitoring BISE might not be the evil, rouge admins that TR et al apparently believed we were, and that outside admins might take an even tougher line. Well, guess what. Outside admins took an even tougher line. What's the betting that this, too, gets challenged ad nauseum at AN and ANI, and it, too, gets upheld each time? TFOWR 10:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Some more block evasion for your attention, if you have time to break out the cinderblocks. They left a note on User:Nakon's talk page, asking why they'd been blocked. Not sure if it's worth overlooking this one since it's a single edit and not attempting to hide their identity, but their account was apparently blocked as a VOA, so that's a fairly good indication of the user's intention, I'd imagine. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TTTSNB has answered the IP's question. Given there's only one edit from the IP I'd be inclined to leave it (might be dynamic, I wouldn't want to block an innocent IP, etc). Nakon (talk) seems to be about, so they can pick up any blocking if they feel it's warranted. TFOWR 09:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I thought it might be worth overlooking a single edit of that nature but thought I'd point it out just in case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You got mail

Hi TFOWR, just sent you an email. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've emailed you, but I guess you're as up-to-date now as the email ;-) One other thing - I posted at WP:AN, just in case I missed something. TFOWR 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The thread

Your actions were fine (you missed deleting the userpage red redirect) but it was counter-intuitive to post about it to AN (increases visibility of their real name on a widely watched noticeboard), so I removed the thread. Best, –xeno^talk 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I was really looking for some sanity-checking, and I trust you to sanity-check my actions and, in this case, sanitise them too ;-) TFOWR 14:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Think we're all sorted now =) –xeno^talk 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block request.

Hellow again. BTW, this request is that of an entirely different banana for the moment. The user on 121.54.42.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been inserting titles of tokusatsu and anime shows without any source to several Philippine TV program lists. This guy was previously blocked for 31 hours, but the guy was back to his old tricks after the block expired. BTW, I can't him to WP:AIV because his last edit is three hours ago, but I know he will strike again later in a few hours time. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AIV might consider it, as it's clearly the same editor behind the IP. That said, I'm going to hold off for now and keep an eye out for edits over the next few hours (their editing times seem to be from about 01:00 UTC to 18:00 UTC). If I catch 'em in the act I'll block 'em. TFOWR 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, WP:AIV is backlogged right now. This is why I am hesitant to put a repost on there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like the bot's on strike ;-) It looks like there's only one outstanding, the others have either been referred to SPI or declined. Anyway, I'm on strike - it's too late in the day for me to start being a hard-working admin ;-) TFOWR 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

possible banned user violating their ban

The guy who blocks other blockers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned over the weekend for persistant vandalism after added unsourced content to list of simpsons episodes, yesterday an IP called 86.41.29.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editted the same page putting in the same unsourced content, I checked both user contributions and they are both editting TV related article so I suspect our banned user is back, on the other hand though the IPs edits are to a lot of disney articles I know this is a big guess/accusation but I fear the IP could even be banned user Bambifan!! the amount of disney articles is a big but probably not enough to prove, althou all the edits look troublesome, they're adding unsourced cartoons/films to the articles but no one seems to have reverted them yet--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm looking at this now (about to look at the IP), but I'm in no way a Bambifan expert so may have to punt that part to SPI or ANI. TFOWR 07:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing a connection between The guy who... and the IP, to be honest. The only overlap is to List of The Simpsons episodes. The guy who... took issue with season 22, while the IP tried to add season 23. I don't really have enough data on The guy who... to call it - it wouldn't completely surprise me if the two turned out to be the same - any autoblock on The guy who... wouldn't necessarily affect the IP (IP could be dynamic) but equally with just one article in common, and the edits to that article not being directly equivalent, it's far to tough to say definitively that they're the same. The only thing I can recommend is keeping an eye on the IP. TFOWR 07:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ok I'll watch them--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE cleanup.

Conkers and Aesculus could probably be archived with resolved cases.

The polls, Categories, States of Alderney, and the deletion discussion could also be archived, somewhere... They weren't exactly cases. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I've been putting BISE off since the MfD concluded. I'll aim to take a look at archiving over the next few days. TFOWR 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed! You've also made your name unclickable, for some strange reason. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's my talkpage ;-) Try it on yours - the second part of your signature will also be unclickable. My sig works normally everywhere but here! TFOWR 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The second part of mine redirect to the "#top" of my talkpage, but then again, it's not a custom signature! What happened to the in your face red anyway, it's all dull now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the red as the default "red" was a bit too bright. I have a theory that as time goes by the chance of me returning to the default signature steadily increases... though I did also have a theory that userboxes were evil...! TFOWR 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

when you get a chance

[10]. I'd like a quick outside view on the behaviour here (appaently this is relevant also). Mick's had full and fair warning and decided to ignore it, also LemonMonday is back. Just wanted a sanity check in case I am wrong here--Cailil ^talk 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stages: Three Days in Mexico

Hey TFOWR! I made a mistake with a speedy deletion request for this article, but my reason for it was that it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it happens! I'd suggest a WP:PROD or WP:AFD, as on the face of it it seems to have enough significance/importance to survive speedy deletion (and I can't think of a speedy criteria that would apply, anyway - A9 comes closest, but this isn't a musical recording and the "Britney" connection would probably rule A9 out anyway). TFOWR 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11's filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 and his other actions yesterday.

Hi,

I was a little surprised to see this SPI notice posted to my talk page, however not surprised by who posted it. I know that I and Rangoon11 have "history" - however can you have a look at his actions yesterday with a couple of new editors and see if there is anything untoward ?

After what looks to have started as a content dispute over Office locations with one editor Vharris44 (talk · contribs) and at KCL with another Derekspage (talk · contribs) ended with a SPI on me and Vharris44 blocked for harassment.

On Tuesday, it looks like vharris44 had an issue with the Office location section at DLA Piper, after a revert or two this was discussed in the talk page. A number of other editors would seem to have agreed there were problems with the section and the disucssion was progressing.

During the discussion, Rangoon11 posted a list of other articles with a similar Office location sections.

Yesterday vharris44 then made edits to the Office Location sections of the articles listed by Rangoon11 (all bar one K&L Gates), in the order that they are listed. Of the list only two (Baker & McKenzie and Linklaters) show edits by Rangoon11 prior to Vharris44, the rest (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Jones Day, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Linklaters and Greenberg Traurig) Vharris44 edited prior to Rangoon11 (this is important as vharris44's block was for harassment). There then followed a revert by Rangoon11 on Linklaters follwed by a revert by Vharris on a series of revert edits by Rangoon11 on King's College London (here). There then followed a series of revert and counter reverts and talk page postings by both editors to various locations.

Prior to Vharris44's KCL revert, Derekspage had been making a number of edits to KCL, which Rangoon11 then reverted.

I believe then Rangoon11 tried to game the system, he posted to WP:ANI this post where he concludes that Vharris44, Derekspage are one in the same and they are also me and that he was "not sure what to do about it.", of cause he knew exactly what to do as he himself had been through the same processes less than three weeks ago. I suspect he was hopeful that another editor would file the SPI, instead Vharris44 got blocked for harassment, which I am finding hard to see (unless there are some deleted edits which I can't see in history) given the fact that it was Rangoon11 that followed Vharris44 to most of the articles and not the other way around.

Having waited some three hours after being pointed in the direction of SPI, when it became clear that none of the other editors were going to file a SPI, Rangoon11, filed one; which not surprisingly, came back as "not related". I believe that this was a bad faith tit-for-tat filing done in revenge for mine on him (I have posted to the SPI to that effect).

I would welcome your comments and/or suggestions on any action or way forward following this. Codf1977 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)