This user is continuing to vandalise as we speak despite warning. He needs final warning then a block if he persists. Thanks.--File Éireann 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll look into it - I've nominated his most recently vandalised article for deletion, at any rate. BD2412T 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You beat me to nominating it by about 5 seconds! You can speedy delete them yourself now.Thank you!--File Éireann 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems to have stopped making edits - only two left, now that his nonsense articles are deleted. I'll check back later. :-) BD2412T 22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
What would we do without you to block all the vandals? Before you, we'd have to wait for ages before they were blocked; forcing non-admins such as myself to follow them around reverting them until someone would block them. Izehar (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Here, take an award:
I created a page for common assault and seem to have run into a false category problem. Obviously, common assault should not be a category in its own right. David91 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw you become an admin, and I saw your name on my watch list so I picked you for help :). Can you give me some advice on what to do? On 2005 Sydney Race Riots, User:Flying fox is editing, reverting, etc and summarizing that he's reverting my edits. I have no clue as to why, as they aren't my edits. The only edits I've made are moving references to the reference section and tagging the appropriate content with a link to the reference. I haven't added any original content to the article. I don't know what's up with this guy. --Elliskev 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That'll work. Thanks. --Elliskev 02:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind launching an investigation of this chaps highly unusual edits. I've already had a bit of a debate with him and I've nominated another of his articles for deletion today. Basically, most of his articles have to go. Hes put a huge amount of work into them. Unfortunately, they don't appear to belong in this encyclopaedia.--File Éireann 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Off to the party, will check later! BD2412T 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a particular IP likes you. :P He's out of here, but you must be doing a good job... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
But... but... how did he know that!?! BD2412T 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
There is an unregistered user who is constantly vandalizing the Evansville, Indiana page to include a vanity link to his website. The user in question is Evansvilleboneyard and the website in question is Evansville Boneyard. Despite consistent removal by a number of contirbutors, he/she continues to add it back to the Evansville page with such things as "widely read", etc. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is encyclopedia worthy and the user should be warned and/or banned. We could really use your help in removing these pointless links and keeping this guy from adding them back.--YHoshua 03:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You beat me to User talk:67.119.122.102, the guy adding LegalMatch spam. If I'd seen your note first I might have held off, but in fact I had already reverted his history. No great loss IMHO. If you disagree I'm happy to go back and undo, though AndyJones 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
My IP address is 205.188.117.13. username:Mike Nobody.
The IP address has been blocked by BD2412.
The reason given is:
A few good edits mixed in with raucous vandalism - not sure what's going on, but blocking just the same - post a note on your user page if you have an explanation.
You can email BD2412 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.
I want to continue working on my Userpage. I was in the process of adding pics to my page and relevant articles (Star Trek References in Futurama, Saavik, etc.)
Could you please unblock me, I haven't vandalised anything, just an AOL user who got blocked too.--Mike Nobody 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed this block as blocks on AOL accounts should be limited to very short durations because their proxy system causes many people to share the same IPs. Dragons flight 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - I could not find the IP on the block list - guess you got there first! BD2412T 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
20:45, 19 December 2005 BD2412 blocked "User:213.244.194.183" with an expiry time of indefinite (Follows m.o. of repeat vandal BangBang.)
I'm pretty sure you know it, but blocking IPs indefinitely should not be done unless they're open proxies. Just wanted to know what's going on. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I left a note on the user's page instructing them to email me if I am in error - however, this vandal is following the exact pattern of an earlier repeat vandal who changed "radio stations" to "statio radions" repeatedly. I'll unblock it quickly if there is reason to. BD2412T 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's still not enough for an indefinite. The only time you can really indefinitely block IPs is for an open proxy. Even if they follow patterns of a blocked user, you need to warn and then block for (usually) 24 hours or 31 hours for an IP. I shortened the block to 24 hours. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, now I know - and knowing is half the battle! BD2412T 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless you have some sort of indication that the IP is a repeat offender, in which case, you can gradually increase the duration of the blocks. Ideally, no more than a month will do. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've looked over my blocks and unblocked all IPs that I had thrown indefinite blocks against, and one that I had blocked for a month for blanking a page with "communism". BD2412T 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That's the other thing. Need to warn users. Not always, but 90% of the time. The only time I don't is if it's an obvious sockpuppet, like the Wheels! vandals or if we're getting nailed by a sock attack. But otherwise, I'd bookmark this page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
And I was much nicer about it than the admin who told me!! :-) Nothing will get you into trouble faster than blocks. Btw, 31 hours is ok too. It's become kind of a way to make it longer than 24 without overdoing it. And another informal convention is that if you think it might be a dynamic IP, you usually need to limit it even further...to 3 hours. What will really annoy you is the schools. Because you will get emails from kids saying "I'm blocked! Why do you do this to us!!!". :-D Anyway, so 24/31 hours isn't absolute but it's a good rule of thumb. If it's obvious that it's a static IP and not dynamic, then it's permissible to go beyond 24/31 hours. How can you tell? #1 clue is if they are hitting the same article or sets or articles each time they vandalize. You'll get used to it. Just expect to be yelled at a few times along the way. It's inevitable for new admins. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to worry, I was getting yelled at loooong before I was an admin! ;-) BD2412T 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too! If you look at my talk page, you will see that I'm still yelled at. It never really ends. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You're about to be yelled at again, so be prepared. I've just unblocked user:202.180.83.6, which you seem to have blocked for two days despite the message on the user talk page saying that since this IP is used by a large number of editors, incuding at least one admin (me) it should only be blocked for 15 minutes at a time, and that you should give me warning first! Grrrrr! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that - in my defense, it was only a 31 hour block... and the vandalism was really annoying. BD2412T 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That's happened to me more than once myself, especially with those high-speed persistent vandal types. (Unfortunately that IP range has a bunch of legitimate users, else I'd range-block it!) Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have protected Dakota Fanning for the time being, and will maintain it in that status for a few hours. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you :) RadioKirk 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why was I blocked previously? I went to come on here the other day & it gave me a message that I had been blocked? I would have emailed you but those who I share my computer with do not want to be spammed. I even tried my friend's account to try to message you on here, but his account would not work either. So why were both me & my friend blocked after doing nothing wrong? I checked the block list of when it said I'd been blocked & my name was not on there. I do not want people getting the wrong idea & thinking I'm a vandal. Thanks Spawn Man 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably you have a dynamic IP address, and someone else with access to that same address was blocked as a vandal - I surely have not blocked any user by your name, and I apologize for any inconvenience you've encountered. BD2412T 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No problemo. Congrats on your RFA by the way.... Spawn Man 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You said you wanted to unprotect The PLAGUE. I have a feeling you didn't know how to unprotect a deletedpage since it was still protected when I saw it. :) You just delete the page. Darn newbie admin! :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
D'oh!!! Mindslip. Fixed. BD2412T 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I just wanted to inform you, as an admin, about a new user, HQCentral that may be worth keeping an eye on. First of all, he posted an attack on my talk page for tagging an article for cleanup and, furthermore, here is an early version of his user page. I posted a polite welcome on his talk page regarding some of our rules on civility, but I think that a note from an admin might have a little more teeth with him. Anyways, just wanted to give you a heads up, and keep up the excellent work! Youngamerican 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I read up on policy regarding such users, and if he causes any more disruptions, I will deal with it through the appropriate channels. Cheers. Youngamerican 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Already there. Thanks for the heads-up, though (by the way, take a look at the latest revision to the page if you haven't already ;-)). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
grin* Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed this vandal's talk page from full protection to semi-protected. For anon talk pages, a semi-protect is sufficient to prevent them from blanking it, while allowing other users to post warnings. I hope you don't mind! Owen×☎ 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not at all - but what other warnings would be required while the user is blocked, and can not make bad edits to warn of? BD2412T 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
A revert war on Louisiana Baptist University is totally out of control. Everyone has started using anon IP's so I'm not sure who is really involved. I think the page should be protected to force this to the talk page. Could you take a look at the page history, thanks. David D.(Talk) 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
OK never mind I see RoyBoy has just put the page under protection. David D.(Talk) 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey BDA, being kind of inexperienced, I was hoping you could look at what I did with the user Sanoker- I described it at the bottom of WP:AN/I. CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup - if he comes back and vandalizes again, spring a longer one on him. Indefinite bans are like the death penalty, reserved for the unredeemable (e.g. certain persons on wheels and the like). BD2412T 05:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I've seen indefinite blocks like that, and picking a particular administrator seemed especially malicious. I didn't abuse powers, did I? CanadianCaesarThe Republic Restored 05:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"Abuse" would have been not looking for a second opinion. BD2412T 05:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I admit it looks exactly like vandalic nonsense, and there was no way to tell ahead of time that I wanted it. 68.39.174.238 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you looked into my block. I realize that when I email an admin they may not be able to get to my request for awhile. Thank you. No Guru 05:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As a big vandal fighter, I am seeing what I can do to get checkuser access to help me tackle sockpuppets and help out with the backlog. Any help/advice would be appreciated.Gator(talk) 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that it's possible, except for those in ArbCom - not sure bureaucrats have it, even. I support your efforts, tho, as I think a somewhat broader array of admins should have that useful ability. BD2412T 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a better idea, actually - we should ask the developers to change the program so that it is simply not possible to place an indefinite block on an IP. BD2412T 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't work, since you do indef block open proxies, remember ;-). Prodegotalk 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Another, this one is tricky. This user seems to have been unilaterally sysoped by Danny and has only 168 edits. User:AlisonW. See her block log. Prodegotalk 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response on her talk page. Cheers! BD2412T 19:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to be aware of it but Ted Wilkes has been banned from editing Wikipedia. He was banned in mid March for 1 year by the Arbitration Committee. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no I did not notice that - I was simply looking to help folks (and a fairly large batch of them, at that) to be aware of the need to archive. Cheers! bd2412T 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, stranger, maybe you can solve a mystery. I just made an edit to revert a "test" by an anon at IP 146.129.250.105 in the above referenced article. On the article page, I can see that the offending characters are no longer there, and my watchlist shows that I made the edit. However, when I pull up the history on the article -- the edit doesn't show up at all. It shows the last edit as having been made by IP 146.129.250.105, as though I never made the edit. Any idea what would cause that discrepancy? Yours, Famspear 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I got out of Wikipedia, closed my browser, reopened it, cleared my cache in the browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer), then got back into Wikipedia, and the problem seems to be gone. Weird. Famspear 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:AN/I is where the discussion is located. --Tractorkingsfan 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I found it. Cheers! bd2412T 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I don't know you, and I'd like to stay away from this as I've recently had problems with arguments. But I'll say this: I don't understand this block. Sure, he was only editing his userspace, but blocking indefinitely? The only reason I could see was the allegation, brought up by User:Jreferee on WP:AN/I, that he was impersonating a real person. But I think if you look at the links that user provided as evidence, you won't be convinced that there is even such a person, and I have found no evidence of such a professor in real life. I think we're dealing with a young kid who is actually quite intelligent and could be a good contributor if taught, regardless the swift indef block is questionable. Maybe I have a COI as I have tried to help this user quite a bit with transitioning into being a good editor. In that sense I have failed, but a block is not the answer. Thanks for listening, --Tractorkingsfan 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not my block - I agree that it should be lifted, but just as you want User:Stevenstone93 to come to his own realization of what he needs to do to be a contributive editor, I want User:Ryulong to come to his own realization of why this block should be lifted. Cheers! bd2412T 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectable indeed. --Tractorkingsfan 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
HeHe, I'm well aware of the notorious "III/3/One" vandal. I remember standardizing the LTA page on him before it was deleted. 68.39.174.238 05:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, thanx, of course, for the picture upload. 68.39.174.238 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not my handiwork. Guess I'm garnering fame on the Internet! bd2412T 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, and they choose to create 107 attack accounts for me as well. — Moeε 19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Boy are you popular! May be time for me to change username anyway - this one is getting tired out. bd2412T 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I guess I am the man now, dog. I really like your username, but if you did, at least it would get rid of the association of these accounts. :) — Moeε 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
BD just likes crashing the server with renames. :)Prodegotalk 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've still only got about 60,000 edits. I think. The editcounter doesn't go that high anymore. bd2412T 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A one second block can be used to make a note in someone's block log. While agree that it isn't used very often, I've sure seen it used more than a 15 minute or 1 hour block, both of which are fairly useless in term of vandalism and unlikely to be constructive if used for other purposes. John Reaves 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I frequently use a 15 minute block to investigate vandalism that may be just ignorant experimentation. Why put a 1 second block in the log at all? If an editor is doing enough to merit a block at all, they almost certainly need to be blocked for a long enough time to know that they've been blocked! bd2412T 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The note idea is for things like indicating previous block logs after a rename or account switch or for amending a previous message. How about we revert to my version but replace 1 second with 15 minutes. John Reaves 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The only difference then would be having a 12 hour option instead of a 1 hour option, right? Why not just add the 12 hour option? bd2412T 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, will do. John Reaves 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
User Gettingitdone has Vandalized the AFD for Citizen of the Several States by removing my comments tonight. I have since replaced them on the AFD and warned him on hi talk page, but I thought it was important that you be aware of this since you opened the AFD in question. If you know of any other instances of vandalism in regards to this AFD please let me know so I can involve an administrator. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will review the matter. Cheers! bd2412T 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at this earlier and it appeared to be a misunderstanding - see [2]Morphh(talk)16:54, 07 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I came to the same conclusion. Thanks again. bd2412T 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
False accusations don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Zsero (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but people do make mistakes, and it is better for the encyclopedia-building process for those mistakes to be aired out, rather than swept under the rug. In any event, Torchwood has admitted his error and apologized to Gettingitdone, and no one has disputed Torchwood's sincerity. I am satisfied that the situation is resolved, and no administrative action is required on my part. bd2412T 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey BD, I was actually going to swing in earlier this morning to tell you about the misunderstanding but I saw that my comment had been removed, so I figured why make Zsero more angry by bringing it back. Anyway, I'm glad that you figured out all is well.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed a few edits to this page from an anonymous editor who claims to be Sol Wachtler (here, here, and here). Most of the edits appear to try to portray him in a better light. It seems like a clear conflict of interest to be editing your own wikipedia article but is there a policy against it?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Catholic Education Office of Western Australiaedit
I don't think messages that still apply, such as IP information and block notices, shoud be removed from IP talk pages, such as User talk:203.36.44.12. --Geniac (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of the pages I'm blanking are untouched since at least as far back as 2006, and I have completely avoided blanking any pages that were edited at all in the past year. In that time, ownership or assignment of IPs can change hands. If no objectionable edits have been made from an IP address in over a year, whatever use that address was being put to at the time objections were made has likely ceased, and the messages on the corresponding page are no longer applicable. If, on the other hand, the IP address is one that has been permanently blocked as an open proxy or the like, then no one will be editing from that IP address to obtain any messages anyway, and anything on the page is just dead weight. bd2412T 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You didn't talk about this with me, you didn't clear the unblock requests and you didn't clear the autoblock. Not helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No need for discussion - the block was arguable, and I'd rather have Debresser going about his useful wikignoming then sitting blocked over some mildly antagonistic comments. As for the rest, I rather unfortuitously lost my Internet connection just as I was expanding on my comment to Debresser (which would have been followed by the next steps, since I wanted to comment while I had his attention), and just now got it back. bd2412T 23:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.
The user made a string of taunting personal attacks amid many warnings and you straightforwardly broke policy by not contacting me. The next time you disagree with an admin action, don't wheel war (An administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation). Instead, please read up on how these things are done by consensus and follow it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake, he called someone lazy over a template. There was nothing to discuss. bd2412T 02:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's what you think happened, it's not supported by the diffs. Either way, you broke policy and you wheel warred. Please don't do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If you really believe my single action constituted wheel-warring, please take it up in an RFC. bd2412T 03:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As an admin you should know that a user RfC would be for some pattern of untowards behaviour and would not be at all helpful or fitting here. Please think about what I've said. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. An RFC would be about as fitting as characterizing my action as "wheel warring", since there was a single action on my part, not a cycle of blocking and unblocking. But I'll keep your comments in mind next time I encounter a block with which I disagree. bd2412T 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I refered the guy to Wikipedia:Dick also. And was utterly unrepentive about it. :) But still, I feel, there was no need to make so much fuss about it. Debresser (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for a review of this unblock at ANI. If it is considered the correct course, our policy should be updated, so it's worth establishing a consensus on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
While Gwen Gale is satisfied with your last response to her, I still have concerns regarding your response to her comments regarding your actions; I would point to the language at Wikipedia:Appealing a block#What happens next where it specifically states that unblock is done with reference to the blocking admin, and that unblocks are not undone unilaterally unless the block was "clearly unjustifiable". I am perturbed by your response of, So, open an RfC when further questioned - I would be tempted to take it to RfAR if I were to feel you are intending to stymie discussion of your actions by such comments. I realise that no admin enjoys having their actions criticised, and have recently had to endure that same thing myself, but it is one of the necessary processes that comes with the mop. I do hope that you will take Gwen Gales comments on board when next reviewing an unblock request, and that you will permit more open debate on matters relating to your sysop actions in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think my response mirrored her tone. Come at me disdainfully with anger and hyperbole and I will respond with marked indifference. Come at me constructively and I will respond constructively. bd2412T 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You do not understand why she may have come here in the manner she did, and think you are then correct to further escalate the situation? It speaks well of Gwen that she was the one to first begin responding appropriately. When you deem it reasonable to explain why you acted contrary to policy when unblocking Debresser I should like to be notified also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel that it is very hostile of you to make assertions about what I "do not understand", and to assert that the use of an angry tone against me is an "responding appropriately". Please do not imply that I am being unreasonable. bd2412T 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from this discussion, as I see no reasonable expectation of a constructive conclusion. You act contrary to long standing policy, acknowledge that you responded to the initial query unconstructively and believe yourself justified, and complain about my tone and use of terminology when I request an explanation. I am not implying you are unreasonable - I am advising you that I find your responses unreasonable. I am unwatching this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for being too touchy. I will keep Gwen's comments in mind when I next encounter such a situation. bd2412T 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for not considering real world considerations impacting upon another volunteer. Now I know the situation I withdraw any and all inferences that may have been drawn from my comments, and note that I am content with the undertaking provided by you. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all level then. Sorry for the trouble, I'll take more care with unblocks in the future. Cheers! bd2412T 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm itching to indef this guy, but I don't want to step on your toes. This user is about as clear a vandalism-only, malicious account as you're likely to see. He even moved a page to "on wheels" (which I thought the abuse filter wouldn't allow).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Echoing the above. KnightLago (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem - the brief block was just to stop the vandalism and make sure this wasn't some strange accident. The block will be indef. bd2412T 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I misread the move; the abuse filter didn't have a problem; he used "on vvheels" (double v's) to get around it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
