User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/September

This archive covers September and October 2009.

User Ansehnlisch

Hello there

I’ve started an ANI thread (here) on User:Das Ansehnlisch who you blocked temporarily some weeks ago. His user page redirects to another user, so here’s a link to the contribs page.

regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maia Campbell

Why did you remove my contributions to the Maia Campbell page? The info is correct. I would appreciate it if you can put it back.

Dm23avg307 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced negative information about a living person. Find a reliable source before you consider inserting it in the article again. Enigma^msg 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

		The BLP Barnstar
		Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Sad to see the sunset, even though the userproject wasn't serving much purpose with the lack of reports. I checked in every few days, only to see nothing new each time. I guess my RfA didn't help matters. Enigma^msg 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Most excellently deserved barnstar for you to Enigma.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

re User_talk:Leveque#September_2009

Good block. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, you may wish to compile evidence and think about a possible WP:SPI submission. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A user that you blocked has returned with a new account.

I noticed that you had blocked an account for User:Guitarforever. I believe that same person has started a new account called User:Guitarvan. Their edits and edit summaries are almost identical. Thank you. GripTheHusk (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I was beaten to the block by Bubba.hotep. Enigma^msg 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can You

block Mario.brosfan because he keeps adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles , like he did to the article Frankie Jonas please. Ricky3374 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What, for entering a name and birthdate? That's hardly a reason to block, and I don't see it as controversial. You're both edit-warring, though, and you need to stop. Enigma^msg 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was the one to stop him from doing it. I was trying to help. Ricky3374 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

wheel war, protection of 2009

FYI, I suspect there's no (ec) function on the protection code. So we can both hit "submit" and they'll go into the system. tedder (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It's been filed as a bug before and this isn't the first time I've protected something at almost the same exact time as another administrator. When that happens and I'm the last one in, I just revert to the other protection. Enigma^msg 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. So I'll either do what you propose, or get in a page protection war with another editor. That'll make me famous someday. :-) tedder (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247 on ANI

Since you were a blocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

I hate doing that on Wikipedia. I teach high school, and part of my lesson for the day was exploring what Wikipedia is and how it is the most honest record of human existence, etc, etc. Part of that lesson was demonstrating how the power of millions of contributors corrects mistakes almost instantly. I just finsihed with the last class of the day and won't be doing that anymore. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaltrav (talk • contribs)

mustafa halilsoy delete

what is the reason for deleting mustafa halilsoy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.249.2 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mustafa_Halilsoy Enigma^msg 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more.

I bit that claim of his hook, line and sinker, I'm afraid. I am more than glad you blocked the guy. "Tendentious" doesn't begin to describe this. More like "troll" at this point.  :) Frankly, I have never heard of a block of a single IP shutting down an entire school. Besides, shoudn't they be reading rather than editing? Just a thought. Anyway, you did the right thing and I'll keep an eye on this IP for awhile. Thanks! PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Format

Enigmaman, There is a lot of Tweeting and Blogging going on about my State Senator's wikipedia article and how people have been sabotaging it. I noticed that you had removed a lot of good information from his article. I was wondering if it needs to be in a specific format to be allowed to remain on that page or if you just deleted all of it since the article was being messed with. It is all accurate information that can be cited by multiple sources. Any info you could provide would be greatly appreciated. The article is "Mark E. Amodei". Thanks and have a good night! MySilverState (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be written properly in coherent paragraphs. As it stood, it was junk. See the articles of other politicians as an example. Can you link to the tweeting and blogging? Enigma^msg 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quickie

Anyway way you can suss out whether User:Mister sparky is a sock account for the permanently banned User:Be Black Hole Sun? Mr S is a relatively new account and has a fetish for discography pages.. which was BBHS's favourite haunting place. Whether the account is making good edits or bad edits... when you are permanently banned by community sanction... you are banned for good.... I think anyways. And BBHS is definitely banned from the Wik. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was the WWE Raw Guest Host reverted? If you look at the reference every guest host has had this remark on their page. You mentioned your reason; however, using that reason, every show he has appeared on will have to be reverted. --Ssgdonp (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: User: Koavf at AIV

What's complex about this issue, and why not AIV? Radiopathy •talk• 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Long time user, not a vandalism only account, very complex issue. If there is to be a block, it wouldn't come from AIV. AIV is for straightforward vandalism cases. Enigma^msg 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'll ask you to take a look at his userlinks and see if a block is justified. Radiopathy •talk• 05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That will take more than a few minutes, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Enigma^msg 05:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look now, although it would probably be best located on a noticeboard. Enigma^msg 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you take this to AN/I and make your case there. If you do, be sure to leave a message for Koavf to alert him to the thread. He wasn't the only one removing the speedy tag there. I don't find his overall behaviour to be especially satisfactory, but a block at this point would only serve to get me in trouble for making a unilateral move without consulting the community. At AIV, we're typically dealing with accounts/IPs that are vandalism-only. Koavf is clearly not a vandalism-only account, and as such, any block would lead to controversy. Enigma^msg 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah

I'd say your block summary for User:Prophaniti is one of the funniest things I've seen here in a while. --King Öomie 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

:) How did you come across it? After you brought it up, I just had to revert him. Enigma^msg 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lurking at the genre troll page- this edit lead me to his list of contribs, with the current block posted at the top. --King Öomie 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that it's still being used. Unfortunately, with Pat inactive, it hasn't received many updates of late. Enigma^msg 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet there's a class somewhere where people are taught how to trace contributions and figure out how someone got from point A to point B. I also bet I'd find that class absolutely fascinating. --King Öomie 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd take that class. :P Enigma^msg 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the block reason because I stalk follow this talk page. Awesome reason :-) OTOH, that sort of PC association is being held against User:Timmeh in his current RFA bid. Never go full retard, as they say. tedder (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Never. Deathknell of any serious actor. --King Öomie 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

dana jacobson

I don't follow why allegedly is being used with respect to her intoxication and reportedly with respect to what got her suspended. What was reported (in the article currently cited on her Wiki page) is that she also said "f--- Jesus" so I don't understand why that's being left out. It makes sense that ESPN took measures to hide footage of this event considering the inflammatory nature of the outburst but what Wiki stands to lose I don't know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.77.200.253 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

what wiki stands to lose? As far as I can recall (I have not edited that article in quite a while), the jesus remark was never properly sourced. A blog claimed it happened, but the reliable sources did not mention it until maybe later on. Enigma^msg 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in on Utan

I sometimes forget how helpful the Utan list is. But it needed a cleanout since some of the accounts and numbers are long dormant. Perma-blocked Prophaniti has lots of IPs still within his reach. (he must be in a school. How have you been? I have been well despite recent wheel-spinning distracting from the cause. I miss Pat. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the IP devil now The Real Libs-speak politely 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And the devil makes a sock account The Real Libs-speak politely 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

already done. I blocked one of his regular IPs last night for six months. Thought that might help. Enigma^msg 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Prophprotect

He's created a sock to keep his rant on his talkpage. I can haz IP block? --King Öomie 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Tedder took care of it. With any luck, he won't be able to resist reverting that page on more socks. Let's empty the drawer out. (Sorry to sound so gleeful. It just pains me to think of how many MetalObserver links he added). --King Öomie 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep up with tedder! He gets to things on my talk before I read them. Enigma^msg 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind saying why?

I noticed your drive-by comment elsewhere. It's not relevant to that situation, right? Mind telling me why? Did you know about Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Friday? I don't see where you commented there. Friday (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I never comment on RfCs. Is it relevant? Not really. Was just agreeing with the other person. Enigma^msg 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not agreement- that's a silly distraction. If I'm a bad admin who should not have the bit, that's an issue. But it's a separate issue from whether someone else shouldn't have the bit. It doesn't help move things forward to mix issues together this way. Friday (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It surely was agreement. One person says something and another agrees. As for why I bothered to agree, it's because I feel that you should make the first move. Enigma^msg 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.223.246.3

This user has again vandalized List of jazz guitarists. Was previously banned for 24 hours. Is there any way we can protect the article? Thanks. Paul210 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the offending editor is preferable to protection in this case. I have done so. Enigma^msg 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

Hello. Back in May, you voiced concerns about Mandy Moore's feature article status. Doesn't seem like anything has been done to improve the article since then, and when I came across the article recently, I had similar concerns. I'd like to nominate the article for FAR, but as an IP, I can't complete the nom. Could you do so for me? See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Mandy_Moore. Thanks. 71.227.179.189 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do it now. Enigma^msg 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about the article and my suggestion. Enigma^msg 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship and Vandalism on Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead)

A mutual friend informed me that you might be able to help me with a serious problem that I've encountered editing this piece. Well documented, relevant, Sourced edits are continuously reverted because they don't present a particular point of view. I'm not presenting any point of view, just well-sourced relevant material. Please go to this site and you'll see what I am talking about. I have also published an article concerning insidious censorship on Wikipedia. When accessing this site, you'll see what I mean. Any help you can extend would be greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I even saw what the reverts were over, I see it needs full protection, so we'll start with that. Enigma^msg 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to. Another "editor," Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) accused anyone making an edit inconsistent with his views, to be an Israeli agent and working for the Israeli government and this can be found in the discussion page under the sub-heading "Garlasco" There are a few of us who are only trying to restore some balance into the artice and not turn it into a platform for any particular side. Please check out the two "editors" that I've mentioned. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest drivel from Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)"Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009"

And the latest pearl from Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) "like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah" 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Something should be done about these two characters who contribute nothing except for name-calling and discourse--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Im quite tired of Jiujitsuguy (talk) way of accuse me of things. A very manipulative guy. Quite sure his editing and edit warring is a good reason you had to protect the side. "The most vile" is a interesting way of describe me as I refrained to edit Gaza War sinse both me and Jiujitsu was told to calm down for almost two days ago. See his talkpage for notes to behave [[1]] [[2]][[3]] He has editwarred quite much since and neglected experienced editors policybased views.

About "the latest drivel". Its easy to say he taking things out of content in the 'most vile' way. And almost laughtable, if not trgic, when one read what is just above my sentense:

"It's good to see that we still have our senses of humor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)" That was obviously not true... see the section here. [[4]]

Allso se this on Wikiquette [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] and carfully check his responce after I desided to exit the dispute. He got help from Stellarkid (talk) :s spurious collection of editdiffs and false comments. I could go on but at whole Jiujitsuguy is very disrupive both in his way of editing article Gaza War and in false accusations like here on your talkside.

So concluded: Isnt Jiujitsuguy (talk) :s advaced bickering enough for banhammer I dont know. Stellarkid (talk)(probably the mutual friend) is not without blame in both edit warring and bickering. Please take a good look at those guys, specially Jiujitsu who had the stomach to write the above (your intervention at Gaza War but needed though)

Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#MR_Unsigned_Anon_2 for more information about this issue. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I guess my reply to jiujitsuguy been red by you. Now I like some advice how to proceed. I looked at arbritation but those case seem diferent, more about problems thretening Wikipedia as a project or for resolving big stalemated disputes with many editors involved. My experience after I reported personal attacks at wikiquette was that it was to complicated for the independent editors involved and no solution or responce towards a solution is presented yet. A demand Tyw7 that I dont revert jiujitsuguy:s edits, that both parts calm down etc . A warning against vandalizing, kindly enough reverted. I guess there is no project thretening situation between jiujitsuguy and me as we dont editwar but the status quo is not good. My possition is:

Lack of faith in jiujitsuguy as the editor presented itself as a person unfamiliar with truthworth.

Editor is s a possibly a activist for Israeli POV shoving difficulitis in neutral editing.

My requests can be stated for now for giving a hint of help where to take this case:

1. Clarification that jiujitsuguy personally attacked me in first place presented at Wikiquette alerts.

2. Clarification that jiujitsuguy attacked me again on the Wikiquette after I withdrow my complant.

3. Clarification that jiujitsuguy on multiple occations lied and tried to with lies and manipulation impose warnings and sanctions on me by fellow editor and fellow administrators and putting me in a bad day with false accusations.

4. jiujitsuguy should act accoording to the above and apology. jiujitsuguy should be supervised in case above behavour repeate, banhammer willbe delivered.

5. jiujitsuguy editwaring povpuching and similar activities can be solved when it appears, regrettably I have no doubt that disputes will raise henceforth around that editor but hopfully Im not among the affected. I have confidence that administrators will in jiujitsuguy:s edithistory find facts and deliver apropriate remidies.

6. Stellarkid:s involvement investigated (to tired to expand nw)

Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely I can just back off if you recomend it but I really hate haveing all these accusations and crapp hanging over me Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem :-)

IP 86.129.194.36 is another Prophaniti IP sock. edit warring and genre trolling. same-ol', same-ol'. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now another one - 86.146.156.162. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking now... Enigma^msg 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jimmy McConnell

I would say there were several inconstencies over the article, but some editors have already took care of it. Thanks for checking! —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Website URL redirects

"03:13, 17 July 2009 Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Delta-air.com" ‎ (R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect) (view/restore)"

I restored the redirect, as it is the first URL domain used by Delta Air Lines. Wikipedia:Notability (web) says "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Not much to say here. Enigma^msg 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user named Prophaniti

Is now using 86.137.114.216 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). 142.167.189.238 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Utan

email. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Talk pages

I saw that you deleted Talk:Rocker jacket, and I think it's wrong. Just because the page was deleted doesn't mean the talk page should be deleted. From what I heard, it had information on WHY it was deleted, which is important for if someone wants to re-create the page. In the future please do not delete talkpages unless they are empty expect for banners. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Typically talk pages of deleted pages are deleted as well. Enigma^msg 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(lurker) Per CSD G8, talk pages that are "abandoned" are typically deleted- this is/was even done by a bot. tedder (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if its in the rules, I suppose it does no good arguing with just you. I dont feel like starting a big debate though, so I will just say that I am strongly against it, because it says why the article was deleted most of the time. I also dont like it when people redirect talkpages with content. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just a heads up that it might get deleted/rounded up. (addition) This BRFA should help you with the context, as well as exemption possibilities: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Orphaned talkpage deletion bot. And Enigmaman, let us know if you'd rather we continue this conversation elsewhere. tedder (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to continue it here. Blake, your issue is not with me, because I'm just going along with precedent. If the community were to decide that talk pages should not be deleted, I would leave them alone when deleting an article. Enigma^msg 05:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Post AfD/CSD cleanup

If you have time. Just noticed some lingering cats. and pages associated with the band 7th Reign which has already been deleted.. but these other pages have been left behind aas un-associated trash. See Category:7th Reign members. The category itself can go. Two of the members can stay because they were members of a notable band. But 'Johnny Roberts' and Jared Tomlinson are both nn's with no notability other than being members of the deleted band. Here is the what links here link. As mentioned Brian Soulard and Adrian Robichaud can stay. Some of the others can be deleted including the 3 image uploads listed on the 'what links here' page.. I will follow up and remove the red links from the pages that are keepers. Let me know when the page deletes are done and I will so the red cleanup. Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Roberts and Tomlinson. The category should probably be deleted as well, but I'll defer to another admin to be sure. Enigma^msg 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

zzzzot, category deleted. tedder (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A soapboxer discussed earlier.

If these edits are undone. Then the undoer (a possibility of 2 that have been discussed before) are acting in bad faith and are here to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to holler their own opinions at the top of their typing fingers. One of them insists on persistent personal attacks against one of the highest regarded admins the Wik has ever had. Even if the page were reverted to prove a point... the fact that the personal attacks have never ceased is more than enough reason to block. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean If he doesn't revert again.. his Verbal cabal will. Just watch. Its like a gaggle of soapboxers using the Wik for their own agenda. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So I see a big part of the dispute is whether he's retired or not. Shouldn't this be fairly easy to verify? Enigma^msg 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New IP sock

For Prophaniti = 86.129.201.145. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see he's taken to going to RfPP to complain about my "abuse" in protecting pages. I actually did this at the suggestion of a checkuser. Enigma^msg 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts on this

We are all very familiar with Prophaniti's IP socks. When thqat range edits anything to do with heavy metal it is pretty much a given that its Prophi. That being said 2 other former editors who are now completely and totally banned after long term abuse (much of it in the 'heavy metal' world) are named User:Leyasu and User:Daddy Kindsoul(known originally as User:Deathrocker. These accounts have long since been banned. If you look at the "suspected socks" category for Daddy Crapsoul you will see a few IPs very similar to Prophi. If you look at the suspected (and confirmed) sock categories for Leyasu (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Leyasu and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Leyasu) ... Hmm??? ... look at the numbers showing up there. Its not something easily twigged out. Yes the numbers are there. But Leyasu was horrible at communicating coherently in English compared to Prophi who is slightly mentally impaired... but his posts convey a coherent message. Daddy Kindsoul (also from the same IP-ville) was a smooth talkin' troll who plead his case in lengthy diatribes that were hilarious to read because he was always wrong (no matter how much he felt otherwise). How much of a stretch is it to think that Prophi (Metalkommandant et al) might be a resurrected self of either of these 2 banned uber-trolls? Is there any power mighty enough in the Wiki world that can thread these accounts into a single ball of banned-user ooze? Or... just as good... prove me wrong. I've been wrong at least 3 times in the last 5 wiki-years. Although unlikely.. I could be wrong again. Who knows? :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to make a compelling argument for a checkuser to look into it, I suppose. Enigma^msg 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not good at compelling arguments. My best skill-set is to just tell people to f**k off. Which works perfectly well and helps to improve the overall quality of edits from troublesome users. Except every now and then it bunches up the panties of one of Wiki's useless uber-whiners. Which results in busy productive people having their time wasted. Kinda like my occasional whining to you... HAHA! :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll approach a checkuser. Don't get your hopes up, though! Enigma^msg 19:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: Some of the users you mentioned aren't going to be lumped in because of stale stuff, most likely. AFAIK, checkusers can only check up to three months back. Enigma^msg 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I never do. I am just happy that I got the chance to whine about it. HAHA! again. On a more serious (and still fun note) I have at least 47 barnstars in mind to shove your way for everything that you do around here. You are one of the best, level-headed, focused admins Wiki has. Don't ever get P O'd and quit. We need all the bright shiners we can muster. Whatever you Wiki-salary is...they don't pay you enough. OH WAIT!!... you get paid the same as I do... with barnstars! :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 19:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1 down... 46 to go

		The Admin's Barnstar
		What can I say... you are simply one of the best. Keep on doing what you do. And the Wik will be a better place. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War 2

Not quite sure why or how this got unlocked, but no way is it resolved. It needs to be locked again. And some guidance needs to be provided regarding the lede, or this battling will go on indefinitely, I fear. Stellarkid (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was unlocked automatically because the protection was set for a week. Enigma^msg 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of getting it for longer? Stellarkid (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(butting in, because I'm good at it). I changed my mind and didn't lock it down for the 2 weeks I initially set, because full-protection is pretty extreme. The editors have been warned, this is a second chance for them to settle down. If they don't settle down tomorrow when the article opens up, one or more editors will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. That keeps all of the 'pedia from being entirely restricted from editing the article. tedder (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Stellarkid. If you have complains about editwarring, just stop yourself. I cant avoid to note the similarity between your and Jiujitsuguys tactic. Editwarring and baww on admin:s talkpage the same time! Gaming the system? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alert

Hi, just in case you haven't seen this I would like to point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs. I think it is unfortunate that these disgruntled users got a chance to get back at him like this. Triplestop x3 02:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish there was something I could do. Enigma^msg 03:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

These same users are now taking full advantage of him being caught with his pants around his ankles. --King Öomie 13:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

People removing Libs's comments from talk pages are the least of our concerns, really, but I restored them anyway. There's no good reason to remove them, even if they really were all from Libs. I think you know what the greater concern is. Enigma^msg 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to be done about Libs's "involvement" until he can return and speak for himself. --King Öomie 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Pete Townshend talk, the user apparently intends to edit war over it, so I give up. Enigma^msg 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacific War and 23prootie socks

Hi Enigmaman, what appear to be IP socks of 23prootie (talk · contribs) are continuing to edit war in the Pacific War article and it's talk page - the relevant IPs are 119.95.7.96 (talk · contribs) and 121.28.34.69 (talk · contribs). If you have time, could you please look into this? I'd block them and extend 23prootie's block myself, but I've been involved in various discussions involving this editor, so I don't feel comfortable going beyond semi-protecting the article. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Made the block indefinite. As for the IPs, you semiprotected the page, so I won't bother with those. Enigma^msg 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

reply

Yep, it's good to be back! Been lots of vandalism lately. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie

He emailed me asking for a definite block instead of an indefinite ban, thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's been socking a lot. I think we'd first want a commitment to stop socking, and then it could be revisited in a few months. I don't know that you could set a definite expiration right now, though. Enigma^msg 02:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to but in, this editor also used sock puppet accounts in an attempt to evade a block earlier this year and promises to change their behavior in return for an unblock everytime they're blocked but continues edit warring as soon as the block expires anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't have that background on it, I concur with the indef. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with an article

You sent me a message about editing ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

I most certainly didn't edit this. Clearly someone has used my IP to access this page or Wikipedia has listed it wrongly. Either way, I will look into it. Furthermore, I would never willingly sabotage an article. I am sorry for the inconvieniance this has caused you but I can assure you it was not me who did this.

Yours, TheMaxxBass —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxxBass (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

HM211980

(Or should I say HM211980 HM211980 HM211980) continues to fiddle with genres. But it's not WP:GWARRIOR territory if you know the Truth^©, right? --King Öomie 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again. I don't know which is worse, the fact that he's still genre trolling and edit-warring after three blocks, or the fact that he insists that I'm an abusive admin and that he isn't doing anything wrong. I should've made it indefinite, but I was feeling lenient, I guess. Enigma^msg 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ur jsut a rouge admin on a mission to cover up the TRUHT about these bands --King Öomie 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, some people just have no grip on reality. The worst ones are the ones that genuinely believe WP:NOR doesn't apply to them, because they're 'experts'. --King Öomie 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Enigmaman, quick question: Have you blocked him again? I ask because his contribs page shows an active block placed by you, but there is no active block notice on his talk page (the most recent one, from the 14th, is expired). If you don't mind, could you add a fresh notice to his talk page so that others (like myself) will know that he is blocked when we go to leave him warnings? As you can see I'm trying to nudge him in the right direction with regard to sourcing genres, but his nasty habit of removing warnings & calling them "vandalism" or "argumentative" causes confusion, as I didn't realize he'd been warned & blocked for these things numerous times already. I've taken the liberty of restoring all of the past warnings & block notices he's received, and placing all that predate this month in an archive page. Hopefully this will help other editors who come to leave him fresh warnings, as they'll be able to see that he's been warned about these things dozens of times already. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The editor refuses to admit it was edit-warring, insults other users, and continues the behavior that led to warnings and blocks in the past. Enigma^msg 05:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I totally understand the reasons, and I'm not opposed to the block at all. I just wanted to make sure the corresponding notice was posted, for purposes of clarity. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

dude whats wrong with you ? why cant i edit the damn saw 6 page. no one wants to here the whole story when its under "plot" get it right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanman32123 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. I don't edit "saw 6". Enigma^msg 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

Please block 71.182.100.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as indeffed genre troll Spooky873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. --King Öomie 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, see if you can't extend his SIX MONTH block at 67.242.56.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (for making exactly the same edits, and screaming at admins that revert them.) --King Öomie 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 02:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Input request

I'd appreciate your input on this page. I've created a template for a single RfA row, with the further intention that it would be usable at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship as well, by use of any of p/passed/promoted to suppress that column. Comments appreciated on my talk page...I'm going to ask others for input as well. I'm trying to make it neater and I want to make sure the process is reasonable before going all-out; I am considering converting the entire history.  Frank  |  talk  18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh x2

I'm starting to smell troll all over Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk · contribs)- starting with his name. Can you keep an eye? --King Öomie 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks and smells that way to me. About that "Master editor" thing, it will be removed. If he does not agree to, I will. In the past, it's been agreed that users are not allowed to fake various awards, regardless of whether it amuses them to do so. Enigma^msg 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact of the day: any edit that results in a net reduction in page size is now called "Section Blanking", regardless of justification. --King Öomie 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. Pretty darn rude of him, but that appears to be his specialty. Enigma^msg 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, another odd duck at User:75.141.100.115. I'd like to lodge an official challenge against the {{User en}} on that page. He seems to think that he has the authority to impose his own rules on his talkpage. The kicker- no vandalism warnings allowed. --King Öomie 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember someone called "Dumpster muffin" who started posting rules about who was and wasn't allowed to post on his talk page. That guy also blanked every single message left for him. What's interesting here is that this time an IP is doing it! Reading the text, it sounds like a rather young child. I can keep an eye on the page, I guess. Enigma^msg 23:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, no real rulebreaking, strictly speaking. Though the vast majority of his edits have been in userspace (and none of his article edits have even approached the event horizon of "Constructive". I considered linking WP:NOTFACEBOOK, but he'd just delete it. --King Öomie 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Surratt

Thanks. I can take my nap now, secure in the knowledge Mary won't be dancing in my dreams. :) Seriously, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)