User talk:Barneca/Archive 11

HNY
Happy New Year Barneca! It's the start of a new era! Elbutler (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erma, you too. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Unblanking.
He CBlanked it himself, which is against policy AFAIK, so I just undid it. If a sysop did it, I wouldn't have. PXK   T  /C  18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't "against policy", but in any case you didn't answer my question. --barneca (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks
I appreciate your stopping that vandal and removing vandalism from my userpage. (Belated) Happy New Year! Shiva  (Visnu)  21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry to bother
but you made some very lucid comments in the past re self hating jew and it seems a certain user is edit warring with me on that page. could you come check it out and give your opinion? Untwirl (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When I last edited the article, I didn't like the vibe I was getting from some of the editors there, and sensed that it might end up being a waste of time trying to get even a consensus version to stick. So I unwatched the article and haven't looked at it since.  I see lots of action today, and I'm glad to see it's moved from the article to the talk page. I kind of dread going back in, but I'll look over the rapidly-increasing talk page sometime in the next day or two and chime in if I think I can add something productive.  I can't promise more than that.


 * Are you up for some free advice? The article has been... difficult... for quite a while; it isn't an emergency to change it right now. You may find that you'll get more accomplished if you relax, take a few hours or even a day between posts to give more people time to chime in, and not respond to every comment right away. FWIW. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks. i appreciate the advice and i will take it. in looking at that particular user's history i see he has been through this with many people before. i'll step back a bit and not take the bait so easily. maybe more experienced editors can interject something productive.Untwirl (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked RfA's
I personally think your listing pages that have been courtesy blanked is rude. The people had their RfA's blanked for a reason, and now they are highlighted. Please consider redacting your edit to include just the count, we have no need to have a list. This is an intrusion on their privacy.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, that wasn't my intent, but I see your point. Dumb.  My part of the list has been removed.  In future, feel free to pre-emptively edit my comments if you think parts should be redacted; I may disagree, but I won't get mad. --barneca (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks Barneca, I just could imagine the reaction of some of those people, to have their RfA's blanked thinking it might spare them a modicum of embarrassment, only to find out that months later, it was the root of further embarrassment.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Barneca for doing the AIV block, I don't know how the tool slipped past 9 months of warnings without a single block lol.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. From looking at their contributions, I convinced myself it was the same person, so I bent the rules a little and skipped the escalating blocks; hopefully this will slip under the radar and not be classified as biting newbies or something.  We'll see if they've grown up when they come back to school this fall. --barneca (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, in this case was pretty clear cut. Besides he/she has had ample warnings to stop. Most school IP's will always vandalise though.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
You removed the personal reference to me at User:Ad.minster, but he also has a link to "the original", where he has still identified me by name, and in a page where my comments are placed in a context not their original. Can you remove that link too? As for ignoring it, I'm willing to deal with delay, but not just indefinite ignoring. Notice that his accusation is getting stronger as time goes by; now he says things like claiming that all I do is engage in edit wars. I'm willing to wait appropriately, but I'm not willing to wait forever. If we could remove the link to an old version, and leave my name out of it entirely, I don't care what stories he tells--if my name is not in them directly or indirectly. Tb (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad.minster was fairly reasonable the last time we spoke, so I trust he will remove the content. However if he is on wikibreak I would support a courtesy blanking until he has time to remove it on his own. – xeno  ( talk ) 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience (see his edit history), it's not so much a wikibreak, as that his pattern is to log in, edit for a while, and then be gone for a while. It makes it hard to sustain any kind of continuity, but it's certainly not objectionable.  It does mean that I think we should treat it as a wikibreak as you suggest--but I'm hardly the person to do a "courtesy blanking".  There is still stuff at User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people that mentions me by name.  Tb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've courtesy blanked and unlinked it in the interim. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just disappeared on you in mid-discussion, Tb, and thank you, xeno, for dealing with this; real life intruded more abruptly than I expected, and I haven't been here for more than a day, and after a few short minutes for checking up on stuff, I'm probably back offline until tomorrow at the earliest, or even monday. Just a quick note to say I fully agree with the blanking until ad.minster shows back up to discuss. --barneca (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Barneca, I've shamelessly pilfered your ww permission slip. cheers =) – xeno  ( talk ) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found it useful, but what's "ww"? It's probably obvious, but I can't decode. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wheel-war. =) – xeno  ( talk ) 13:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * :) --barneca (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice to be back.
Despite my love/hate reltionship with this crazy site, I believe in it and it's an honor to have the tools returned. I'd promised myself "never again," but the organized trolling and vandalism finally pushed me over the edge. I'm beyond thrilled to be able to help out once more. Thanks for the welcome home. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the rollback privilege. I promise to use it for good instead of evil. Mostly. Mjpresson (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't ask for more than that, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Molly Dobbs
Sorry, I wasn't aware of this. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. --barneca (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.

Couldn't agree more. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad someone liked it; I now have one person in each of two RFAs who've commented "per Barneca", so that's more influence than I usually have.

I really do think that our best hope in an actual overhaul of RfA is the implementation of some sort of desysopping process. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More generally, RFA is so frustrating these days that I've recently un-watchlisted WT:RFA. Nothing significant is ever going to come from it. I'll do my small part to support people when it looks like the opposes are particularly poor, but my participation at WT:RFA is probably over, at least for a while. --barneca (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sad to hear it, but I can't say that I don't see your position; the whole reason I posted that thread was to attempt at least some sort of change, even if it's only temporary. Bleh.
 * Agree 100%. --barneca (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV report
Re: [ question for swaq]. I usually report user accounts sooner than anonymous because if they bothered to create an account and haven't had any constructive edits they probably only created it for vandalism. One of Tincanman55's edits appears to be a test edit but the other two appear to be vandalism to me. You're probably right about the report being premature, though. Thanks for looking at this. I have him on my watchlist for now. swa q  17:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got his talk page on my watchlist now, so if someone warns him I'll see it and take a look. I agree about being proactive with obvious vandals and skipping the 4 warnings, but this is borderline enough that I suggest going more by the book. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:
I'm really sorry but I didn't really understand your question/suggestion/insult/something could you please explain properly. I think you were asking me if I wanted to be blocked? Kala jan  €  ₣  21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worry not, I'm going to change. Kala  jan  €  ₣  22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan
You mentioned adoption for him. He needs it, and someone offered it. However, it's not the right adopter. See User:SimonKSK/Wikischool for his lessons, the first one being absolutely ridiculous, resulting in this edit. He shouldn't be encouraged to attack others, which the adopter is suggesting.  iMatthew //  talk  //  22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've commented at Simon's talk page. --barneca (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to ask you something; how long is an indefinate block? Kala  jan  €  ₣  23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Until an admin (me, or someone else) decides to unblock. For the case of Colts1, who's only purpose appears to be to harrass you, I seriously doubt that account will ever be unblocked. --barneca (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as long as I'd be dead if you carried out this particular threat. Oh, wait, never mind.  The wrestling fans are allowed to make threats like this.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seriously considered blocking him for that, and didn't only for the following reasons: (a) it was deleted soon after does that sound familiar? ; (b)it was done on an obscure subpage, (c)ridiculously enough, his "mentor" encouraged him to do it, (d) it was his last post of the day, and (e) it was quite obviously venting, rather than a real threat. Rest assured that Kalajan, mentor or not, is on extremely thin ice right now, and he knows it. --barneca (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto that. I opened the "Block user" page about four times before your letter C convinced me not to do it...--Smashvilletalk 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24
Thanks for commenting on that checkuser, admins are usually listened to over us mere peasants :). I agree that something doesn't feel right, but then again when I think about how he acts when confronted with evidence, I'm like well maybe he just doesn't care. I know if I were going to do that with an IP I'd make damn sure I didn't leave a trail back to my account, and I'm thinking that even if it is Ibaranoff he was careful enough to use an open proxy, iphone, etc. Landon1980 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, I don't think of non-admins as peasants; I prefer the term proles. :)
 * Seriously, though, if a Checkuser isn't run, or if it comes back as untraceable, I'd be tempted to lobby for removing the extension. The disruption is another story.  If he resumes disrupting as soon as he's unblocked, a longer block with little to no warning would be appropriate. --barneca (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Landon1980 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you will see this anyways, but the checkuser was declined per WP:DUCK. They saw it unnecessary and a waste of time to prove it was Ibaranoff since it was so blatantly obvious it was him and the account was already blocked. Let me ask you something, what stops the opponents of other editors framing them if it would be that easy. You obviously can't have it both ways, the two cancel each other out. What I mean is you suggested lobbying to unblock if a checkuser was not done, this makes no sense to me. You get what I'm saying? You can't go around unblocking editors because their socking was to blatantly obvious to be true can you? If at the same time checkusers will decline the case when it is obvious, so IMO this particular method is vulnerable to the obvious. Note I don't actually mean you, just in general. Landon1980 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a new IP claiming to be Ibaranoff in the same range, if this is him and he has evaded his block again (with only a few hours left) the main account needs a longer duration set. Is there anything you can do? Landon1980 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to semi protect the article, but I see that's already been done. I still want a checkuser before I act; if the checkuser request is refused, I'll reassess. --barneca (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I only saw your last post, not the 05:13 post.  I'll think about this over breakfast; if they're going to refuse to run a Checkuser, I'll mull my options.  At least I'll look at the IP posts, and determine for myself whether I think this is a copycat or the real thing. --barneca (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like I'm really slow on the uptake this morning, and this has been dealt with by others. Useless notes, in case anybody cares what a Johnny-come-lately still thinks about this: I'm going back to real life now, for the rest of the weekend probably, where I'm surrounded by kind, intelligent, and non-insane people, not one of whom is a troll, or incapable of keeping their temper. Refreshing; I really should spend more time with them and less time trying to keep the lunatics at bay here. --barneca (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't really get why the checkuser was refused at first, but it was their call.
 * 2) In case anyone cares, the reason I thought it might have been a joe job is:
 * 3) No previous history of socking
 * 4) No attempt to hide the fact it was a copy of Ibaranoff's style
 * 5) Case was on ANI, so our resident trolls could see it
 * 6) At the time I was worried about it, there had only been a few posts by the IP; trolls usually won't go as gung-ho as Ibaranoff, and keep the facade up for a whole day.
 * 7) I received an email from someone, so to clarify: I never thought this was Landon or Prophaniti; I thought it might have been one of the trolls that like to cause trouble by inserting themselves into disputes sometimes. I would have clarified this earlier if it had occured to me that anyone thought this was what I was implying.
 * 8) After the addition of all of the additional IP's to the sock report, I've reviewed their edits, and Ibaranoff's continued ranting on his talk page, and this is now clearly Ibaranoff and not a joe job, so a Checkuser is, indeed, no longer needed.
 * 9) I agree with the extension of his block by one week, and the protection of his talk page.
 * 10) If he continues to disrupt articles with his IPs, I support 1-2 week semiprotection of each article, and an extension of his block to indefinite. I don't care how many GA's or FA's or failed RFA's he's had, he's clearly lost control and won't be welcome back until he regains control.
 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. At first I was like you, the whole thing seemed a little fishy. Now though I agree with your assessment above of the situation. I don't understand it though, if Ibaranoff doesn't want to be blocked why did he not let the short 24 hour block run its course? The main reason I support the block being extended to indefinite is his continued insistence he is right and everyone else is wrong. I can't imagine why any admin would let his block expire without him first acknowledging his bad behavior, and stopping the tirade of personal attacks. He is now claiming 4 or five different editors including myself are one and the same, and you know he doesn't really think that. He is being disruptive on purpose. Do you not think the block should be increased to indefinite until he at least acknowledges he was in the wrong? Otherwise him going back to his old ways is a much unneeded disruption. Landon1980 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about this, but I believe a checkuser has been ran. Luna Santin (a checkuser) stumbled onto Ibaranoff after that "IP socks a plenty" thread on ANI when we were all trying to find an admin to semi those two articles, and had not been previously involved in the other thread or with the matter in general. That particular thread did not mention Ibaranoff (only IP socks). Some other edits of Luna's led me to believe they had confirmed it was Ibaranoff. Upon reviewing the thread extended the block to one week. Either way it is blatantly obvious it's him anyway. Landon1980 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Message from Emanuel V
Moved from User talk:Barneca/Archive 9, where it was accidently placed on Jan 19th. Hello barneca,I'm Emanuel. I speak spanish. Bueno te quería decir que me encanta lo que hacés y que no soy muy bueno en inglés así que lo único que pude poner fue eso, yo soy nuevo en esto y recién aprendo a manejarme en la página. bye bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel V (talk • contribs)
 * Replied on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kalajan
Barneca, I am sorry, I did not see this You are welcome to reverse this if you want to mentor this and take responsibility for this in the future. Your call. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 03:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, rest of conversation here. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Texxs
You said: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not introduce rumor and innuendo into our articles, especially high profile biographies of living people. Doing so can lead to sanctions much more quickly than similar shennanigans on other articles. --barneca (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)"

I say: That sounds like something I don't want to do and something I've been trying to avoid doing. Could you please tell me where I did it and what I said? A concrete example would help me avoid this in the future

Thanks,

Texxs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texxs (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what lead to my note. --barneca (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Request
You appear to have declined the unblock request here, but you did not replace the template. Would you like me to do that? Cheers, &mdash; Jake   Wartenberg  18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk, but I see events have overtaken me, and jpgordon has already declined the unblock. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and a Request
First of all, thank you for deleting User:American Eagle/Userboxes. Could you also delete Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations (redirect), and move User:American Eagle/Do Hard Things into it. Thank you!  TheAE  talk / sign  21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it in a few minutes; I'm dealing with some misbehaving "grownups" right now, and want to deal with the inevitable fallout first. --barneca (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Technically, since you were the only author, you could have copied and pasted your draft, overwriting the redirect, without admin intervention, but it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. --barneca (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I know, but that way it doesn't include the page history – only the copy/paste edit. This way, it includes all the page history. But either way, thank you again.  TheAE  talk / sign  21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening on Eva Peron article!
Thank you very much for intervening. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; you understand, though, that I'm not really on your side? You've been giving worse than you've been getting, IMHO. --barneca (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in "sides." I was interested in a third-party intervening because it was obvious that the two of us were not communicating and that it was only getting uglier and uglier and there was no end in sight.


 * That much being said, would it be possible for you to request that the other editor cease to attempt to interpret my movites? He's back at it on the talk page of the disambiguation for "Evita" . I put the sentence "Evita is also a form of the Spanish word evitar which means to avoid" at the bottom of the page, summarizing my edit with "Next to no one is doing a search on the English language Wikipedia site for the spanish command form of the infinitive "evitar," "to avoid." The other editor then said that my claim was uncited and a mere "snide remark." It seems that this is the course of action when this editor disagrees with what I do: 1. He says it's uncited; 2. He reduces it to some malevolent intent on my part.
 * Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is what I meant yesterday by baiting; he got you to lose your temper. Those edits are from before the enforced break; I'm more interested in how both of you interact now.  Stay calm, rely on outside editors to participate (it's not just you two), if consensus goes against you, try to take it in stride, try to compromise instead of win, and look into WP:DR if you get stuck.  There's no deadline.
 * That said, I will try to look in on those pages tomorrow and see if I can help. --barneca (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The snide remark was the edit summary "I see you can read"; which was unambiguously clear from the link to that edit contained in my talk page comment. The only person responsible for Andrew Parodi losing his temper is Andrew Parodi. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to get into a blow by blow review of your interactions in the past, and it's depressing that both of you seem intent on doing so. As someone wise once said, ''I'm more interested in how both of you interact now. Stay calm, rely on outside editors to participate (it's not just you two), if consensus goes against you, try to take it in stride, try to compromise instead of win, and look into WP:DR if you get stuck. There's no deadline.'' I'll keep an eye on the respective talk pages, but I assume that you'll both be able to interact maturely. --barneca (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is how Andrew Parodi interacts now. His blatant, immature distortion of what I said, refuted above, was made after your intervention. I'm not going to simply let such misrepresentation of my actions pass without comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment noted. --barneca (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

87.198.192.181
Thank you for dealing with this! He/She's been a real hassle. Farkeld (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; let me know if you notice someone similar showing up and doing the same thing. --barneca (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again Barneca, IP Address 87.38.200.46 (talk) has made similar use of sneaky vandalism in editing the article Battle of Zama, which I have since undone. Both IP Adresses are registered to be in or near Dublin, Ireland. Sock puppet? Farkeld (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty obviously same person. Previous editing history from that IP seem to imply it is shared (or was shared), so I won't block now, but I've left a note for future vandal whackers. --barneca (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Barneca, 87.38.200.46 (talk) has struck again. Same article, three malicious edits this time. Sorry to keep bothering you with this. Also, do you know how to revert to an older version? He made the three edits with the intent of hiding some of his edits, but I think I corrected all of it. It would be much easier to just pick a version and revert back to it though. Farkeld (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Chrislk02 already took care of it:.


 * As for your other question, yes you can do that fairly easily. In the history tab, you can pick a particular version by clicking on the time/date stamp.  Then, when you click the "edit this page" tab, you'll be editing that version, rather than the current version (If you're looking at a diff, the same thing happens if you click "edit" right next to the bolded "Revision as of..." heading).  Then, you can just add an edit summary and save, and this will revert to that version. I think I explained that OK, let me know if you'd like more info.--barneca (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was going to drop a note that I blocked but I forgot. Hope ya dont mind.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, you just saved me some time; think I'll take advantage of my extra 30 seconds by blocking our returning friend User:Harrahs1. --barneca (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

←Ya, anybodys whose first edit is like this probably needs blocked. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a second edit like this. --barneca (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand perfectly. Thanks Barneca! Farkeld (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiddler96
Thanks. I don't know if you saw the message I left for User_talk:Smashville but I wasn't sure if it was something that needed to be reporting or if I was seeing something that wasn't there.  Hazardous   Matt   17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was pretty obvious. I hadn't seen your message to Smashville, just ran across their edits to Simon's talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been doing as you've suggested and distancing myself from the whole Kalajan thing (his whole situation is starting to not sit right with me anyway) and this kind of pulled me back into it. Much appreciated.  Hazardous   Matt   17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barneca. That Fiddler guy is insisting on and on about not being Sinofdreams. Why don't you give him a chance. I'd suggest getting a checkuser to see if he's Sin. It's just what I think is fair. You didn't even use proof. Being an obvious sock of Sinofdreams isn't proof. Kala  jan  € · ₣  16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah okay, I'll get to my sandbox. Anyway, he didn't do anything wrong (I think; didn't check properly). Anyway, you have my opinion. His destiny is in your hands. Kala  jan  € · ₣  17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Anywhere But Home
Hi!

FYI, I think you may have entered an incorrect expiry date for ABH's talk page protection. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct. Fixed.  Thanks.  --barneca (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Thank you, AE! I appreciate it. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection quirks
Hey - regarding this question, the protection was probably lost when you deleted and restored the page. When you delete and restore a page, it generally cancels out any protection on the page. I've been burned by this a few times. Anyhow, in case you were really curious... MastCell Talk 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Well, it doesn't make sense, but it explains it.  Thx. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

you and your one liners
the ijnustice of i tall is my beer-spitter of the night. >:) I can always count on a healthy dose of reality from barnacle.  hope yer well  Keeper  |  76  04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was, admittedly, a little bit proud of that one. --barneca (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look please
Hi Barneca seen as you commented on ANI last night regarding User:NewIreland2009 could you have a look at their user page more personal attacks and name calling about me,this is not acceptable considering you warned them last night thanks. BigDunc Talk 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed a sentence. My fingers are crossed this is all that is necessary. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for helping and I hope you right, this editor has only a handful of edits and a good load of them are directed at me on my talk and his user and talk pages, whoever his friend that coached hin on the ways of wiki definitely must have had past interaction with me because I honestly can't see how any interaction I had with this editor could warrent this behaviour. BigDunc  Talk 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a little note on all of this, I have attempted to explain to Big Dunc why I responded to him the way I did because he refused to understand what I was trying to tell him. Take a little look at the clarification I made on his talk page. His answer basically was 'policy is policy'. He completely ignored that I fully accept the policy or my rationale and made no attempt to understand where I was coming from. I don't appreciate the bully tactics he's using here either, if he has a problem with me he can bring it up on my talk page. This is a bit like the pupil snitching to the teacher.

Just on another note, I had never heard of this user until I created an account. My friend did leave this place in frustration but I really haven't seen much that disputes what she said. There of course several level headed and decent editors here, but the wiki-law debates verge on the absurd. NewIreland2009 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * pupil snitching to the teacher says the editor who after a handful of edits goes to WP:ANI with a nonsense complaint. BigDunc  Talk 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you regard it as a nonsense complaint in itself justifies it as a worthwhile complaint. NewIreland2009 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NewIreland2009 blocked for 24 hours for continued personal attacks. --barneca (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look please for me also?
I have recently had another email train with one of your writers (Scarpy (talk)). He works on recovery pages and claims to be an expert in the field. Whether or not this is true, he has missed an important piece of information about 12-step fellowships. If you want the entire story I'd be happy to explain, but I imagine you have better things to do.

Short and Simple - All 12-step groups are fellowhips. Many of them have a program, many of them use the program from other 12-step fellowships. This does not make 12-step groups -- programs. To say so is an inacuracy.

That is it. That is it. That is it.

Instead I have received 3 days of relentless email drivel that I would expect from my 10 year old. Not a thanks for your contribution. We'll concider it. Nothing - Just waste everyones time and lets email for a week or write on a board somewhere. I suggested to send his email and telephone to the AA laywers so they could offer him an opinion and all of a sudden he is threatened.

It's not my deal to fix other groups errors and I am sorry - I will never offer any more to wikipedia as I don't need the Mr Scarpy messy emails. Wow.

Thank you for your time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Legal_threat_over_article_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.63.175 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is easily solved. You stop emailing him. He stops emailing you.  No one emails any lawyers.  If, as you say, you have no further interest in fixing errors in Wikipedia, then the problem is solved.  If, however, you do still have a problem with one of our articles, and for some reason do not want to edit it yourself, we have an WP:OTRS system where non-editors can address complaints about articles. --barneca (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree, end of email train. I did try to edit and was always deleted. Mr scarpy did not want anyone to tarnish his work... too bad its not acurate. Again thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.63.175 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I tried your sugestion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Meth_Anonymous

see if it holds. "Crystal Meth Anonymous (CMA) is a twelve-step fellowship of recovered and recovering methamphetamine addicts. Participants meet in local groups of varying sizes in order to stay clean and help others recover from methamphetamine addiction. CMA encourages complete abstinence from methamphetamine, alcohol, inhalants, and all other drugs not taken as prescribed. The Fellowship of Crystal Meth Anonymous works a Twelve Step program of recovery." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.63.175 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there is your answer. Another of the uninformed jumps in and undos. Forget it - I've work to do and it should not include fixing your writer inacuracys. Such a pitty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.63.175 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've never claimed to be an expert in any field. I just write articles, and use reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, Scarpy. I agree adherence to reliable sources solves this type of problem.  But as I've said, I think it best if you guys disengage your off-wiki conversations completely. --barneca (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had recommended that in July, and then again this month. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've continued to receive Scarpy emails - I have banned his emails and forwarded them back to him. Thank you for the suggestion. 216.240.63.175 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The last email I sent to you was at 23:08 UTC, which was about an hour before you posted this comment, and was a response to a question you asked me. Thank you for finally taking my suggestion and using wikipedia to discuss article changes. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am officially pissed off

 * LOL! (Or, really, SOL; sob out loud) I've just discovered that the computer system where I usually edit has a new filter that won't let me go to that web page! ("Matches filter: Drug Abuse"). Just started experimenting, and there are now several articles I can no longer view, which I was able to view and edit just a day or two ago.  This is highly annoying, but I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute to the discussion at that article, or even view the talk page discussion for that article. --barneca (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone reading who cares, I can view blocked web pages by trickery; I have to create a redirect to the blocked page, and get to it that way, so the URL doesn't exactly match the blocked page name. Then I can read it.  I can view the history, and the talk page; those addresses aren't blocked.  But in order to view my edits to the page, I have to go back to the redirect again.  In theory, I could have a whole bunch of redirects in my user space to verboten articles, I suppose... --barneca (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance at The Serenity Now, please?
I realize that you are in favor of removing the material, but I'd like to check in and see if there's any change regarding my last response to you, that it has as much notability as other "cultural references" entries in the section. I have unfortunately attracted the attention of a wiki-gadfly, who is currently the subject of a report of mine regarding the stalking.

What I would request admin-wise is that you reverse this users tendentious edits for now, as he is clearly only interested in me and not the subject, and allow me a chance to provide better sourcing for the information's inclusion, other than the youtube video. It is becoming increasingly difficult to do so in this hostile environment. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw it happening, and just finished commenting on the ANI thread. I'll wait for someone less involved to intercede officially, but I'll leave him a note on his talk page.


 * As far as the edit war goes, it doesn't matter whether it's there or not while the discussion continues; I'm not going to revert him, or you. --barneca (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the input over there. Question though, re: "no reason to think the IP address was NoCal100".  I didn't make any accusations of him editing by an IP address that I can recall.  I'm confused as to what that is in reference to. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I must have misunderstood your comment at ANI; I thought this is what you were saying. I'll go correct myself. --barneca (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I misunderstood your reference to "I-P editor"; I get what you meant now. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I Have Been On Wikipedia Since August 22 And I Am Wondering What I Need To Do To Become An Admin Thanks Mate, Papa Johns78 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't become an admin. You can become an editor, though.  find an article, click "edit this page", and make a constructive edit. Repeat as necessary. --barneca (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Phillips Exeter alumni
Hello. You were most certainly correct in your deletion of the name of a fictional person from the list. That list has already been vandalized repeatedly by an individual (a different user) who insisted on inserting fictional people. I completely agreed with your rationale, and thank you. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen this a lot with List of structural engineers; every once in a while, someone wants to add Michael Scofield. --barneca (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take this negatively but I just don't care about being blocked. I can just change my IP address, and I have done that already.  I've been blocked about six times since my screen name was blocked.  People have erased well cited edits and worthwhile edits I have made since my block.  Every edit I have made is in good faith, and I know that.71.255.74.151 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I kind of assumed that. But if you weren't announcing to the world that you were evading a block, don't you think your good faith edits would stick?  And since you're spending time editing, isn't that what you'd want?  Surely you're editing to improve the encyclopedia, not to make some point that good edits by blocked users are reveted? --barneca (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion on the fictional list question. I don't see there's a problem if it is clearly labelled as such. And perhaps other candidates -- such as those from John Knowles's A Separate Peace -- could be added as well. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Keisby
To my annoyance this has been deleted. Can you explain why this topic has been deleted please??? As i live in Kiesby and last time i looked it wasn't a figment of my imagination, unless the last 37 years have been. FYI it is an actual village in rural lincolnshire(thats in the UK!), check it out on a map my son- you may well be surprised!!

Can it be re-instated? or am i going to have to remake it??

Thanks for your very valuble time. ArnoldI&#39;m Back says arnie. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm well aware it is real. If someone who doesn't look like a sock of yours creates it, then fine. But I deleted it because of your history of hoaxing and vandalism; what you say can't be trusted. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also dissapointed that the kesiby page was deleted. Why?? All that I read on the page was true, and I never saw any vandalism on the page. Its as if Keisby does not exist. Are you power crazed or something? You would be good on a gaming forum........ Put the kesiby page back, and let it expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.14.6 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

why has the entry for keisby been deleted.. i live here! and i have plenty of evidence of that fact

http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/keisby.htm

I also live nearby to Keisby. I dont condone vandalism, however why should the article be deleted due to a minority act. Its as if to say that all Keisby residents cannot be trusted, and what does that say about Wikipedia when people see that their hamlet has been deleted and lost in the depths of time? Keisby is a beautiful and tranquil place, and people should be able to read about it on this website to prepare themselves before visiting.

Vitus Barbaro hoaxer

 * The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh.
 * I don't recall offhand him being associated with that page before, but I think you've dealt with him longer than me (or maybe just have a better memory). Could you save me a tiny bit of time and point out where he's done this before?  Then I'll try to take a look later. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was unclear. I meant the hoaxer is adding the Vitus Barbaro nonsense to articles again.  This is the first time the hoaxer has done it with Vision Industries, where they have added Vitus Barbaro 3 times (and been removed as many times). Edward321 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now; I missed the Vitus Barbaro insertion at first. Like I said, I'll take a look when I can. --barneca (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As always, I'm late to the party. It appears earlier today, Nishkid64 reblocked that 63.xx range, for a month this time.  I'll try to start checking the pages listed at our watch page more often, to help catch new appearances before they get too entrenched. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan
Pretty sure that is a sock of. Strange edit to User:Kalajan/hbk here. Anyways this account reeks of smelly socks. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I indef blocked the account, and indef blocked kalajan as well. If you think this was too harsh, let me know.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, unless you feel strongly about having all Wiki-related discussions on-wiki, I'm going to email you about this later today. I have several competing suspicions, and many of them are unsubstantiated enough that it wouldn't really be fair to bring them up in public. --barneca (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your email. I agree some things like this may be best sent in email.  I agree with your initial suspicions of who the sock is but feel checkuser would be pointless as it is obvious that the account is editing through proxies or some other alterante IP that could not be linked to another account.  I shortened kalajans block to 5 days but wont do anything with mecha.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied in an email and just saw this. Not sure if jpgordon knows something we dont.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this just in . Exactly as I suspected (That he was going to ditch his account and created the new one before ditching the old one). What do you think we should do?  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that certainly sounds more like Kalajan. Per that admission, and jpgordon's decline comment, I would be very comfortable indef blocking Kalajan. If you think that will just force him to create more socks because of a "nothing left to lose" attitude, another option is a 3 month block, to give him a "reward" to look forward to if he stops socking.
 * As for the "tells" I mentioned in my email to you (which might be better off not repeated), which made me think this was a sock of Sinofdreams instead, they still apply. So, this makes me much more suspicious that Kalajan is also associated with the AndrewWeaver/Sinofdreams sock drawer. It doesn't matter terribly, now that both are indefblocked, whether it's the same person or two friends or whatever. If more socks keep showing up, we might want to file an SPI to try and link the two and see if there can be a rangeblock applied. For now, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.  At the very least, I suggest waiting to see if the current Sinofdreams checkuser request succeeds in stopping the disruption before filing a sock case. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

←I guess with the confession he should get a nother chance in a long while (say 3 months). any objections? Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, the "admission" came after he was caught red-handed by jpgorden, but yes, per my rationale above, I've no problem with 3 months. --barneca (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mail. D.M.N. (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooo...I didn't see this. I made him indef. --Smashvilletalk 06:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Barneca/watch/Sinofdreams
was just caught in the autoblock of. Considering they are using the same IP, and the accounts were created a mere 4 minutes apart, I've blocked Madden09Boy as yet another sock of Sinofdreams. You may want to update your watch page. Best, - auburn pilot   talk  23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinofdreams
If you look at Deskana's blocking logs, you will see that more Sinofdream socks were found, if you wanted to add it to the SPI and your subpage.  iMatthew //  talk  //  00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And Luna Satin.  iMatthew //  talk  //  00:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that when I get a chance. --barneca (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --barneca (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

87.38.200.46
Hi Barneca,

My apologies for troubling you with this again, but 87.38.200.46 (talk)'s block has expired and he/she has immediately began vandalizing the Battle of Zama page again. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Farkeld (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 month. If any other IP's pop up, report to WP:AIV (with a pointer to the warnings at User talk:87.38.200.45, User talk:87.38.200.46, and User talk:87.198.192.181), and someone will block them without the requisite hugs, kisses, and 4 warnings first.  I may not be around frequently enough to help in a timely manner. --barneca (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

vandal is back
That banned vandal is back at work on the Polistes page again. looks like we may need a refreshed page protection there. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic . I hesitate to protect quite yet; if it's just occasional, we can deal with it.  If it gets heavy, we can protect.  Only one vandal edit in a few months is less vandalism than most articles.  I'll re-watchlist the article, but won't be online much; if Swamilive comes back to the article heavily enough to warrant protection and I'm offline, a quick stop at WP:RFPP is all you'll need. --barneca (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a different IP showed up a few minutes ago, I can see the writing on the wall so I just went ahead and protected it for a week. --barneca (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

wise man
I think it was Pedro on WT:rfa. Can't find it now. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I may hunt around; you've piqued my curiousity. A nice turn of phrase. --barneca (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks BTW. It means a lot to me knowing you feel that way. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim
 * Well, you're quite welcome, but I've a more selfish reason for liking it; it describes me perfectly. At one time I didn't think I'd end up this way, but whenever I'm on Wikipedia anymore, I'm basically a full-time cop. The frequent stupidity on display at WP:ANI, WP:AN, and WT:RFA is so immensely frustrating to me these days that I basically spend 100% of my time at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD.  I don't do much else than revert, warn, block, and delete. Occasionally helping a little old lady across the street, but mostly tickets and jail.  I've always felt we were underappreciated, but that quote kind of crystalizes why I think I'm useful here, and why I'm doing what I'm doing, and why I'm not ashamed of it. --barneca (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more.  Dloh  cierekim  01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay!
I really appreciate you deleting my talk page. It was bothering me. Thanks!-- Vader Racer  03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Enjoy your nice clean talk page (while it lasts!) --barneca (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind
i added to your list. Seemed pretty blatantly obvious if you ask me. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I added a note to the top of that page to clarify that additions by others are more than welcome. Indeed, in a fit of frustration with this place, I recently completely deleted my watchlist, so (until I added that comment) I wasn't even watching it.  I'm leaving the sock hunting to others for now; it just adds to my case of the blahs. BTW, I invoked your name last night in the ChristianMan16 thread on ANI (too lazy yo get a link, sorry, might be in the archive soon anyway). Someone was suggesting that we should consider doing something because Kalajan suggested it, and I couldn't let that pass without comment. Anyway, good luck with the tarpit of socks in that little corner if Wikipedia, and if it isn't time sensitive, let me know if I can help with anything. --barneca (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ST47/RFA
Well, I'm going to sleep in a minute ;) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned, persistent edit warring eventually wears down your opponent even when they're a bot: . --barneca (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Check your mail....
...and then, if you're so inclined, drop in over here, where we're discussing the actions being taken. Your insights would be appreciated. GJC 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also emailed, and replied at my talk. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw both, thanks. I'm in agreement with the email, well handled. --barneca (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

userbox
Hey, thanks! I must have half-inched that box from your userpage somewhere along the way :) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on their talk. --barneca (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Being familiar with NewIreland2009 and myself could you care to comment here not on my block as I stated it was justified but on the trolling by said editor which lead to my incivility thanks. BigDunc Talk 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying on your talk page in a moment. --barneca (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you.  BigDunc  Talk 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

well that sucks
Best to you. You're one of the more refreshingly sane ones. Keeper |  76  04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that was my problem :). My best to you and your family as well, Keep. --barneca (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bah, sorry to see you go, I'll miss you.  MBisanz  talk 04:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, MBisanz; keep up the good work. --barneca (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent the majority of my Encyclopedia BuildingTM prior to a runup to adminship on removing links to disambiguation pages. I've decided to remove some links in your honor.  I chose sewer.  Feeling shitty.   Keeper  |  76  04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm... honored?... by your choice of tribute. --barneca (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sad to see you retire Barneca. You've been my remodel since i first started serious editing. Ever since you helped me and Gladys in the Simulation12 fiasco. Thanks for all your help and advice. The Cool Kat (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * eh, sad face dude. happy trails, though. – xeno  ( talk ) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude!!! Nuh-uh! All the good ones are going...couldn't we keep you and, like, get rid of 850 trolls or something? (Bet you didn't know trolls had an exchange rate, didja.) Seriously, though--you'll be MUCH missed. Take care....GJC 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)