User talk:JzG/Archive 64

Your decision at WP:AN
Hellp JzG, I can't understand your decision at the moment, because the discussion was closed since 2 weeks, and only a technical reason stopped my removing, I can't overwrite the REDIRECT. So I've to ask for an administrative/technical help. Please give me a small feedback, when it was a misunderstanding. Thanks and Regards --Pitlane02 talk  22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can manually archive it if it's over. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've to read the documentation a little bit better, thanks for your help, --Pitlane02 talk  06:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No big deal, this site is getting so bloody complex it's hard to keep up. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, after this lecture I'm more confused than before. I've placed the request now here, I hope it's better, (BTW I haven't seen anything about "archiving" a redirect) regards --Pitlane02 talk  17:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

RfAR
Note that I have mentioned your name here. If the rumours of your spreading rumours about me are false, then you have my apologies in advance. On the other hand, if they are true, then I would welcome your response. Cheers, -- J N  466  20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User-nnband
Template:User-nnband has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Brannon
Hi Guy, I see you handled OTRS ticket # 2008020210003368. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at the request again, the current BLP policy, and weighing in on the discussion at BLPN - see my {{User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Jay_Brannan|talk page]] for a little background, as well as Talk:Jay Brannan. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua {{sup|?!?}}Advice 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help in sorting this one out, JzG, and sorry for listening to rumours about rumours. -- J N  466  16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right result, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:67.233.18.28
I think you've made a poor block. The user didn't deserve to be blocked any more than... er, about half of Wikipedia's editors, including OrangeMarlin at many times for that matter. Please reconsider pasting a second heavy-handed block on a noob who is likely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, practices, simply for reporting another user. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think this was a reasonable block. This IP editor has been on a crusade and has completely snowed under Talk:Abortion with mountains of tendentious and agenda-driven argumentation. They don't seem to respond to anything short of a block (they've been directed toward various policies, had explanations of them, been warned, etc). I think we should respect the time and effort of people who are trying to make progress at Talk:Abortion by recognizing that there have to be some limits, even on a relative noob. MastCell Talk 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On another note, watch out for block evasion too, more specifically User:71.3.237.145, which I believe is a work IP or something similar.  NW  ( Talk ) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * quack, quack. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean block it now (that IP hasn't edited since your block of 67.233.18.28). But it's not a huge deal. NW ( Talk ) 14:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More sockpuppetry? NW ( Talk ) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:71.3.232.238 just popped up with this and geolocates same as User:71.3.237.145. Put it on my bill. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great, a game of whack-a-mole. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Bit unrelated, but I don't even know what to do anymore. Bit hard to communicate meaningfully when this is what you're up against. NW ( Talk ) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen these sorts of phases at Talk:Abortion play out a few times now, where one or a few... let's say, overly passionate editors turns the talk page into a festering heap of dung. We're not good at blocking people simply for being completely hopeless at constructive editing, so the only real option is to wait it out. Personally, I think that anyone who makes more than 6 edits per day to Talk:Abortion should be topic-banned immediately, for a month or so, because the problem seems to be that people get carried away very easily. I think you'd see both the article and the editing environment improve rapidly. But again, that's not particularly realistic. MastCell Talk 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right after the blocks on 28 June, the two new IPs popped up, same ISP. No overlap of edit times, and similar intensive edit patterns. Per today's discussion at talk:abortion, won't confirm or deny being the same editor. Quacks, waddles, and feeds feet-up. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you supply diffs of editing from one of these IPs while the other was blocked? I think we need to banninate this person. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure:

That do? LeadSongDog come howl!  11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last by 71.3.237.145 at 10:18, 27 June 2011 -, you duckblocked at 13:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Last by 67.233.18.28 at 17:56, 27 June 2011 -, you then blocked him at 22:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First by 74.5.176.81 at 06:02, 28 June 2011 to thread "User:Orangemarlin reported by User:67.233.18.28 (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)"
 * At this you hidden-reverted the previous 12:22, 28 June 2011 first-ever edit by 71.3.232.238
 * More block evasion, using 71.3.232.238. Both IPs are registered to Embarq and geolocate to Florida. Semi-protect the talk page? NW ( Talk ) 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you intended to indefinitely ban the IP until they agree to proper editing conditions, I imagine that this is a violation of that ban. NW ( Talk ) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That worked well for him, didn't it? Guy (Help!) 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't think he's getting the point. I kind of blatantly violated WP:INVOLVED in semi-protecting Talk:Abortion for 6 hours; can you take a look and deal with the matter as you see fit? NW ( Talk ) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't whack-a-mole. More like whack-editors-you're-involved-with.  DMSBel apparently merely neglected to sign in.  And I agree with the initial comment in this section by Magog the Ogre.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the wrong answer. Haven't been near that article in ages (if at all, I can't remember), have never knowingly interacted with that individual before, I was responding to a call for help with someone who was making it impossible to sustain rational dialogue. I have an opinion but that does not make me an involved party. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Guy, I was responding to NW, not replying to you. NW took an incorrect semiprotection action today at an article where he is involved and where there was no need for semiprotection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was fine. It helped someone avoid an inadvertent sockpuppetry block. Do't go hunting for evil where the alternative "ahem, you might want to think twice abut that" works. I don't think NW is at all evil, my experience elsewhere leads me to conclude that the interests of Wikipedia are pretty much top of the priority list with that editor. Some calm would be welcome here. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not fine for NW to incorrectly assert there was block evasion here, and not fine to use that incorrect assertion to suggest that you lengthen the protection. I'm not saying that NW is evil, nor am I bringing this matter to a Noticeboard. But this is what happens when involved admins start using their tools.  That's all.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In this context, could you please take a look at the SPA IP 69.136.29.94 that's been editing Talk:Abortion? JJL (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Duck Patrol
Hi! The duck with a shovel is confident... is the new IP sock of sock IPs... This user just loves those wacky definition lists Let me know if there is other action I should take. Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Geolocate Map FT. MYERS, FLORIDA, ZIP 33900
 * Geolocate Map NAPLES, FLORIDA, ZIP 34101
 * Geolocate Map FT. MYERS, FLORIDA, ZIP 33900
 * More can be supplied on request. Quack.
 * IP 74.5.176.81
 * IP 69.136.29.94 and other oddness


 * Bored now. I have sprotected the talk page for a couple of weeks. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Going the extra mile listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Going the extra mile. Since you had some involvement with the Going the extra mile redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)