User talk:Splash/Archive17

Unprotections
I was wondering what you thought of this idea. I think it would be a good solution to situations like Steve Irwin, so that you can unprotect the article but make sure someone is watching it if you don't have the time or inclination to do it yourself. -- Cyde Weys 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting, and I've put my initial thoughts on the talk page. This said, articles in a confluence of pressure-points like Steve Irwin was are generally so widely watched/patrolled at that time that an additional listing of them somewhere probably won't appreciably increase the vigilance ratio for the article. Nevertheless, the idea fits into a surprising niche as I said on the talk page. -Splash - tk 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Displaced Brit sock
(notice what the first letter of each word spells out) is reverting all of my edits. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WTVT news team/WTSP news team
Could you move them back to Paul Dellegatto and Dick Fletcher respectively? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. While fixing double redirects, I found he also tricked an admin into deleting Roy Leep  again!  That's also fixed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to
I have reverted your edits to that page, in the future please follow the instrucions listed in WP:PPol when editing protected pages. Many thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you ban my other account?
Why did you ban my Borox account? I attempted to resolve the problem with CFIF despite his personal attacks against me. I can assure you that I am not this User:Spotteddogsdotorg or a sockpuppet of them. I see why CFIF complains about people attacking him, since he seems to egg people on. I was creating various articles cleaning up television station pages. I will continue to do this in future. Reborox 15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One to watch out for
has all the makings of a sock, editing license plate images/articles and having Leep in the name....
 * Yeah, probably is. I just did some re-evaluation in the light of recent events and have concluded that, and  are also socks, have indef'd them and cancelled the AfDs they were partying in. -Splash - tk 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh, I just noticed that two of them signed on Requests for comment/Splash a couple of hours ago, so now I'm basically certain of their sockness. Some people never learn. -Splash - tk 17:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To Splash and CFIF
Of course I would sign anything that would expose your conduct, as I find your behaviour reprehensible. You have seriously abused your administrative duties. Apparently CFIF turns to you whenever he feels that one of his bloody articles is attacked. It appears that this Spotteddogsdotorg person is some bloody Yank nutter anorak who is obsessed with American television stations. CFIF’s behaviour is also reprehensible as he tars and feathers anyone who disagrees with his bloody narrow Floridian world view.

We do not need articles about every barmy local Yank weather presenter and news reader. The majority of them, Messrs. Dellegatto and Leep included, fail most of the established biographical inclusion protocols. Instead of chasing ghosts you and CFIF should be working out a consensus for inclusion of these Yank television persons. It appears to be rather complicated, as it isn’t an easy as say newsreaders and weather presenters in the various ITV regions, since there are thousands of these people in the States at hundreds of little local television stations. Just because you see someone on the telly every day doesn’t make them noteworthy on a global scale or even a national scale in America.

I would be happy to assist in hashing out some policy on this rather large problem. Perhaps if the community comes together and has a good think on the problem we can finally put this bloody nonsense in the cupboard. We cannot have anoraks dictating policy, we need a full on view from all sides and from as many places, both inside and outside the States to figure out what is worthy and what is not worthy of inclusion.

CFIF’s behaviour seems to have engendered a lot of animosity and amazingly he has nary a yellow card. He really needs to have a time out to reflect on his behaviour and why he has caused a lot of aggro among others.

Thanks to you and CFIF and your bloody nonsense, I forgot the reason I even came to Wikipedia as from the start I had to defend myself against your false and baseless allegations. I do hope that we can stop this bloody trench warfare and behave like civilised Englishmen. Lost Knob (wrongly banned by Splash so anon) 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest alleged sockpuppetry
First off I have to say that I am tired of this whole sockpuppet nonsense. I looked at the latest suspected Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppets, mainly due to the message left by Lost Knob informing me that the Roy Leep article was up for deletion again. I do not feel that Borox is a part of the ring, since he seemed to be actually adding content and my guess is that he took the two bios for the station personalties that were in existance to preserve the edit history of them. This was not the best idea, as it should have been done with a merger proposal, but it apparently escalated into an edit war and led to the sock tag/ban by Splash. I think a checkuser may be in order here.

The Lost Knob matter seems a bit more of a poser. I really don't think he matches the behavior of the Spotteddogsdotorg socks and I think his re-AFDs for Roy Leep and Paul Dellegatto are more out of spite for CFIF, due to him being tagged as a sock of Displaced Brit. For the record I voted delete for the two articles because I feel that until some sort of specific policy for local TV personalites is established, they have to meet the established notabilty guidelines. If Lost Knob is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, he may be one of Displaced Brit, since the two seem to use British English and use it rather coherently, unlike the Scott Brown/Spotteddogsdotorg socks. Also they seem to use several colloquialisms unique to the UK and not the sort of stuff you could pick up from Monty Python re-runs. My father was stationed at RAF Lakenheath, my mother is a Mancunian, and I worked three years in the London bureau, so I spent enough time over on the other side of the pond to detect a faker. Also what strikes me is the note he left on Splash's talk page that asks for some sort of consensus be reached. The note seems to be coherent and written in good faith, unlike the mad ramblings of Scott Brown, and calls for a consensus on the whole issue of local TV personalities. Again, I think a checkuser would be in order here.

I also feel that the Scott Brown based socks seem to have vanished, along with his Yahoo group given the legal threat from the people who run tvnewstalk.net. So I am really thinking that there are several people who CFIF has really pissed off who are out to get him. I really think we do need a cooling off period here because playing investigative reporter is part of my day job and I don't want to be doing it when I am at home. Respectfully submited, TV Newser 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been expecting you. I'm not sure what you want me to do, really, but I'm not unblocking them. If the socks are tiring you, leave them to other people. There's no need for you to do 'investigative reporting' if you don't want to. -Splash - tk 00:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was out of the country for work and then I was pissing on another fire here. Part of the reason I bring this up is that having a list of the Scott Brown socks and naming more where there may not be more just feeds into his delusions and may encourage him. The other thing I wonder is if CFIF should be a bit less confrontational in his future behavior as he really seemed to egg people on. I am fairly confident that if he acted a bit more civil the situation with Lost Knob could have been avoided if he wasn't throwing around accusations like a politician throwing around promises. The situation with Borox was one that was a content dispute that led to some definite incivility by CFIF . I happen to think that Borox's idea of group bio pages isn't half bad and would be a godo stop gap until we can find some answer to the local US TV personality notablity issue I would have no idea where even to bring about a discussion on the topic. I suggested to CFIF weeks ago that he take a break and look at things afresh, because he has made some very good contributions, but the other side of it is something that reminds me of a witch hunt. I just hope I don't offend anyone here, but I guess my journalistic training makes me default to trying to see all the angles. TV Newser 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I did a closer read of Lost Knob's stuff writing and it seems more as if he was peppering some choice British English words into what is basically American style writing. I still don't think it is Scott Brown though, but could possilby be someone else. TV Newser 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing protected broken redirects
Hello, I noticed that you are working with speedy deletions. I have a few pages that have broken redirects that need to be deleted. Please help me by deleting the following articles:
 * Shattered hand
 * Transmutational Calculus
 * HKH KröhnPrinz Emmanüel Wund Ceriz Och Vïrkantzÿa

Thanks for your help. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I will take a look momentarily... -Splash - tk 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the note. -Splash - tk 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are a few more that need attention. Thanks for the help.


 * SPOOKED
 * PG (Poizon Green)
 * Poizon Green (Bangladesh)
 * Gone. -Splash - tk 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One more that I have found

Thanks for the help. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Infidel Iggens
 * You're welcome. -Splash - tk 03:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerilee Bonner
Been deprodded, FYI - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, as the editor before me indicated, it was a copyvio (this was why s/he blanked it, presumably unaware of the more normal proceedings). So I have deleted it since it was idenfitied inside 48 hours (and is horribly blatant besides). -Splash - tk 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Displaced Brit sockpuppetry
another IP to ban. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't ban IPs, they can only be blocked for a period if they are currently disrupting. That one edit is obviously bad, and the IP is worth bearing in mind, but it doesn't need blocking at the moment. -Splash - tk 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it may be an open proxy. TV Newser 03:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? I don't see any immediate evidence of openness at that IP. -Splash - tk 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Scott Brown sock
I think I found another possible Spotteddogsdotorg sock - Some of his recent behavior seems to confirm my suspicions! TV Newser Tipline 09:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Please can you undelete the article 10-Tenths Motorsport entry (discussion here) into my User space? I believe that the sources can now be found and would like to try and rework the article to better quality. Asp 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl: Sockpuppet
Just look at and his contributions. He has targeted baseball related articles, something has had a run in with  who was the unwitting victim of the  sockpuppet ring thanks to Scott Brown from tvnewstalk.net. TBTA feels he was driven off Wikipedia by Tecmobowl and communicated his suspicion that the user may be part of the sock ring.

Tecmobowl's ëdit styles, types of edits reflect the those of the sock ring, as his reaction to being accused, including denials and anon ip attacks. What has changed is that he did not target CFIF directly with this latest sock, leading me to think that this is most likely a new form of attack from this problematic vandal taking the time to make seemingly good edits, along with many questionable ones, such as claiming links are spam when they are not. I feel that the overt avoiding of CFIF is a move to throw off suspicion, as is his avoiding AFDs. However, the other activities by Tecmobowl, especially the choice of who he attacked and the anon attacks seem to be typical of the Scott Brown/Spotteddogsdotorg sock ring.

Respectfully submitted. TV Newser Tipline 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl a Displaced Brit sock?
This little anon (whois chek) left this little note  under the name Displaced Brit giving the impression that the problems TBTA and myself have had are in fact from him. For what it is worth, the IP traces back to M-net Telekommunikations GmbH in Munich Germany and could be some sort of open proxy. Also the message was added very close to Tecmobowl messing with my talk page. My gut says the timing may be linked. TV Newser Tipline 01:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TV Newser is a complete hypocrite and should be banned. This is getting ridiculous, he refuses to discuss this with me.  He reverted my talk and user page i don't know how many time the other day.  He removed my comments on his page asking for an open discussion and has gone around reporting me as a sock.  He is just upset and I think there needs to be some sort of repercussion for his behavior.  I was not "messing" with his talk page, i was responding to the ridiculous behavior. He reverted the archival of my old talk page (which took place before this sillyness started), yet if i do the same, he reverts back.  This is not a productive member of the community.Tecmobowl 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tecmobowl was blanking his talk page not archiving it. Of course he doesn't mention the anon note on CFIF's talk page . There is something going on here which is not kosher.~I would be less suspicious of Tecmobowl if he didn't have a great deal of negative interaction with TBTA. TV Newser Tipline 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's please centralize this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please Help. There are at least five user talk pages being spammed with this. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would I mention it, it doesn't have anything to do with me and I've never heard of or seen that user except for you bringing it up. What isn't "kosher" as you put it is you discussing this at all. By your logic, anyone who disagreed with another wiki user would be a sock.Tecmobowl 02:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Newser, your diff is meaningless from sock point of view. That's probably Displaced Brit. So what? That doesn't make it Tecmobowl. As I said above, you have no grounds for suggesting that IP is an open proxy (unless you happen to know something I do not). To be clear: you are engaged in a content dispute with a user, and are trying to get him/her blocked. That is not going to happen absent compelling evidence of sockness. Note further that I am very able to evaluate a user's contributions - random diffs and gut feelings won't help. -Splash - tk 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting?
This diff and this diff are both from the same IP address. Are Karmafist and Spotteddogsdotorg related in some way? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are related, no, but given Karmafist's attitude I wouldn't be surprised if he were to turn out to be fooling around some in this regard. -Splash - tk 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:EffK
Hi Splash, what's been happening wrt this user's page? As I read your edit summary you have extended his block because he was editing his talk page. There is no WP policy stating that banned users may not edit their talk pages, or that their talk pages should be frozen. Be grateful if you could explain what went on here.Bengalski 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Banned users may not edit anywhere on Wikipedia, save if the ArbCom indicates that they may. EffK's ruling contains no exemption, it is a straightforward ban. The policy you are looking for is WP:BAN which says as much in its first sentence. Hope that helps. -Splash - tk 22:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I reading the same policy as you? It doesn't seem nearly as clear to me - specifically it does not say "may not edit anywhere" but "revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia". So when EffK was banned he was blocked from editing articles and even his own user page - but NOT his talk page.


 * In fact there does not seem to be a policy that directly relates to banned editors' talk pages so, as you almost suggest, I would guess this is down to the arbitrators. I asked arbitrators for their views on this at the requests for arbitration discussion page on 21st March. Only one arbitrator responded, as follows:


 * I don't think the Arbitration Committee has any particular policy about blanking a banned users user and talk page. Sometimes they do things there that are disruptive but that is an exception. I see no problem with them making statements about their situation or regarding the arbitration case. However, it is possible that a practice has grown up among administrators. I don't think I would vote to accept an arbitration case from a banned user whose page had been blanked and protected. I just know I would not do it unless they were being disruptive in some way. I think free communication regarding our decisions is more important than driving that last nail in their coffin. Fred Bauder 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly that there should be a policy blanking banned users' talkpages you could try to get one established by consensus. At the moment there is no such policy, or consensus. Thus I don't think you were right to a) blank EffK's page ; and b) extend his block - without any warning - for doing something there is no policy against, and he felt he was perfectly entitled to do.Bengalski 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration case (in Remedy 2) did not indicate that he was only banned from part of Wikipedia; it most certainly does not only ban him from articles, that is just invention. Thus he is banned from all of it. The other remedies continue to apply once his year ban expires, but until then he is banned in toto. As for blanking the talk page, well, that's just tough luck for misusing it. He was not entitled to do it, no matter what he felt. And I'll reply to talk page messages when I am good and ready. There is no need to duplicate sections. -Splash - tk 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Splash, you could be a bit more civil. The policy on bans seems rather open to interpretation - you have one interpretation of it, the arbitrator I quoted has a different one, I have maybe yet another - that does not amount to 'invention' on my part. Me not being an admin doesn't mean I don't have the wit to read WP policy and form intelligent judgements on it. What I don't have is the power to hand out extra six month bans for minor infringements of my personal interpretation.Bengalski 23:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The arbitrator was talking about whether or not to blank the talk page. That has no bearing on whether or not EffK is entitled to edit it: he is not. His ban is total. Violating a ban gets the ban extended. This is not a matter of my personal interpretation. It is, fractionally, interpretive whether or not the talk page should be blanked. It is immaterial to the banned user, however, since they are forbidden from editing it in any case. He has no right to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, nor to use his talk page to continue to engage in exactly that which got him banned. It is invention that he is only banned from articles and his userpage, since the Arbitration remedy says no such thing. I am not going to either unblock him, or unprotect his userpage: he has demonstrated that he will abuse the situation if I do. -Splash - tk 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with them making statements about their situation or regarding the arbitration case - suggests to me that they may still edit to make such statements. Other banned users also do so; EffK's page was locked before by admins when he was accused of personal abuse, but his editing per se was not seen as an infraction, and the page was later unlocked again. Extending the ban on the grounds that he broke the ban - when it's not clear he did - just seems very heavy handed.Bengalski 00:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Other banned users should not also do so. EffK happened to come to my attention, and I have acted similarly in respect to other banned users in the past. I've little to no sympathy for banned users: they are the ones who got themselves banned by being shockingly bad for the project, and the to-and-fro and negotiation and dispute-resolution ceases with the Arbitration remedy which is final and binding. Therefore, I consider the matter to be closed. -Splash - tk 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ben is right in so far that a banned user is (to my knowledge) allowed to edit his user talk page.
 * However, he is not allowed to use it as a soap box which EffK undoubtedly did in an extreme way. When a banned user gets into trouble because he cannot create archives for an overcrowded talk page that tells you something.
 * A banned user is also not allowed to use his talk page to slander or attack other editors. EffK has repeatedly done this. He has been warned about this earlier in the year - his talk page was protected because of that and only unprotected because the editors he attacked (mainly me) were willing to give him another chance. Which he blew recently.
 * The blanking is in order, as merely protecting the page would actually retain the slanders and bigotry uttered.
 * Finally, Ben is IMHO the last person that should complain about this all, as he served as EffK's accomplice in that soap boxing, copying EffK's whole talk page. Str1977 (smile back) 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Banned users may not edit Wikipedia. End. That a technical feature means that they can does not mean that they may. Banned users may not edit Wikipedia. It cannot be any clearer than this. -Splash - tk 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Splash yes you've made your position very clear - we plainly disagree on interpretation of the bans policy, but I'll take it somewhere more appropriate where we can get other views. Bengalski 11:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Splash, your decision to protect EffK's talk page is, in my view, completely in accordance with the protection policy, which states that "if a user abuses this feature, and continues with vandalism or disruption such as excessive personal attacks on his own User Talk page, the page can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage." Bengalski is well aware that EffK has engaged in such personal attacks as "brother of the murderer", "very iffy company", "source of moral pollution", "you will have to be controlled", "you read Hitler's mind and reveal his thoughts, but they are yours", "shameless and immoral", "sinister", "on the point of mental sickness", "blaggardly user", "your morality is highly objectionable", "very dangerous immoral people", etc. Without resorting to such abuse himself, Bengalski has constantly supported EffK in his behaviour, even to the point of transferring the contents of EffK's user page to his own user page when an administrator blanked it, and posting stuff that implied that EffK had been banned because of his POV, which is absolutely untrue. Bengalski is also fully aware that EffK's page was protected before, because of his continuing attacks, and that it was unprotected through the kindness of the victim of his attacks, who did not want EffK to suffer the frustration of having communication completely cut off; and that he was warned (repeatedly) that it would be protected again if he continued to abuse it.

For the record, I do not blame EffK at all. He seems to be sincere in his belief. I assume, at least I hope, that Bengalski does not share the views that the Catholic Church is trying to take over the world through Wikipedia, that Pope Benedict should order Pope Pius XII's body to be exhumed so that he can face a church trial and be excommunicated posthumously, that Str1977 is a Vatican agent who was sent to Wikipedia when Pope Benedict was elected in order to oppose EffK's work (EffK was calling himself Flamekeeper at the time), that Jimbo is culpable for allowing Vatican agents to take over Wikipedia, that Jimbo should post an apology to all of EffK's numerous talk pages, or that EffK's life would be in danger if the Vatican agents (i.e. Str1977, and perhaps myself, as a friend of Str) discovered his real identity. It seems disingenuous for Bengalski to try to imply either that Str1977's criticism of EffK or that the Arbitration Committee's ban is in any way related to holding views unflattering to the Catholic Church, but backed by some historians. User:Robert McClenon held the view that Pope Pius had some culpability, and User:John Kenney is not a Catholic; yet both worked amicably with Str1977 and opposed EffK, because of his extreme views (dig up the body), his disruption of talk pages (filling them with lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong posts that were not related to how to improve the article), and his offensive attacks (brother of the murderer, source of moral pollution).

Bengalski has not, in my view, been a good friend to EffK. If he had been, he would have tried gently to discourage EffK from the behaviour that got his talk page protected. I was a better friend. Although, unlike Bengalski, I do not share EffK's POV, I always helped him when possible. I ensured that the admin who was blocking the alternative accounts did not put "sockpuppet" in the block log, as I accepted that EffK had never used sockpuppets. I helped him with technical problems on his own talk page. I sent him kind messages when he was upset. It was I who unprotected his talk page, in that "second chance" that turned out to be so misguided. I predicted the necessary consequences of his continued attacks on Str1977, without pleasure, and pleaded with him to be more careful in his posts, as I didn't want him to lose the privilege of editing his talk page again. Bengalski simply stood by, watched him making numerous insults against someone that Bengalski himself was in editing dispute with, did absolutely nothing to discourage him (his advice might have had some effect, as EffK regarded him as an ally), and if anything, implicitly encouraged him by his support, and then protested when the inevitable consequences happened, trying to imply that EffK had said nothing worse than "jesuit", and that Str's criticism of him is because he holds a mainstream historical view that Str disagrees with.

Regarding the extension of the block, I think that was undeserved. Sam Korn, one of the arbitrators, suggested protecting his page when he continued to use it as a soap box, but did not suggest that his block should be extended. Another arbitrator, Mindspillage, did not seem to mind that he was still posting on his talk page, as long as his posts were acceptable (which unfortunately they weren't). I raised the issue of his posts at one of the admin noticeboards some time ago, and none of the other admins seemed to think his talk page posts were a cause to extend his block. When I unprotected his talk page, I told him that I was giving him a second chance to be able to communicate (I also consulted with the admin who had protected it); so if EffK was doing wrong in simply posting there (I don't question that the content of what he was posting was problematic), it was because he was misled by an administrator &mdash; myself. I therefore feel that he should not be penalized for that. I hope it's okay with you, Splash, if I discuss it with the ArbCom, and, if they agree, that I change it back to an expiry date of February. That said, I think it's quite likely that he'll be indefinitely banned some time after his temporary ban expires (and I wouldn't oppose that), as he is obviously not here to write an encyclopaedia, and doesn't seem to be interested in, or capable of, avoiding the behaviour that will lead to a ban. (Jimbo advised him last year to leave Wikipedia with his head held high and his dignity intact, as he was the kind of user who would eventually be banned.) Since being banned from Wikipedia, he has also taken up residence on other wikis and been banned from them. In some cases, he can't speak the language, but was just using the site as a place to air his views. See, for example, his talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia.

User:Skyring was banned for a year for stalking another user. He used numerous sockpuppets to evade the ban (something that EffK never did), and each time he did so, his ban was reset. However, his ban was never reset simply for posting on his own talk page, although lots of admins were watching that page. So I honestly don't think that the ArbCom intends that posts on one's own talk page should lead to a ban being reset. I regret having unprotected EffK's page, as I did know, deep down, that he wouldn't be able to refrain from the behaviour that got it protected in the first place &mdash; behaviour that Bengalski apparently has no problem with. But I did find it sad for him, that he so sincerely believes his theories, and that nobody except Bengalski wants to listen to them. And I thought it would be frustrating to have all communication cut off. (He can't contact other users by e-mail, because he's apparently afraid of the Vatican agents tracking his identity if he gives his e-mail address to Wikipedia.) Of all the users I've known to be banned by the ArbCom, I think that he is the least culpable. But obviously, it's disruptive to Wikipedia to allow his behaviour to continue, regardless of his level of culpability.

Sorry about the length of this post. It is a complicated situation. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom clarifies when his block expires, then that's as final as their original ruling (unless EffK stumbles on the trip-wire, of course). Although I'd encourage seeking more than one random Arb's opinion; they don't seem as effective when they don't work in Committee. If EffK is polluting other projects also, perhaps Jimbo should be engaged to decree a Wikimedia-wide ban (seriously). The trouble, generally, with engaging sympathetically with banned users is that they are not the kind that reward the involvement: they have to pretty atrocious before getting banned in the first place. Once banned, it's pretty much a cliff edge; Wikipedia is not therapy, after all. -Splash - tk 12:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Splash, I am no expert on WP procedure and ruling but my understandig was that he was allowed to edit his talk page as a sort of grant (though codified in the rules) as long as he didn't abuse that permission. We are one at the point that EffK did exactly that and therefore the protection and blanking were in order.
 * Thanks, Ann, for pointing out again that much against the legend that EffK and Bengalski tried to spin, EffK was not banned for his POV but for disruptive behaviour. I can't see anyone (myself included) here anywhere near opening procedures against Bengalski, despite the obvious similarity of POV. The reason is the difference in behaviour.
 * I wasn't so much bothered with the numerous personal attacks EffK levied against me, as they were clearly noticeable as exactly that. However, what I cannot and will not tolerate is slander i.e. the posting of false information or speculation about my person. Now, though I respect the Society of Jesus and I am not (and never will be) a member, know very few actual Jesuits and have certainly not discussed anything in this regard with them. It is also slander (and even more: bigotry), that Jesuits are allowed to lie while normal Catholics are not. It is also slander and bigotry that Catholics are somehow remote-controlled by the Pope, not being allowed to think for themselves. All that I have written here, I did out of my own will, thought and responsibility - and despite numerous statements in that direction, EffK has consistently claimed otherwise (hence acting in bad faith), because he apparently thinks that one can discredit arguments like that. After all, this is the way he operates regarding the literature I provided (Volk and the Scholder reviews are by clerics, so we can ignore them. That Volk was a respected scholar, that the review was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that Scholder is a Protestant are of course unimportant to him.)
 * So all in all, we have personal attacks, slander, bigotry and academical dishonesty when we are talking about EffK. As sincerely as he is in his beliefs, that is what you are defending here, Bengalski. Str1977 (smile back) 13:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Str please stop making these attacks on me, particularly somewhere I have no chance to respond. If you really think I'm spinning and defending slander and bigotry, then do 'open procedures' against me.Bengalski 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But, if we're counting Arbitrators, then this diff in response to last time I re-banned a banned user for editing their talk page is in agreement with me doing so. -Splash - tk 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * During the same affair SPUI continued to edit his talk page while banned and no-one reset his block. I personally don't think it's useful to stop banned users from editing their talk page unless they're actually using the page for something objectionable. Semi-protection is overused enough as it is. I know Dmcdevit is gung-ho about this but I haven't seen other arbitrators come out strongly in favour. Haukur 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I got as far as the Special:Blockip with SPUI, though, and decided not to since his ban expired in something like 48 hours. Dschor did also persist in editing even after being told to stop and being told that it would extend his ban. My patience is finite, and it doesn't generally extend to explaining things twice to banned users. -Splash - tk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously you can do what you like with your talk page, but I'm interested in why you snip my few lines of 'excess material' while leaving paras of off the point (never mind partisan and inaccurate) attacks on me from two other editors.Bengalski 13:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed only that portion which dealt with topic-related remarks. Something about a Pope. It being unrelated to the question at hand, and the posts here already being nearly long enough to earn a PhD, I decided to begin trimming. If you think I have altered your meaning, you can reinstate the removed portion. -Splash - tk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Splash, for your response. And don't worry, I'm not going to take up residence at your talk page with long commentaries on this situation. This will probably be my last post. I'd suggest to Bengalski and to Str1977 that if further discussion is needed, not on the extension of the block and the protection of the talk page, but on the behaviour that led to the ban, it might be better to hold it on one of their talk pages, or on mine. I could be wrong, but I doubt if Splash wants to take part in lengthy discussion on a case that he's not involved in. To Splash, then, I'll just say thanks for the diff. It seems to be not completely laid down as to whether or not the ArbCom intend that banned users should be allowed to edit their talk pages. The feature making it possible was only implemented a little over a year ago, so perhaps no policy has been made clear yet. Some ArbCom members seem to allow it, while others seem not to. If it is forbidden, I think the situation is different here, because EffK was led (by me) to believe that it was allowed, so he wasn't knowingly violating anything (except the NPA and AGF policies). I take your point about the dangers of engaging sympathetically with banned users. I am fully aware that what EffK wants and intends is not in line with what Wikipedia wants and intends, so he really has no place here, although it is unfortunate for him. I'll make contact with Jimbo and the ArbCom members, and raise the question of the appropriate date of block expiry, and whether he should be allowed to post on other language Wikipedias, where he doesn't know the language. No huge hurry, since the ban wasn't due to expire until February. Thanks again for your patience, and I hope not to bother you again. If I have anything else to say, that doesn't relate to ArbCom and administrative decisions, I'll say it on Str's talk page or Bengalski. AnnH ♫ 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that, as a banned user, he knew very well what WP:BAN says, so he certainly knowingly violated that (AGF has a handy exception when bad faith has already been demosntrated, which it has been by definition if a user got banned). The talk page technical feature, well, if there were to be an exception, the Committee should/would specify that, but otherwise, the opening sentences of WP:BAN are very clear, and User talk: space is much a part of Wikipedia as everywhere else is. -Splash - tk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've raised this at the rfa page here. Let's discuss it there - if the arbcom agree that's appropriate. But please without personal accusations - any condemnation of me you are welcome to post on my own talkpage. Thankyou Splash for this use of your space, I won't post here again.Bengalski 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal more to contribute on the topic. Here endeth. -Splash - tk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser
It seems to me that if he persists in denying that all these IP actions are anything to do with him, then the best thing is to test his assertion, by running a 2nd, comprehensive, CheckUser. It is a straightforward and uncontrovertial suggestion, I would have thought. In fact I am surprised that Mallimak has not requested a CheckUser on all those (30 plus) Ip addresses himself, if he really were an innocent party. But the evidence is utterly overwhelming. --Mais oui! 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CheckUser is the only way that this is ever going to be resolved (unless of course one takes a common-sense look at the edit histories of his many socks, in which case it is crystal clear). I am not going to waste one minute more of my time than necessary on Mallimak. It is in the hands of the Admins as far as I am concerned (as it should have been long, long, long ago). I urge you to file a CheckUser, but I will not waste my time, because he has already been caught, and just turns round and denys it, making a mockery of the entire project. --Mais oui! 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD G11
Isn't that basically Brad's delete advertising garbage message that was on foundation-1 a while back? -- Tawker 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's foundation level, Danny re-added it back. Not sure if its WMF official policy now -- Tawker 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem here? I think you ought to know I've used the db-spam tag several times in the last few hours and it's worked like a charm: Instant death to "corporate vanity", as User:BradPatrick calls it. I saw it listed in the sidebar on WP:CSD so I figured it was legit. In any event, I've never seen anything that simple which results in deleted articles that quickly; it's an absolute godsend to the non-admin WikiGnome! --Aaron 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not Foundation level if done with that particular account, no. (I'm pretty sure you are aware of that fact.) The foundation starting to issue what amount to executive orders to admins is a very bad way to proceed. Particularly when Danny does so with a flippant edit summary and no trace of a talk page note on WT:CSD. I do not read any of the mailing lists, so if there's some policy decree there then someone should press their edit button and tell us ignorant fools about it on Wiki. This can be hard, I know. -Splash - tk 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-September/054712.html is the link - it's been circling around somewhere around here, it's somewhere on wiki somewhere hidden in these 1 mil + pages. I guess it is legal liability and hence the directive from Brad.... it's not like the critereia covers any "good" articles - just blatant advertising spam etc (you'd be amazed how much a link on Wiki can do on PageRank) - feel free to give us a visit on IRC tho, things have changed a bit since your last visit  "Last Seen: 8 weeks 5 days (11h 54m 59s) ago" that you blessed us with your presence :) -- Tawker 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link; it does not amount to anyone lifting their edit button though. I do not buy a legal liability argument particularly (and Brad does not really seem to make one), since editing an article to be neutral etc etc is hardly going to get the Foundation sued, unless they have really bad counsel. Incidentally, Brad recently decided that the Foundation does not publish anything, but that the editors do that themselves. Whilst having a few days of PageRank points is unfortunate, it does not harm the project in any way. The only people it harms are Google, and they're big enough to either a)fix it or b)take the knocks for it. -Splash - tk 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo the dictator
Is this a better place to discuss it, it's actually a fairly fundemental issue to Wikimedia as a whole. Does Jimbo override community consensus on non-legal matters? Last time an issue like this came up, I was offered a backdoor flag, I refused it and went instead to AN and RFBA and got flamed for making a proposal in good faith. It is a big issue though, you think it's important enough for an official policy? -- Tawker 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if he's a dictator, he's not a terribly effective one because the project gets all kinds of criticism from within. On the other hand, those individuals who become divergent from Jimbo's goals (and that those are the only ones that matter is repeatedly part of the modish rhetoric) are cast out; either by those with the modish rhetoric or by the Committee. (It always amuses me greatly that the People's Republic of China has a similar committee headed by a similarly powerful individual.) But I am getting too close to suggesting that Wikipedia is Communism...
 * An example of 'override' might in fact be the most recent appointments to the Committee, where the rules for the election were changed after the votes were cast and thus resulted in a different result to that voted on by the community. Who is to know what the outcome would have been had the eventual rules in fact been in place at voting time? Whether the override was correct or not is a different question; it was an override still.
 * Also, in the recent Board elections, he came out ultra-strongly for one candidate who went on to win; not the actions of a democratic master, really.
 * In that his decisions are final, non-negotiable, without appeal, this way or the highway decisions, he exhibits power not unlike that of those we term dictators. In that he listens at times to the community, he is unlike the dictators; in that at other times he does not listen he is also unlike them: they simply aren't even interested in the advice. The project continues to run and expand however, so if he is a dictator, he is a benevolent one.
 * The idea of having a consensual policy on a dictatorship could leave the world with an irony shortage for generations. -Splash - tk 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Another one to watch
I just noticed, who follows some Spotteddogs patterns. He participated in the Ousamane Zongo AfD, and edits articles related to New Jersey and US television stations. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am interested to have come across Special:Contributions/OBILI and Special:Contributions/Poncho's Disc. It seems that trading cards are a very popular topic among our newly minted editors this week. -Splash - tk 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And look who else shows up for a visit, . It seems the Spotteddogs ring now resorts to putting bios on the pages the make them look less suspicious. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant to mention that. I noticed the account activate a few days ago. I have to go to bed now, but I'll do some consideration tomorrow. -Splash - tk 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of these I think that OBILI is least likely to be a sock, although he does seem to be having problems with Tecmobowl who I still suspect is up to no good. OBILI's contributions, other than the AFD seem kosher. We should keep an eye on Articles for deletion/Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network to see if any socks show up, but it that AFD seems to have many many other problems with the AFD with other socks. For what it is worth, the AFD seems to be a legit one and I voted to delete. TV Newser Tipline 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You convinced me...
I changed my vote to Keep. Also glad to see I'm not the only one who balks at the idea of a Bot Admin. Jcam 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus
Look at the protection log and the page history. It has been a constant target of vandalism; most recently, I unprotected it 48 hours ago and there was an immediate deluge of vandalism from IPs. I hope you are going to watch the page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is really not a deluge. I did of course look at both those things before unprotecting. -Splash - tk 09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits...
Thanks for this edit. Didn't notice it until now. Pleasant surprise! :-) --HappyCamper 12:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -Splash - tk 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't stuff beans up your nose
True its not an article but shouldnt it be cited then it does not look like Plagiarism DXRAW 12:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More CFIF attacks
Just noticed this ip edit from  on WNBC which has as the edit summary Reverted vandalism from a Florida teenager who can't even watch the station to see how it brands. Given the randomness and content of the edits of the ip, it could be a public access machine or an open proxy. Plus, it is tagged as a sock of. For what it is worth, the edit is a fine, since the station is using both brandings. TV Newser Tipline 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD splitting
Hey. Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina currenlty has two deletion debates on it. I was wondering if you could split off the edits for the second discussion debate into Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina (2nd nomination) page. Hbdragon88 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is done. -Splash - tk 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions in RfA
Please do not remove other user's questions from an RfA. They are innocuous, optional, and ultimately will reveal more about a nominee's character and temperment than the standard questions. Thank you. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've brought this issue up for comment on the RfA talk page. Please feel free to discuss this there. I feel that arbitrary removal of questions from an RfA nom might be considered incivil without discussion. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't arbitrary, it was very well targetted and deliberate. Also, I was discussing it with you, on both our talk pages. -Splash - tk 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual course of events was this: you removed the questions then only responded in talk when I asked you not to and after reverting me twice. &mdash;User:Malber (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. My contribs list is unequivocal: I removed the questions, replied to you on your talk page, and then removed them again. -Splash - tk 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

semi-protected List of internet slang
im wondering why you removed the semi-protection for the article? i think its needed, unregistered users keep on adding unsourced statements, usually stemming from their own only and here you are now doing cleanups for these †B lo o d p ac k†  13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl
Tecmobowl has been harassing me and in general has been engaging in vandal like behavior on several baseball related articles. He has been deleteing content from articles, removing warnings from his talk page and claiming he is improving them and generally acting like a troll. Given his track record I am firmly convinced he is a vandal. Action needs to be taken! TV Newser Tipline 08:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Given some recent behavior, I think he is a new Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown sockpuppet ring member. He is staying away from the TV articles, and attacking CFIF, but the other signs are there, complete with the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents posting and playing innocent. TV Newser Tipline 08:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been having problems with him too. I really think he is some sort of troll. Ponch&#39;s Disco 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Put a foot wrong, and I'll block you too. I'm pretty certain your just another sock, after all. As a group, you're just no good at hiding. -Splash - tk 18:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind taking a look at the current situations. I think you will see that there are some problems with these two users.  Thank you.Tecmobowl 06:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not the one removing content from articles and making a mess of them, he is. He seems to be a problem generating troll Ponch&#39;s Disco 06:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ailinel - old deletion discussion
Hi there. I wonder if you can help with the history of an old article I stumbled across when I found the talk page hadn't been deleted? The article is Ailinel, and the deletion log shows that you deleted it, and gives a link to the deletion discussion. That discussion seems to be talking about a non-notable band, but I discovered the article because the talk page had been automatically given the WikiProject Middle-earth banner template, and it showed up here in red. In fact, several talk pages showed up in red, which I've listed here. I'm going to nominate them for speedy deletion soon, or change to redirects, but I want to wait a day for the changes I made to show up in the log I linked to above. Anyway, getting back to Ailinel, I found an old version of the article from April 2004 here. I suspect that that article either got deleted so long ago that the deletion log got lost with the old archive, or redirected, or overwritten with the band article. Is it possible to restore the Tolkien Ailinel material, so I can merge it to the correct location (eventually an overview article on the Aldarion and Erendis material) and leave a redirect in place? Either that, or just confirm what was going on here, and I'll re-add the material from scratch by, um, importing from the April 2004 snapshot at FixedReference.com (to an appropriate location, rather than having a small, stubby article on such a minor character)! Thanks. Carcharoth 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, good catch. Since 16 September 2004, Ailinel was a redirect to Soronto. Then, it got turned into painful band-spam on 31 August 2005, which was the subject of the AfD. I guess the net bad outcome is my fault for not studying the history of the article prior to deletion; or the AfDers for the same. Anyway. I've restored the versions of the article prior to band-spam, which leaves it as a redirect with its history there for you to do as you like with. Do you need a hand getting at the histories of other articles on your list? -Splash - tk 19:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring it. Don't worry about missing that, it is easy to do, and I suspect the band might be more interesting than Tolkien's few scribbled notes about Ailinel... :-) If you want to ferret around the history of those other articles, please feel free. I suspect some could just be recreated as redirects if needed, though one looks like an unlikely spelling mistake. Let me know if you find out anything. Carcharoth 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, regarding Template:Uncyclopedia
I'm here to ask if you were behind its deletion, and if so, why? I am the original creator of the template, and no one complained at the time when I asked if I could create it. I think it brings "interwikiness" among articles, as well as showing the fun side of things, after all Wp is considered by many to be too "dry", and a link at the bottom of articles showing alternative versions for parody reasons would in my opinion improve the Wikipedia experience, as well as prevent some vandalism by "smart-asses".

I thereby ask that that template may be recreated again. It took me a lot of work to create it and I have to confess, I was bold in doing so, but that's what people expect from editors, is it not?

I can't figure very well the deletion log, so I'm not even sure if it was you who deleted it originally. If not, could you please inform the original admin of my position? Or if you point me in the right track, I'll do it myself.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/ Saoshyant talk / contribs 09:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mallimak
It is crystal clear that that IP address is one of Mallimak's sockpuppets, and that Mallimak is a sockpuppeteer. He has waged a campaign of vicious personal attacks on me, including using his User page as a free forum to personally attack me. Admins have done absolutely nothing to protect me from personal attachs, nor to protect the project from this programme of IP sock attacks. I am not "picking a fight": I am protecting myself from attack: which is actually the job that people like you should be doing.

By using an IP to repeatedly remove that sockpuppeteer template he is tring to obscure from visitors to his User page the result of the CheckUser. What on earth is the point of CheckUser if not to expose sockpuppeers? It seems to be a total waste of time. --Mais oui! 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you have just assisted a well-known serial sockpuppeteer to remove the standard template from his own User page, with his own IP sockpuppet: a warning there to assist other Users. To make matters even worse, you are allowing him to use his Userpage to restore a personal attack on me, an attack which Admin User:JzG had already removed, citing WP:RPA:
 * 
 * Please self-revert, because 1. the nature of that account needs to be made clear to visitors, and 2. Users are not allowed to use their Wikipedia User pages to make personal attacks on other users. --Mais oui! 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia
I've often wondered if Mike Garcia was really Johnny the Vandal, as Johnny's English was much better than Michael's and it would have been nigh onto impossible for Mike to have maintained his horrid style of writing, I would think, for as long as he has. But that would mean that his account had been hacked. And he has never bothered to come back and complain since he was blocked, even if his Mike Garcia account was hacked, he could still post to his Michael Talk page (unless he never thought of that), and he could still email people. This new guy writes a lot better than Michael does. Still, I've asked him point blank. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic Records
I've re-semi-protected Atlantic Records. It still needs at least that; look at the article history. A recent music video reference has prompted a swarm of bozo copycat vandals. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

AN
Splash, I restored Doc's archiving on the AN page, because the discussion seemed to be turning into an informal RfC on an individual, rather than a general discussion of the issue of tagging, as the header suggested it was. Hope that's okay with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, no thanks. It's not like I'm looking for dispute resolution. I'd just like CSCWEM to modulate a couple of things, or at least to engage about them. Given a stonewall refusal by him to do so, I can't think of any method other than to raise it on AN. All I get from you and Doc is a holier-than-thou lecturette on dispute resolution, as if you think I don't understand it or something. There is no value in taping my mouth shut; the bot will archive it once it's been quiet for however long the bot expect quietness. -Splash - tk 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Splash, do not wheel war over sprotection. You really shouldn't unprotect pages that other admins have decided to protect (unless they seem to have forgotten to undo it), but if another admin protects again when the vandalism starts up again, you can't just march in and undo it. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which article is this? Tony Blair, maybe. You re-protected after all of something like 4 or 5 edits - literally, which can only have been a mistake, and after 2 (two!!) the more recent time. I can't see how that justifies any level of protection; not with the current version of the policy, anyway. It's stretching things a fraction to invoke "it's a living person", really and I mean the chances of Blair suing Wikimedia are nil. If I was wheel-warring, then you were too. You weren't though, and neither was I. -Splash - tk 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My second protection was a mistake because I didn't see you'd undone it; I just thought it hadn't taken or something. I reversed myself as soon as I realized. My first protection was not a mistake; it was a response to vandalism, and you were most certainly wheel warring by undoing it. It would be best if you would stick to unprotecting articles you have protected and allow other admins to unprotect their own articles &mdash; unless, of course, it's obvious that someone has forgotten and the page has been protected for ages without reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the six messages you left on my talk page: Applying 299 hour blocks to thrice returning vandals is well within my discretion, and relatively lax in comparison to the blocking habits of other admins. I personally apply blocks incremementally up until the sixth or seventh, after which I make an attempt to establish communication with the network administrator of the institution responsible (usually a school) and may require extraordinary measures to meet the circumstances.

If you believe that my block lengths are inappropriate, or, as you put, "not part of the normal blocking vocabulary", and would like to establish a uniform methodology for incremental blocks, I respectfully ask that you open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy rather than jumping to conclusions and wheel warring with other administrators. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no, 299 hours is exactly the right length, 298 won't do and neither will 300". But thank you for the reply. To half my messages. -Splash - tk 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Come again?
You wrote on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: ''With questions generally, they are fine. This cannot be simultaneously insist on being a discussion notavote and then not like discussion when it occurs. ''

Could you please explain this for a non-native English speaker? Errabee 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui! vs. 81.154.94.172
Thanks for weighing in there - I got briefly involved last night without fully realising that Mais oui! had been edit warring over the Scottish / Orcadian thing. Hopefully it'll quieten down a bit now. As an aside, random coincidence to come across a fellow UoB type during a fight over the Orkneys =) --YFB ¿  17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heheh, well - study/work is what I'm supposed to do... might even be in the same building a lot of the time, if your PhD is in what your image contribs imply. Spending innumerable hours in front of PC/laptop at the moment (trying to design a spacecraft) hence drastic increase in WP activity level! Keep up the good work, anyway - I'll probably see you around without realising it. --YFB ¿  23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAr
Splash, I'm sorry but your repeated wheel warring over block lengths with CSCWEM is rediculous, your behavior is attrocious at best, intentional rudeness towards other admins is uncalled for. Please comment at your convenience. . ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not sorry in the least. -Splash - tk 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OBILI
If you needed more reason for OBILI (which you probably didn't), I found this edit which links him to which, in turn, has edited numerous TV articles and been involved in AFD's like Articles for deletion/Roger Moss which was loaded with socks, including User:Melvis who was indef'ed as a Spotteddog. With an edit from December 2004, I wonder if this IP is the original Spotteddog! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I see some odd responses at http://vcn-proxycheck.homeip.net/?ip=209.137.173.69. Even though it says it's not an open proxy, I wonder...  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, and is certainly from a long time ago! The proxy check stuff is odd too.; that's not something I can call by myself in this case. I wonder if the open proxy WP can help out on that? -Splash - tk 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That scanner is meaningfull ONLY if it says "open proxy", otherwise, it is still quite likely that there is an OP, but that it didn't pick it up. Such things should be listed on WP:OP. I'll do another sweep there this week, but I will be bogged down with WP:PP too. Voice -of- All  01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kinkaid School
I'm gonna anon protect it again. For some reason this article is a vandal magnet. WhisperToMe 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I anon-protected the article - And I threw a curve ball! I wrote the St. John's School an e-mail about Wikipedia vandalism from St. John's servers. - I pointed them to Kinkaid's edit history. WhisperToMe 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ponch's Disco
Ponch's Disco put an   on his talk page. Please respond to it. Eli Falk 13:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Splash - tk 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection
I noticed that you sometimes get criticised for this, so I want to let you know that I really appreciate the fact that you're one of the few admins that actively upholds our protection policy and attempts to keep Wikipedia "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Thanks! JYolkowski // talk 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do think it does matter. -Splash - tk 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't forget about me :).  Voice -of- All  17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do notice, and appreciate what you do. -Splash - tk 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the list of old protection anyways..... I never found it and the TS db is non existent atm -- Tawker 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall there is no such page, but there was once, for a time . That page is now dead, but it was a one-off snapshot. See Archive 10 of my talk. I have no idea how Robchurch made it.
 * Related question: the TS is out-of-date, but when I fiddled with the usage of an image here on enwiki, the 'checkusage' tool on Commons knew about it right away. Surely that depends on toolserver stuff? -Splash - tk 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking of it.... it might just be checking each wiki for whatlinkshere.... it might not be a straight toolserver request. Perhaps what we need a subst date making categories pages are protected? -- Tawker 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * List of protected pages is the constantly updated list of protected and semi-protected pages, if that's what you mean. Cowman109 Talk 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Before VoA's bot, there was no way of working out which pages might be protected but not tagged. Robchurch made a one-off listing of all semi'd pages by doing a database query, and that's what I linked to above, but it's now dead. Splash - tk 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean something like the PROD categories? This would have the downside of actually needing people to use the tag, which some of the most prolific protectors never do. Still, it might give them a reason to mend their ways, I guess. Splash - tk 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chunk of your talk page missing
See the edit here. Not sure what happened, but I was trying to link to something I'd discussed with you here, and was having problems finding it, and discovered that it had been lost at some point. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. -Splash - tk 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek
...was actually User:Bonaparte. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that explains a few things... -Splash - tk 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. John254 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell the difference between criticism and attack, then you shouldn't be unloading thoughtless messages on talk pages. Splash - tk 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, your statement "Stop being a bully about this" is a personal attack. John254 18:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't. Is a description of your method. That's fair game. Splash - tk 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Another AFD split request
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2:_Episode_Four was nomiated before for deletion. It's been nominated again, but the nominator didn't create Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2:_Episode_Four (2nd nomination) page, so both discussions are still there. Split assistance requested. Hbdragon88 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Splash - tk 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

S-aca
Hi I've seen you have created a heading for academic succession boxes. Interesting. But would you please announce and insert it on Template:S-start/Instructions, WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Thanks and Greetings  Phoe  talk 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First two boxes ticked. Not interested in engaging in a discussion over something so simple, so I'll leave that to someone else. Thanks. Splash - tk 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, but I've seen on Template:S-start/Instructions, that your heading uses the same colour like s-reg, so would you please change it to avoid confusions? Best wishes Phoe  talk 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I got bored of playing with the colours already as I have no means of working out what the numbers mean. I don't care what colour it is, so you can choose whatever you prefer. Splash - tk 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, thanks, I will do it. By the way a list of colour is avaiable on Web colors and List of colours - for future creations :-) Greetings Phoe  talk 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have thought of looking in an encyclopedia, an online one particularly! Splash - tk 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tse Chi-yung on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tse Chi-yung. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --John Seward 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible new CSD
I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)