User talk:Theresa knott/archive7


 * 1) User talk:Theresa knott/archive 1
 * 2) User talk:Theresa knott/archive 2
 * 3) User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive3
 * 4) User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive4
 * 5) User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive5
 * 6) User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive6
 * 7) User_talk:Theresa_knott/archive7

Welcome to my talk page. If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgement, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in anyway, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it.If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.

33451&mdash;troll?
Theresa, I don't know why you have stooped so low as to undeleting pages on the grounds that I am a troll, but I obviously want to put these things behind me. I have given away my old sockpuppet and I would greatly appreciate it if you could delete the old versions in the history. Thank you.

Also, could you explain how it's being a troll to oppose someone who would make a good admin? &mdash; i386 | Talk 19:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No I cannot explain why I think it's trolling to vote no to adminship of someone whom you believe would actually make a good admin. Who knows why I think that? Only the gremlins of my mind I suppose. Perhaps I am crazy? Who knows.

As for the undeletion. I didn't undelete on the grounds that you are a troll I undeleted on the grounds that you have been telling lies. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? Telling lies?  I'm giving away the sockpuppet!  Why is it so hard for you to understand that?    &mdash; i386 | Talk 15:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't 'not understand it'. I fully understand what you say you are doing. I just don't believe you. The reason that I don't believe you is that you have been telling porkies. On the talk page you wrote

"Hi Shquid. You should probably know that some people not only claim that you vandalized the Wikipedia logo, but that your user account is a "Sockpuppet" of myself. I think you should know and be ready to defend yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. As you are a newcomer, I hate to do this to you, but I believe you have the right to know. &#8212; 33451 | Talk 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

that was a lie. You were talking to your own sockpuppet account in such a way as to make it appear that it wasn't you.

You also said on the VP that the account had "no contributions" that was also a lie. Yes I know there are no contributions visible, but that's because when something is deleted rather than blanked or reverted the edit get's lost from the contributions list. I know however that there must have been contributions because there are two messages from other wikipedians on the page. Now we don't get to see when new user accounts are created. Only when they make their first edit, so you see you must have made at least one edit on that account to receive the welcome message from Meelar and you must have made a vandal edit to receive the "Don't vandalize" message from Infrogmation.

On David Remahl's talk page you wrote "No, I've never changed my username once. I've always been 33451" yet you've had at least one sockpuppet  account namely Shquid. So there you are telling fibs again.
 * No, that's not a lie...I don't consider sockpuppets name changes. This account has always been 33451.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 11:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you consider as "name changes". I consider using two differently named accounts as the direct opposite of "I've always been 33451". So I therefore don't trust you at the moment. Of course if you stop with playing games, and stick to just making good edits, my opinion of you in the future will change. I hope that's what happens, I would like to say "oh he started off as a bit disruptive, but he's settled down into a solidly good editor now." But it'll take quite some time to regain my trust. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 12:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * When I say "I've" been 33451, I mean my account, not me. My account has never changed.  As for regaining your trust, I think I'll try that, but how long till I can get Shquid's talk page deleted so that I can give it away?    &mdash; i386 | Talk 12:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * When an account changes it's name it becomes a different account, so clearly the 33451 account cannot by definition ever change name. I'm glad though that you plan to try and regain people's trust. As for the Shquid page, you can give it away now! I've removed the discussion from the village pump, and just left your welcome message. Provided your friend doesn't vandalise no one will ever have a reason to go through the page history. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are not actually giving the account away. You may well be for all I know. But there is an element of doubt in my mind. And while that doubt remains I believe the history of the talk page should remain as well. You can blank the talk page and replace it with a welcome message. That's fine by me. But the history needs to stay - just in case. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semi-policy

 * don't know if you saw this before archiving, sorry to bother you if you did zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As regards all these "proposed policies", is it possible the perpetrators (OK, perhaps a different term would be more appropriate) could use a subpage of their user-page to do so? Or is it just that having them in the "Wikipedia:" namespace draws more attention? Where would one make such a suggestion? (On a user-subpage to set an example? :o) On VP? zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 13:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (Thanks for reposting. I didn't notice it earlier)We need to talk specifics here. I assume you are talking about moving semi-policy to Snowspinner's name space? I've checked the "what links here" and no actual policy pages link to it. So if you want to be bold and just move it you have my support. You should tell Snowspinner though. If he objects then I dunno, VP or mailing list or a quickpoll maybe. As for other proposed policies - they need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. In general, if a proposed policy is being actively debated and/or voted on then it should be high profile IMO Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I should have been less ambiguous. I was referring to "proposed policies", indeed such as the "semi-policy" page, but that is only one example. Apparently things are just put as if an actual policy with a "this is only a proposal" disclaimer. zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 21:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But the disclaimer says it all really. I suppose it depends on who is proposing it. If a large group of people thrash it out on the talk page until they get it so that they are reasonably happy, then the Wikipedia namespace is appropriate IMO. However if the proposal is one persons idea, and if no one else appears to support it, then moving to that one persons namespace pending community support seems sensible? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 08:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Range blocking
Thanks for your note. I'm trying to get rid of User:B-Movie Bandit. They seem to be largely working, but he's managed to get around them a couple of times, and I'm not sure how to prevent it from happening again. Ambi 08:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not all that familiar with this particular annoying user so I don't know his habits. If he is the sort to go on an editing rampage then you can try this.

Range block all his known accounts for one hour. For example

SBC Internet Services - Northeast SNET-CIDR002 (NET-64-252-0-0-1) 64.252.0.0 - 64.252.255.255

can be blocked by putting 64.252.0.0/16 in the IP field. (the 16 means only use the first 16 bits (i.e. all addresses beginning 64.252 will br blocked)This will block thousands of IP addresses in one foul swoop and will catch innocents as well so keep it short and make the summary polite. You'd then have to go on to

PPPoX Pool BRAS1 MRDNCT SBCIS-041403120525 (NET-64-252-160-0-1) 64.252.160.0 - 64.252.175.255 this is more difficult but a /25 will include all those in the range (plus a few extra unfortunately) See range blocks for details on how I calculated these numbers.

and then on the next range and the next and so on. If you do all the known ranges you will block hundreds of thousands of IPs (hence the very short duration that I have suggested).

If he doesn't edit in massive spurts but instead takes his time then the above is pointless. We cant justify blocking huge numbers of innocent people to deal with one problem user. Just go on a massive reverting/ deleting spree instead. HTH Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 09:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bookipede
Hi, Theresa. I was wondering if it would be alright for me to use your Wikipede on my user page. I am a rather graphics-challenged person. :) func(talk) 19:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course. I'm flattered that you'd want to use it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, it's there. I'm still trying to come up with something witty to say about it. :) func(talk) 21:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Editing my comments
Thank you very much for letting me know about the edit. Since situations like this have great potential to exacerbate conflict, I think being "hypersensitive about niceties" is perfectly appropriate. Based on our previous communications, I think VeryVerily does recognize that I have no desire to belittle him, but your change only helps make that misunderstanding less likely. Therefore I will let the edit stand and adopt it as my own words. Rewriting other people's signed comments should obviously be rare, but I'm glad in this case to have someone as sensible as you to fix what I really meant to say.

By the way, thank you also for your work on dealing with the Shquid situation. I totally support your decision there. I will try to stay alert in case new problems develop, but it's nice to know that someone else is also watching. --Michael Snow 23:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not that sensitive. ;) V V 06:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No it's me that's sensitive. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 08:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hello, can I persuade you to vote for seafood at WP:COTW? Only if you believe in it, of course. I need one more vote in the next 2 days otherwise it'll be knocked out ;o)  --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod  »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 01:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sig
That's the most hilarious signature ever. -- Merovingian &#9997;  Talk  02:04, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it.

Robert Brookes
As I said on the mailing list, I've warned him regarding personal attacks. If they continue, drop me a note, wiith a link to the offending comment and I'll take care of it. (That is to say, I'm not actively policing the situation, so if I'm needed, let me know) Snowspinner 16:08, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Cheers Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eugeniusz Bodo
Yup, it was me (as the history of the image would suggest). The basic idea was that the Template:Infobox Biography doesn't work if the image is not named "Name_Surname.format". The actual format doesn't really matter so I simply converted the image to .png. If you don't like it you can convert the .jpg to the name the .png has and delete the other two. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

You've not yet shown me what I am doing that you consider vandalism. I am outraged by the way I am being treated, this reeks of having and initiation rituals, and this has no place in a mature setting. Husker007 18:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a [Delete personal attack]
You're stupid as all hell and know *nothing*! Butt out of the business of your superiors!


 * Note to anyone reading this. Ths is banned user Mr Treason.  Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 19:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Treason
Thanks for the note. I will keep that in mind. Mike H 19:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Merci
I would like to thank you for your efforts reverting vandalisms of my user page. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  20:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

172.155.0.3
COuld you please block User:172.155.0.3? He's on a massive vandalism run. RickK 20:57, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Yeah it's Mr Treason again. I've blocked the whole range for 2 hours. (AOL proxies). He'll probably be back Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sig
Hello Theresa, just wanted to say that I've seen your sig around the place and I consider it exceedingly clever. Lacrimosus 08:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 09:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you do so well with penises!
Theresa - you seem to be a calming balm upon those who come to Wikipedia to work out their penis problems. Do you feel like having a look at Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome to see if something can be done with this steaming pile of monkey crap? - Yours, Nunh-huh 08:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh my good god! That has got to be one of the worst articles I've ever seen. I honestly think deletion is the best thing to do, i can't see how such a non notable idea could ever be NPOV'd. Would you support deletion? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was tempted to nominate the sucker (oops) myself. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's funny! Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 10:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought so too. i quite like the idea of me being some sort of Penis guru. I have this terrible temptation to start to reuse my animated signature, but instead of a creepy anagram, use something a little more apt in the light of recent developements. My how the complaints would rush in ;-) Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 10:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Would "penis wrangler" work for you? - Nunh-huh 22:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to model my longfellow for you... func(talk) 17:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You and your euphemisms! OK i've animated your "longfellow" but I can't decide if I like it better in and out or up and down :-( Take a look here Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 19:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL! I would be willing to help you decide which you prefer... um, never mind. ;-) Btw, do you think Longfellow needs a cut, um, you know, of his hair? ;-) func(talk) 19:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. I'm not going to be drawn into a POV on his "hair". If he wants to have a little snip that's fine. if he'd prefer to leave it intact that's fine too. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiLove




Theresa, I've noticed that a lot of users have a Wikistress graphic, in the shape of a thermometer. I was thinking that an appropriate Wiki-love image to give to someone who's wikistress is very high might be a stylized ice cube, to help cool them. Any thoughts? func(talk) 17:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yeah sound good although an ice cube is a bit of a dull shape. What about a snowflake or a cucumber (cool as a cucumber). Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either a snowflake and/or a cucumber would be brilliant. :) func(talk) 19:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not too good with cartoons - diagrams are my thing but this is what I've come up with so far. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's great, Theresa. :) Mr. Cool! (or Ms. Cool). Maybe there should be a smile, though, as befitting WikiLove. :) func(talk) 12:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do cool people smile? ever? I'll try my best though give me a few days. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 12:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When they work with you on Wikipedia, they can't help but be happy and smile. func(talk) 13:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea who Magenta De Vine is, but her likeness as a cucumber is fantastic! :) func(talk) 23:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Those are great, but what if I'm as hot as a jalipeño? - Nunh-huh 23:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Now now people. Some of you are just going to have to learn how to draw yourselves, seeing as I've got a couple of real article diagrams I need to work on. You can start with my drawing tutorial at How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word note that most office software packages have some sort of rudimentary drawing tools and they all work in much the same way, so even if you don't have Micro$oft you can still follow the tutorial.


 * Well, I won't lobby for the less serious efforts, but sadly, absolutely nothing will ever teach me how to draw a jalipeño.... - Nunh-huh 05:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Try this. heh heh - as if you people don't waste enough time on wiki  The Steve  09:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

About opposition of User:Kate on RfA
Okay, I gave up on this a while ago, but I think that the time is right for one last explanation. So, here it is.

I think Kate would make a good admin, yet at the same time, I don't think she's ready to become an admin quite yet, I think she needs a bit more experience. Look at it this way: Someone once told me I would make a good lawyer, but becuase I'm not even a sophomore in high school yet, I'm not ready to become a lawyer. I think the same thing applies to Wikipedia administrators. If Kate had had more experience, I would have supported her.

By the way, I'm also posting this on Chmod007's talk page. &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Tanks for explaining. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for my statement &ldquo:I've always been 33451&rdquo;, I consider that to be true in the fact that the contributions assigned to this account have never been transferred to another name. The contributions of User:Shquid are not the contributions of 33451, and is therefore not a name change. I'm not quite sure that I see your logic, considering that Shquid was only used once and that there was no proof that I ever used that name as a sockpuppet. As I stated on the VP, it was intended for a bot. &mdash; i386 | Talk 15:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You said that you created the Shquid account. The Shquid account was used to vandalise Wikipedia. Therefore you used the Shquid account to vandalize Wikipedia. That's why I don't want the talk page history deleted. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 21:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you were to look at the file history of Image:Wiki.PNG before it was cleared, you'll notice that there was also a User:I'm Not Good who uploaded the exact same file. Shquid's &ldquo;vandalism&rdquo; was probably a side effect of the bot.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 11:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why do you always try to argue your way out of things? You've already said that you didn't use the bot. So how can it have had any side effects. Also how do you know what the file history of the image was before it was cleared? Honestly the best way for you to gain some trust from me and everyone else is to just come clean. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, I saw the file history of the image after I uploaded the vandalized version, but before it was cleared. Secondly, why shouldn't I try to defend myself against unfair accusations?     &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You forgot to answer my first question. You already said that you never used the bot. Therefore the bot didn't vandalise the logo - simple eh? So who did then? It must have been you. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 14:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * User:I'm not good had already vandalized the logo. All I did was a quick revert, trying to get rid of I'm not good's vandalism.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 17:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You just said in the comment before that you uploaded the vandalised version. You're not very good at this are you? You need your wits about you to lie effectively.It's so easy to trip up like this Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More anti-circ advocates
An anonymous user (207.69.139.10) has been trying to insert anti-circ content into other pages. I tried to get him to talk on the articles talk page but he just ignores it and reverts saying the text was vandalized. Can you RfC anonymous users? I'm not really sure what someone is supposed to do in these situations. --Starx 22:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you can but we rarely bother. If he won't talk just revert him - they usually get the message then. If he continues to POV push without discussion he can be blocked by any admin for sneaky vandalism, but reverting everything he writes is normally enough to either drive them away or get them talking. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anagram
I did an anagram of my signature once, but nobody noticed. -- SS 04:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ha!   &mdash; i386 | Talk 11:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Next time try turning it upside down instead. They're bound to notice that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiWatch Violations
This wiki is in direct violation of the policies of the WikiWatch foundation. The specific citations are: &mdash;WikiWatch (Talk)   13:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Failure to remove all British spelling on a U.S.-based project.
 * We refuse to have our spelling policy dictated to us
 * The WikiWatch Foundation policy clearly states that all spelling should be consistent, and that of the country in which the project's servers are located.
 * What do we care what the wikiwatch foundation policy is?We refuse to have our policies dictated to us by outsiders.Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The WikiWatch Foundation oversees all English language wikis. Failure to comply will result in legal action.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Failure to remove foreign news from the main page of a U.S.-based project.
 * We refuse to have our "in the news" content dictated to us.
 * Again, the WikiWatch Foundation does not allow this. Content on the main page needs to directly affect residents of the wiki's home nation, determined by where the servers are located.
 * And again, we don't care. We will not comply.Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The WikiWatch Foundation oversees all English language wikis. Failure to comply will result in legal action.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Blocking users permanently without first giving a 24-hour block.
 * We refuse our have our blocking policy dictated to us.Admins usually give a warning but are trusted to make a judgement on occasions. We do sometimes unblock permenantly blocked users, but the decision to do this is ours (the wikipedia community) not yours.
 * In the cases of User:Totally Nude, and User:Silver Proxy, inadequate warnings were posted and no 24-hour blocks were administered, the admins did not assume good faith.
 * Are you a sockpuppet for either of these users?
 * You've committed another violation by asking that.   &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Locking the logo to prevent the &ldquo;direct violation&rdquo; notice from being uploaded.
 * We refuse to allow our logo to be vandalised.
 * To say that this blocking is to keep from vandalism is like saying that you're speeding, and refusing to pull over to keep the officer from &ldquo;harassing&rdquo; you.
 * You are very funny. Even so we will not let you vandalise our logo. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism to enforce the law.   &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleting an attempt to let upload the &ldquo;direct violation&rdquo; notice.
 * We refuse to allow our logo to be vandalised.
 * If you break the law, and an officer gives you a ticket, do you say he's &ldquo;harassing&rdquo; you? The &ldquo;direct violation&rdquo; notice is the equivalent of a digital ticket.
 * Your "foundation"'s policies are not the law. We refuse to abide by them. We will not let you vandalise our logo.Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Explain how it's vandalism to enforce the law.   &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Utilizing an edit bar that encourages users to use "--" instead of an em-dash.
 * --We refuse to allow outsiders dictate our formatting.
 * This violation has been overturned as the edit bar content is due to poor software, not administrative error.
 * Needlessly removing a user's nomination for adminship.
 * We refuse to allow trolling.
 * It is not at all trolling to request an administrator status, especially as a representative of the WikiWatch Foundation.
 * Yes Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? It wasn't a yes or no question.  Please explain.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Lack of a proper defense for users permanently blocked.
 * That is a lie. Permenantly blocked users can appeal by email. Wikipedia is not a court of law. No one has the right to edit here. The wikimedia foundation headed by Jimbo has graciously allowed people to edit. Trolls and troublemakers should go elsewhere though.
 * How can a blocked user appeal by email if they don't have an email address entered? The proper way to handle an appeal process is by discussing it on the wiki before the ban takes effect.  That way, you can't discriminate against anons and users without an email entered.  I'm surprised that Wikimedia hasn't been sued over this.
 * You can't sue someone for blocking you from editing their website. You do not have a legal right to edit this website. We usually warn but in execptional cases we sometimes block vandals without warning.
 * You can, however, sue on the grounds that you discriminated because that person did not have an email address entered.   &mdash; i386 | Talk 13:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are a very funny guy. Very strange! Oh well it takes all sorts I suppose. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * For the sake of Wikipedia I ask you to take up the foundation's warnings. I don't want us getting sued over this.


 * Where did this discussion originate? I'm trying to work out where it started, and how User:WikiWatch relates to User:33451 aka i386. &mdash; David Remahl 14:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clearly from above wikiwatch is a sockpuppet of 33451. The conversation started on wikiwatch's talk page. Note to 33451 threatening legal action has lead to people being banned in the past. I will block you if you don't stop trolling. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am neither threatening legal action, nor trolling.  The WikiWatch Foundation is threatening legal action, I'm simply making sure you're aware of that.  And I don't see how I'm trolling at all&mdash;I didn't do anything that's a violation of policy.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I ask TimStarling or some other developer to verify that WikiWatch is not a sock puppet (and verify your claim that you have no other sock-puppets at the same time)? &mdash; David Remahl 14:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because I'm at school so this really doesn't mean it's me, it could be anyone here.   &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But it is you. We are not stupid, and you are veryy silly. If you threaten legal action again I will block you, and all your sockpuppets. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not threaten legal action. I have simply told you that the wikiwatch foundation will take legal action. I can't be held responsible for that.  How long to you plan to block me?    &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That is a threat. You are the wikiwatch foundation. So yes, you can be held responsible. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's your logic, Theresa. You support the Wikimedia Foundation.  I can therefore say that you are the Wikimedia Foundation, and you responsible for its actions.  At least, that's what you've done to me.  ''How long do you plan to block me?"    &mdash; i386 | Talk 14:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The wikimedia foundation does not exist. It is a childish figment of your imagination. As for how long i should block you, I will take it under advisement from other wikipedians. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, you really blew it this time... &mdash; David Remahl 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a representative of the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation. I find WikiWatch to be in violation of the following policies of my organization:


 * 1) Practicing and encouraging xenophobia, as indicated by his comments on British spelling and foreign news.
 * 2) Threatening trivial legal action on behalf of a nonexistent organization.
 * 3) Sock Puppetry in the form of a nonexistent organization.
 * 4) Active trolling, (though the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation is willing to consider that this may be more along the lines of mere childish vandalism)

Unless these activities stop, the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation will have no choice but to initiate Fake Legal Proceedings! Heed this warning, we will initiate these utterly Fake and Meaningless Proceedings against you.

func(talk) 15:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Right that's it! Func is fake banned indefinitely! Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I am a representative of the Wiki the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation. I find you in violation of the following WtWtWWFtm policies:


 * All user wikis must be italicized per convention 6.3e-2
 * Italicizing foreign promotes xenophobia and should be avoided
 * Sock Puppetry and trolling must always be wikified. No exceptions...
 * "Childish" must always link to www.disney.com per Connecticut consent decree 04-102-1 and convention 8.2a-12. (Lawsuit: Mothers against Drunk Browsing v. WhiteHouse.com)
 * All representatives of WtWWF must register as sex-offenders in their local jurisdiction.


 * Unless these activies stop, the Wiki the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation will have no choice but to initiate Fake Request for Comment Proceedings! Heed this warning, we will start a revert war and vandalbot attack to make our viewpoint the only neutral viewpoint.


 * T&#949;x &#964;  ur&#949;  15:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. You are nothing but a sock puppet for Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu. I would also like to caution you that my mother is opposed to Drunk Browsing, as it is against her religion. And please: realize that my viewpoint, in the opinion of everyone who agrees with me, is the only neutral viewpoint. func(talk) 16:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Texture you have failed to wikify to wikfy sock puppettry and trolling in your statement above you are violation of your own decree. Accordingly I think you should start a fake rfc against yourself. User:Theresa knott/RFC-Texture i think fake de-adminship is on the cards. 16:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently this has become a joke, so we now have the Watch the Wiki the Watch the WikiWatch Foundation. You're all under Fake arrest. Can I move this to BJAODN? &mdash; i386 | Talk 17:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * While the whole mess probably is most fit for BJAODN, I suspect your motive for wanting to move it there is to hide away evidence. Would you please also explain why I may not link to your archived talk page from RfA (reply on User_talk:Chmod007)? &mdash; David Remahl 17:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This thread is hilarious. I've copied the entire thing to BJAODN, but it's up to you to do what you want with the original. I'm guessing you'll delete or archive it, since it's already in BJAODN. 19:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment by 33451/i386/WikiWatch himself. &mdash; David Remahl 19:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I archive my talk page when I see fit. Since the discussion shows evidence of you trolling i won't be archiving for the moment. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I must have accidentally timestamped that one instead of signing it. As for &ldquo;trolling&rdquo;, I'm doing nothing of the sort.  And I wasn't telling you to archive  your talk page. &mdash; i386 (Talk} 01:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
While this article doesn't envolve sock puppets or fake bans it does envolve penieses peripeherally, so perhaps might be slightly on topic. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has had the paragraph about sexual abuse removed twice by differnt ISPs with the same edit summary. I think it may be an attempt to remove the info from the article. Have to leave be somewhere in ten minutes, I will explain further if nesecarry. Please add the page to your watch list, look into the matter and review my actions if nesecarry. -JCarriker 18:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK I've added it to my watchlist, if the anon comes back I'll try to talk to him. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks.-JCarriker 05:36, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

i386/33451
I have a few quick quesitons: i386 (Talk) 14:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you know my full name?
 * You told me it by accident.
 * When was that? Can you provide a link?
 * Not without alerting othert people to what your real name is. The page where I got your complete full name including your two middle names is deleted thankfully. I'm an admin so I can look at deleted pages. It was one of the first pages you posted here, you've posted the same info all over the web. The free dictionary.com site is rife with it.
 * Why did you contact my school?
 * I am concerned about a 14 year old boy leaving so much personal information for all and sundry to see. I'm worried that you are too naive to look after your own safety properly and feel you need some adult guidance
 * Ok Wait a minute, Naive? I'm not at all naive, in fact, I was smart enough not to put a person's name with the address and phone number. i386 (Talk) 15:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes but you've already told anyone who care's to look what your name is. A quick reverse phone number lookup is all that is needed to confirm it. Plus you put an address down the raod from where you live. (your mate's house?).Anyone could ( and I in fact have) look up an online map to see your local area. You have a railway line and a river near where you live, no? I already know some of you mates names, because you posted them on wikipedia, and elsewhere. Let's look at what I know about you - i know your name, your phone number, your school, the area where you live, your address, the names of half a dozen kids you know and are probably friends with, your age, and the fact that your are not too bright. It's a good job I'm nice and would never use this information to harm you. But the fact of the matter is, there are people who are not at all nice who are on the net. And if I can find out all this info about you then so can they. The only reason that i know so much about you is becasue you have told it to me (not on purpose of course). Contrast this with what you know about me. I'll give you a start. Theresa knott is my real name and I live in London, England, what's my home address? That's why I know you need some adult guidance. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 20:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How is it trolling to have a sockpuppet?
 * You trolled with the sockpuppet Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How? i386 (Talk) 14:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No! enough is enough. I will not explain. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Believe me, trolling online is not your thing...You're just not very good at it. Find some other activity to keep you busy. &mdash; David Remahl 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, then explain to me how this is trolling. I really don't get it. i386 (Talk 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Asking questions you already know the answer to is trolling, just as an example. And I'm biting. Posting ludicrous junk about a made-up "foundation" is trolling. Creating a sock-puppet and listing it on RFA as the first edit is trolling. Et cetera. &mdash; David Remahl 14:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How is that trolling though? Why wasn't your RFA lising trolling?  I was under the impression that trolling was attempting to deliberately disrupt a website or forum.  I'm doing nothing of the sort. &mdash; i386 (Talk) 14:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have been disrupting work on the encyclopedia by doing these things. Several people have had to spend time cleaning up after you, identifying sock-puppets and engaging in meaningless discussion. Read the first definition of Internet troll. I will now proceed to ignore you, like I should have from the start. &mdash; David Remahl 14:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the definition of Internet troll is:
 * 1) A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
 * 2) A person who posts these.

How does that at all describe my actions? Can I just start a new account under a different name and start over with a blank slate? i386 (Talk) 14:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No don't do that. You have quite enough sock puppets already. Just stop trolling right now, also stop vandalizing and you won't get blocked. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, well can you clear my contributions? And why did you remove my email from Requests for defense? The Wikipedia email is slow and can't fill in subject lines. i386 (Talk) 14:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No I won't clear your contributions. I removed your email for safety reasons. I know the wikipedia email isn't as good but it's a lot safer. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How is an email address unsafe? If my contributions aren't cleared, I will start a new account. i386 (Talk) 15:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good god you are stupid. Just think about it for a minute. How do I know so much about you? I expect your teachers will explain it to you. As for starting a new account. If you do that, and don't troll, and don't vandalise then i will never know it's really you. But if you do troll and vandalise you will give yourself away (Belive me you are not good enough not to). When that happens i will block the new account, your old accounts you school IP and your dialup IP range. The block will be long term. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 15:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you really think it's appropriate to block the proxy of a school with hundreds of students permanently? And if I give myself away but I'm not trolling or vandalizing, will you still block me? i386 (Talk) 16:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes and no respectively Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * All right. By the way, the reason I asked you to archive soon is becuase your page is past the 32KB line and is hard to work with during edit conflicts&mdash;I can't type past a certain character. &rarr;The Artist Formerly Known as 33451 | The page formerly known as talk 19:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Previewing
I've been editing section by section, unfortunately the little "edit" link doesn't appear in previews and to get them to line up on the right I have to add a few breaks at a time and then save it and see how it looks. I'll edit the whole page at once in any case.


 * That's ok don't fret it. I was just letting you know we had a preview button really.Like I said on your user page you're doing great work! BTW you can sign you posts by typing four tildes ~ (The software signs and dates for you then) Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Clown Thanks You
Thank you, Theresa! This is too funny!!! P.S. How did you know what I look like? ;-) func(talk) 21:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A woman's intuition Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry
I apologize. I was merely exercising childish judgement. Please forgive me Theresa. I will now browse the Wikipedia and hopefully add helpful content. I hope you found me entertaining if nothing else. Good day.


 * No problem. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hard ban
He is under a hard ban. How are we supposed to enforce it? Mike H 00:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Revert. If you block him he just comes back under a diffferent AOL proxy. The only way to block is to block all of AOL. I have had to do that on occasion (the other day for example he went on a huge rampage and I couldn't keep up) So I was forced to block all of AOL for a couple of hours while I and others undid the damage. Ev3wen so I caught several innocents along the way (I got emails). But indefinite blocks are not the way to go. Protect your user page, let him write what he likes on your talk page (revert later) watch recent changes and revert his handywork. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's just let him go at it for a while and use the anon RC to revert later. He's wasting a lot of people's time right now. Guanaco 01:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK I was coming to the same conclusion myself. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 01:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank You
I don't know what the protocol is for gift-giving, but thanks for the amusing award. --Feitclub 15:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and the un-vandal. The reason I put the "no edit" tag on the AYC page is because there is a hard copy edit in progress and I didn't want to have to come back and have to weed thrut other edits. Sorry if this is somehow improper. --Stellertony 19:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Re:hard copy edit
I printed out a copy of the current copy and it is posted at the AYC office, with a request to write down anything they feel should be added. It's much more reliable than asking a bunch of other teenagers to go online and change it.


 * Oh I see! Well in that case, yes it is improper. The whole idea of a wiki is that people are supposed to be free to edit. Free editing by anyone at any time has made wikipedia what it is today, and will go on to make wikipedia great in the future. We do not protect pages from casual edits, I'm afraid. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 20:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration edits
Greetings. It is noted that you are involved with the editing of the Foreskin restoration article. Over the pass week or so this article has seen heightened activity in which you have been involved. The article is steadily generating into a POV defence of foreskin restoration. My question to you is simple. If you are not able to contribute to NPOV in the article why you do not simply recuse yourself and just walk away? - Friends of Robert 03:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here you go again accusing me of POV pushing without any evidence.Which of my edits are a "POV defence of forskin restoration"?

this one? where I remove a "Foreskin restoration has beneficial emotional results" and replaced it with " Foreskin restoration has been reported as having beneficial emotional results"

Or is it this group of edits Where I removed " Cosmesis is dramatically improved by restoration" replaced "psycological aspects with "emotional aspects",removed the phrase " This article reflected a pro-circumcision cultural point of view" about the  Prepuce Restoration Seekers, and added a quote from that paper?

My edits to that page have been to tone done the 'pro' arguments and NPOV the article. Did you even look at my edits to see what the were? Or did you just look at the history, see my name, and automatically assume I would be encoraging a pro POV. Please stop with the trolling now. I have no time for you. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 08:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)