Wikipedia talk:Abuse response/74.178.195.23

Unconventional submission
The following is the entire infamous Black sandbox. I am leaving this baby on your doorstep. Please adopt it. We don't want it back because it won't stop crying. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Black sandbox
Mass TV station edits

This is a page to keep track of a strange vandal who keeps adding info to TV station articles. He doesn't communicate. Feel free to modify this page. Please share your thoughts as to why this is happening?


 * We've decided on a simple plan perdiscussion:


 * The "simple plan" in a nutshell:
 * Warn the user with the "More of the same" post below
 * Check contribs some time in the future
 * Rollback all
 * Add the IP to the list below (and comments if you wish)
 * Block IP if he continues

==More of the same==

I am about to revert your addition of unverified, unencyclopedic information to TV station articles. I see in your list of contributions that you have a habit of adding that sort of stuff, and I see on this talk page and/or others that you have been warned often enough for such edits to be called vandalism. I will use rollback to revert such additions, and give you one final warning: please stop your disruptive editing or you will be blocked. Thank you. ~


 * Another new one. Same old stuff so far. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  23:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * New one. Vacation's over guys. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others, but somewhat different. Many edits in short time. Note that this IP has been used before (see near the bottom of the list) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any idea if the most recent edits are legit? Qwyrxian(talk) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

-Blocked for 6 months. Maybe we can finally take a vacation for a bit :) -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  22:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, so sad...I thought he had stopped. Note that this IP has been used before (see near the bottom of the list) in April (you can see our warnings on xyr talk page.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours as of Aug 3, 2011. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  07:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked again! 72 hours for continued disruptive editing. Yay! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 00:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 11:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this editor fits the pattern, but similar edits lead me to believe so. What say you guys? -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it's a different person: The IP is way off. Some of the edits don't fit the pattern (our vandal only does one thing, one way.) Those two facts individually make it unlikely. Together, highly unlikely. I think in fairness, we should only add 99%+ sure entries here. Suggest striking or removing from the list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit on the 15th and 20th look like the same pattern to me. If we don't see any more activity from the IP in the next few days, I would say, though, that it's pretty unlikely.Edit fix:Sorry, Anna, I meant to put this here. What I meant is, if it's only the 2 edits adding localized info, 5 days apart, it's probably not the same person since our regular vandal almost always works in batches of half a dozen or more.  So if this stays quiet, I'd strike it as you suggest. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit on the 15th and 20th look like the same pattern to me. If we don't see any more activity from the IP in the next few days, I would say, though, that it's pretty unlikely.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're adding comments below the right entry? 74.178.222.94 is an IP in the range of many of the others. Too much to be a coincidence. Plus, I see almost all the edits fitting the pattern. Are you sure? Also, you say "...If we don't see any more activity...". I don't understand. Historically, he hops IPs without being blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

* Probably related to TVFAN24 in some way. Attempting to make a name notable when he didn't have a wiki-article. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  04:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)  Strike. Doesn't fit the pattern.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A new one. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Cluebot caught on to this one, has a final warning.-- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  12:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 23:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others.Anna Frodesiak(talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Blocked for 31 hours.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Immediately reported to AIV; rolled back 3 as vandalism--note, using the vandalism recording, while technically questionable under WP:VANDAL, is probably one of the best ways to get Cluebot to catch on, so I'm going to try doing that from now on.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC); blocked for 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same; reported to AIV immediately. At this point, since we know it's the same person, I'm not giving any warnings--just an immediate report to AIV, and a complete rollback.  As soon as I see one diff verifying it's the same person, I'm rolling all of them back, without checking the rest.  I'm down to spending as little time on this as possible.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Sigh...report went stale (!). Another dozen edits came in after that; reported again today.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC) now blocked for 31 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 23:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 00:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC); reported to AIVQwyrxian (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC); blocked for 31 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. Anna Frodesiak(talk) 01:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff as the others. This guy (or guys) never quits! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  03:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks on 26 June 2011. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page previously did not exist.
 * All reverted to 2011 06 22
 * Unlikely. Back again 2011 06 29, changing dates. Possible.
 * ^^Blocked for one year for changing dates/original research issues. Likely related to the other IPs on this list. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All reverted to 2011 06 22
 * Unlikely. Back again 2011 06 29, changing dates. Possible.
 * ^^Blocked for one year for changing dates/original research issues. Likely related to the other IPs on this list. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All reverted to 2011 06 22
 * Unlikely. Back again 2011 06 29, changing dates. Possible.
 * ^^Blocked for one year for changing dates/original research issues. Likely related to the other IPs on this list. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. Back again 2011 06 29, changing dates. Possible.
 * ^^Blocked for one year for changing dates/original research issues. Likely related to the other IPs on this list. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^Blocked for one year for changing dates/original research issues. Likely related to the other IPs on this list. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Notified by another user for adding unreferenced material of former personalities
 * Sockpuppet notice was put up on the userpage; no confirmation if the user has been blocked.
 * Blocked user for "block evasion"
 * Sockpuppet notice was seen on the userpage; blocked for "block evasion"
 * Sockpuppet notice seen on user talkpage
 * User was warned and notified multiple times; blocked for "block evasion"
 * Sockpuppet notice seen on user talkpage; was blocked for several months for various violations.
 * Multiple warnings were issued; number of blocks were issued to that user
 * Multiple warnings were issued; number of blocks were issued to that user


 * List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter K)
 * List of television stations in the United States by call sign (initial letter W)

Other discussions:
 * thread on matter
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive10#Mass_TV_station_edits
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive10#TV_station_vandal

Keys to the Above

 * For the "Status" column (more than one code may be used)
 * "N" - User has been notified, which Anna posted a message and attempted to communicate with that user (see "Message posted attempting to communicate" below).
 * "NAUT" - User has been notified by another autoconfirmed user and/or administrator in which the autoconfirmed user has attempted to communicate with that user.
 * "NALL" - User has been notified; both "N" and "NAUT" applies.
 * "B" - User has been blocked (duration and/or expired date is specified on the user page and/or talk page).
 * "O" - Other; please see the "Notes" column.
 * For the "User Warned" column (only one code is used)
 * "Y" - Yes, the user has been warned by Anna.
 * "YA" - Yes, the user has been warned by Anna and another autoconfirmed user.
 * "YACU" - Yes, the user has been warned by another autoconfirmed user.
 * "YADM" - Yes, the user has been warned by an administrator.
 * "YAA" - Yes, at least one administrator and one autoconfirmed user were involved in warning the user.
 * "YALL" - Yes, the user has been warned by Anna, at least one autoconfirmed user, and at least one administrator.
 * "NO" - No warning was issued to the user in the past three months.

NOTE(S): IP addresses with "0000000" currently does not apply, unless specified otherwise. Other users may be editing this page with permission granted from the original editor.

Socktagged IPs

 * SOCKMASTER
 * not blocked
 * not blocked


 * socktagged
 * blocked
 * blocked


 * socktagged
 * blocked
 * blocked


 * socktagged
 * not blocked
 * not blocked


 * socktagged
 * blocked
 * blocked


 * possibly blocked temporarily
 * (shared IP Suddenlink Communications)
 * (shared IP Suddenlink Communications)

Suspect IPs

 * this one looks possible
 * this one looks possible


 * possible (reverting others' edits; no edit summaries)
 * Likely not--it's a different problem Deconstructhis and I deal with; the ones up top are about adding unreference station slogans; this is about adding unreferenced people to Former Staff sections. That's usually a more individual problem ("But I worked there for 20 years so I know all these people did, too!").  If this person is criss-crossing disruptive behaviors, though, I'm worried that there's something exceptionally problematic at foot.
 * I agree, I don't see any evidence; on the surface at least, of anything beyond a personal objection to the removal of the unreferenced ex-employee list. However this one, apparently based in Alabama, although currently inactive seems pretty "fishy" to me. cheersDeconstructhis (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see any evidence; on the surface at least, of anything beyond a personal objection to the removal of the unreferenced ex-employee list. However this one, apparently based in Alabama, although currently inactive seems pretty "fishy" to me. cheersDeconstructhis (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fits the M.O. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting, I am definitely seeing some correlation between the 'local slogan campaign' material and the editing practice of adding/re-adding of unreferenced ex-employee lists in some of these articles. Perhaps there actually is some merit in the notion that they're connected. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's somebody disgruntled with the industry, like a fired employee. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's somebody disgruntled with the industry, like a fired employee. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * blocked
 * blocked


 * blocked Same M.O.
 * blocked Same M.O.


 * blocked
 * blocked


 * possible
 * possible


 * blocked
 * blocked


 * very likely: same MO; very similar IP range
 * very likely: same MO; very similar IP range


 * same pattern. blocked, expired, he continued. then switched to ip below.
 * same pattern. blocked, expired, he continued. then switched to ip below.


 * same pattern. posted standard letter as appears on Notes section below.
 * same pattern. posted standard letter as appears on Notes section below.

I can't find any others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Message posted attempting to communicate
Standard Message:

I can see that you keep adding info. You have mystified many an editor. Here are my guesses as to why you keep doing this:


 * These are constructive edits with a good source. But, for some reason you don't share the source, and accept that we undo your work. And you keep going.


 * You are a vandal, but do not realize how easy it is for us to undo your edits. (Your hour is our minute, really.)


 * You just like doing this. Ok.


 * You are bananas.

Please communicate. I will post this on the other IPs you use.

In case you don't know, you can click "talk" beside my name, or click "edit this page" at the top. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Now that I've found one (User:Parrot32X) and rolled back all of the edits, what do I do next, assuming more such edits come? Is AIV accepting these edits as vandalism, or do we have a go-to admin who concurs that this is disruptive?
 * My view is just to check back after a while and revert any new edits. The path of least resistance and least effort. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I notice that a number of the TV station pages have, even after these reverts, a bunch of the "Localized version of..." slogans, which presumably slipped in a long time ago before we ever noticed the pattern. Should we go through and remove all of them?  Should we, instead, like Neutralhomer once suggested, just remove all slogan sections in their entirety as unsourced?  Or are the older additions "safe"?
 * Maybe Ganeshk could sick Ganeshbot on this to remove the sections automatically. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's no source, and if it seems likely (not necessarily certain) that text was added by a vandal, then I think removal is a pretty safe move. (Mass edits can be disruptive, but mass removal of a distinctive pattern of vandalism is fine by me!)


 * GaneshK's response:Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about the purpose of this page
At first, I thought this page was going to be used strictly to collect the IPs used to add the unsourced "localized" station slogans to TV station pages. But the two most recent additions are not really related; futhermore, they seem to be making accusations against someone without notifying them. For example, the addition of non-notable former employees to TV station pages is not at all limited to TVFAN24--in fact, the whole reason I first came to TV station pages was because of the problem of lots of local people (sometimes, even ex-employees themselves) wanting to "memorialize" the ex-staff on these pages. I don't think it's appropriate to attribute that problem to him; I also don't think it's appropriate to list here. I also don't think that the adding of small towns is necessarily related to the localized slogan problem.

In other words, what I'm saying is, this page should not just become a repository of every person who makes an edit to a TV station page that we deem to be unconstructive. That seems to be a direct violation of the WP:POLEMIC part of WP:USER. In the case of the localized issue, I felt that the overwhleming nature of the problem, and the need to attempt to get enough IPs to see if a rangeblock is possible, provided a fair balance against the WP:USER issues. If this page is spiraling beyond that, it concerns me. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is honestly my first edit to the page; I was informed of it and though that the addition of non-notable cities was part of the MO, but it's obvious that isn't the case with this one, so I've removed the IP (who ran away upon rollbacking anyways).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian is right. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I want to get this off my books, so to speak. I started this because ANI went nowhere.


 * Its purpose has been served, as far as I can see: It has gathered IP range info and an M.O. profile without wasting the SPI crew's time. Also, now, several eyes are on this rather annoying vandal.


 * It is time, with agreement from others, to move this to an SPI for range blocks. Would this be okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Maybe someone with more knowledge there can calculate an effective rangeblock or set of rangeblocks.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#TV_station_vandal_-_Black_sandbox_closure


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HelloAnnyong#TV_station_vandal_-_Guidance_needed


 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being tricked, now
So, sometimes (not always) when I revert the "localizer", I've also been removing any slogan tagged as "localized". But then, just now, I realized that most recently, it's not that xe's been adding a whole new slogan that is "localized", but is simply stating that one of the slogans already listed is "localized". That means, if I go and revert that, then I'm actually removing someone else's good faith addition along with the localization disruption. This whole problem is so frustrating--I so badly want to just take the nuclear option (i.e., remove all Station Slogan sections in their entirety until/unless sourced, which basically means never). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel your frustration. Let's see what pans out with HelloAnnyong and rangeblocks. If that doesn't take care of things, we can bug Ganeshk about a script to go in there an zap the sections. We could probably get consensus for that at the TV wikiproject.


 * This is some freaky stuff, eh? An actual person, actually sits down, spends hours doing this, sees the orange bar, reads the messages, knows darn well that his hours of work are removed in a flash, and logs dozens more hours. This is not a normal person. I suspect it might be to do with mental redardation/therapy/insanity/autism/senility, or something like that. I'm not being funny either.


 * Anyway, the time suck is our fault. Actually warning and rolling back constitutes 1% of our energies. The rest is spent being mystified by this mosquito that's impossible to slap. :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Filter
I requested an edit filter yesterday that would block the "localized" additions; the request is currently pending at Edit filter/Requested.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I have created it! :) See the log. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job! I'm sure this will help some. I for one am growing very tired of having to help revert this stuff. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure the edit filter is doing its job, or maybe I can't see it doing its job. Does anyone know if its working, because this guy isn't quitting. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also confused. The creator of the filter, User: Reaper Eternal, explained it to me: all the edit filter does is mark the edits with a special tag that isn't actual visible anywhere, unless you check the log.  To see this, go to Special:AbuseLog and type in 426 into the Edit Filter ID box.  In a sense, the filter doubles the recording we're doing here on this sandbox.  It's possible that Cluebot interacts with the filter, but I'm not sure (I think Cluebot's functioning is intentionally opaque so that people can't game it).  I don't know if it's possible for us to ask that action actually be taken by the filter when it catches things; I'd have to ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Range Blocks?
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, so if it has, forgive me for bringing it up again. Would it be feasible to block 74.178.xxx.xxx, as that seems to be where the majority of those edits come from. You could also do 92.82.xxx.xxx. My only worry is those ranges seem pretty large, but it appears this editor/editors is/are never going to stop in the foreseeable future. Just my 2 cents. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  • I DX for fun!  02:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On another note, I looked into the two ranges in question, and they are both from a person in the Jacksonville, FL area, with Bellsouth as his ISP. If this continues, I would constitute we have the right to let the ISP know of the abuse! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  • Talk  • I DX for fun!  02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about range blocks, but HelloAnnyong wrote: "...The IPs jump around a whole lot in location and the ranges are large, so rangeblock isn't really feasible here. The other issue is that they don't reuse IPs, so blocking an IP is largely unhelpful..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But we could still notify the ISP of abuse couldn't we? There has to be something other than just reverting we can do to stop this IP hopping vandal.
 * I don't know. There are several of us and it takes seconds. We've got a rhythm going. My share is less than 60 seconds a week. Not bad. Maybe he'll run out of steam. Besides, look how he hops. Is it really worth blowing time and keystrokes doing anything else? Just my two cents.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I spend nearly 5-10 minutes a day on average. Nonetheless, a complaint to the ISP is probably useless; as far as I know, only one or two ISPs have ever responded positively to similar complaints.  This is because they really don't care--the user isn't doing anything illegal, or even really unethical.  Really, it's our "fault" for allowing open editing.  In fact, to be honest, I'd be pretty unhappy if my ISP decided to harass or block me because some website said I'm not following their internal policy.
 * As for rangeblocks, at some point I'll try to sit down and calculate them. I remember sometimes before reading that the big range looks like a problem, but that if it's broken down into smaller fragments, you can actually catch a lot of them.  In other words, if this user had to keep recycling their modem 15 times just to get one IP address that worked, maybe that might be irritating enough for them to give up.  Hope springeth eternal. Qwyrxian(talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New idea--RfC coming
Alright, this is costing far too much time. And, really, part of the underlying problem is that we have all of these sections that have zero sources to begin with, so it's tough to justify what we should or shouldn't delete. Plus, I believe the most recent incarnation may have shifted tactics--the IP added new slogans, but didn't add the "localized version" text, making it even harder to justify the reverts. So, in the next couple of days, I'll be writing an RfC to be posted on the talk of the TV Station wikiproject, asking whether or not we can simply remove every single slogan section that isn't sourced. I'm even willing to allow an exception that says that if people have youtube links, they can post them on talk and, though they can't be sources in the article for copyvio reasons, that's sufficient to include them. If we can get consensus on that, then we just remove nearly every single slogan section from every single tv station article. I'll let the editors here know when I file that (may take a few days to write it up clearly). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let's hope he doesn't simply add the section headings back when adding info. If we could only get a physical description of the person, I could make a voodoo doll and buy a jumbo-size box of pins. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up: see WT:WikiProject Television Stations. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stopped?
Is it just me, or has the user been quiet for the last week or so? Qwyrxian(talk) 00:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed it too. I was going to say something, but I didn't want to jinx it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rats! He's back. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe even vandals take summer vacation? But now, it's back to the old grindstone? Sigh.  I made an update at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Qwyrxian(talk) 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe he became "temporarily sane" for a month, then woke up yesterday, put on a pair of flippers and a fruit basket hat, and said to himself "Yep. Today, I think I will add nonsense to articles for 8 hours, watch it all get reverted, then coat the inside of all my luggage with Marmite." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejection
I am rejecting this case since it should and is now at WP:SPI. I made the request WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Parrot32X. You may participate. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 10:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)