User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fluffernutter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this can safely be unprotected now. The level of talk page activity is low and it should be easy to reach on consensus on the clearly notable new content which caused it to protected yesterday. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 13:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Leaky Caldron 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to respond here before and tell you I did it, but then I got distracted doing five other things! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter, I hid some datas of me here, can you "review" my action? I did it without using my oversight tools but just a simple revdelete (I had to do it by myself since I was heavily legally threatened), can you use your tools? Have a nice day! --Vituzzu (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot our timezones, so I sent an email to the oversight team, thank you the same ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in User talk:72.11.253.203. Then again, you might not... Peridon (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've commented there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please protect the page? There's a torrent of vandalism from IPs. -Cntras (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter,

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter. Thanks for semi-protecting this article. Could you please block all the IPs and users who were involved in the vandalism spree. There are so many of them, but it's kind of obvious that they are socks of one another. Thanks. Metricopolus (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dude, for stripping my comment on some RfA talk page. I know I dont got an account. (I don't believe in accounts). I'm wondering: where do I post my thoughts, then? I don't care about voting for these positions. I just want to let the voters know what is up. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As an IP, you're welcome to comment in the "Discussion" section of the RFA (under the "discussion" heading and before the "support" heading - that's where I moved your question about GLAM to). You're just not allowed to take part in the numerical voting sections (support/oppose/neutral), which is why i struck your vote, nor are you supposed to edit the nomination sections, which is why I moved your GLAM question from there to the Discussion section. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. There are a bunch of rules on here. Most of which I don't know about. But, this is really sensible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your long painstaking speech at User talk:WoodchuckCider. Well done :) — Joseph Fox 15:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I was not shouting and even if you say so, it is not true. Second, I am entitled to my personal opinion just as much as you are. You cannot bar me from putting my viewpoint on WP:ANI, even if it may make you uncomfortable. Third, Fae is not my "opponent", as you so naively put. There is a subtle difference between a debate and an enmity. Fourth, excuse me, but you are not familiar with the ongoing discussion, so I suggest you refrain from grandiose terms such as "shouting at heated arguments" without using common sense. Last, do not make the mistake of thinking that I am attempting to win over the debate by force. To any mentally sane person, there is ample and highly proper logic regarding my opposition to Fae's move. In addition, as I stated above, you are unfamiliar with this discussion and hence I again ask you to refrain from making silly comments. Please note that there is support to my argument, so i'm definitely not indulging in whatever dreamy practices you are imagining. And next time, think several times before saying anything on anybody else's talk page, especially if you just barge in to prove your point. AnkitBhatt^WDF 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that I know nothing about that content dispute, but you will notice that my warning to you didn't involve the content of that article. My warning to you was in an administrative, not an editorial, capacity, and it was that repeatedly accusing someone of sockpuppetry without presenting evidence is considered a personal attack and disruptive, especially when done as a non sequitur (or as leverage) during a content dispute. I have no idea which of you is in the right regarding the content dispute, nor do I particularly care; my sole concern here is that you not engage in an unnecessarily heated, accusatory manner regarding Fae, which you currently appear to be doing in multiple places. I notice that you've now removed your comment from the article talk page; thank you for doing that. As a side note, talk pages are generally considered community property, and no one needs permission to post on yours, mine, or anyone else's except under the most unusual of circumstances. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I clearly differ from your dictionary about the word "repeatedly", so can you elaborate exactly how "repeatedly" I have accused Fae of sockpuppetry? And just as a note to your quick-to-conclusion eyes, I suggest you see the (now closed) WP:ANI discussion, and then talk to me in "an administrator capacity". Regarding the dispute, you should not have talked about the dispute at all if you were talking to me regarding only behavior. And no matter how much you press your views, it is clear I am not over-heating any argument or discussion, and I am well-experienced enough to know which editor will see logic and which editor is stuck-up and stubborn, and Fae is clearly the latter, and that does not change even if you vehemently disagree. Hence, I suggest refrain and caution before leaping into the well next time. I understand that Admins are a small community, but that does not warrant unrequited support at all times for each other, even if the said admin is under scrutiny. And please, at least for your sake, read my comments properly before hastily answering. I asked you to "think before speaking", I never said that you are not allowed to post in any talk page. Understand, and then act. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

... for keeping an eye on BLP violations in articles such as Bob Vander Plaats. Your edit actually prompted me to improve the article somewhat. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, that's great to hear! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be of some interest to you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the fantastic co-nomination statement on my RfA. Enjoy your holidayvacation! —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are enjoying your time away from the mop. Just saw one of your earlier admin actions where you acted with calm and patient wisdom and got a bucket of slop thrown back at you by an angry user. Sigh. Anyway, an overdue brownie is hereby delivered. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just <3 you! Zalgo (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Petrb (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Not that I didn't know you are back just thought you should get one :) Petrb (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you bothered by another one, Fluffernutter2 (talk · contribs)? I don't see any signs of impersonation or vandalism, but I haven't looked that closely. Greetings, Drmies (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else brought that account to my attention last month. I'm not terribly happy that there's an account so easily confused with me floating around, but on the other hand, as you say, they appear to be a good-faith contributor who just happens to also like marshmallow-and-peanut-butter sandwiches. Basically I'm not really sure what's to be done about it, if anything. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, SANDWICH. *Cough* Well, I could always block them indefinitely for something and hope that no one finds out. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to fix [1]. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll be the ANI bug. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

I am teh smrt ANI editorz. Yummy yummy nomming other people's comments! :D A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you stepped on Bishonen's comment? [2] Gerardw (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, bugger. Yeah, the edit conflict monster bit me there. Thanks, I hadn't noticed it :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm good at spotting screw-ups because I make them so often. Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

For your help with Nordic Sword. Did you mean to delete this [3]? Bishonen is surely right, this was a sock. Dougweller (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop hounding the poor guy! (see above) Gerardw (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, at that point I was finally about to fall asleep and missed your post, many apologies. 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Dear Fluffernutter,

Thank you for your editing note. My colleagues and I are hoping to change Jeffrey Epstein's profile as you can see. You mentioned that there is a conflict of interest but we represent a large group of people who have been aware of his work, background and contributions for more than twenty years.

Jeffrey Epstein is a very important contributor to the sciences around the world but most critically in universities in the United States. He is also a philanthropist to numerous foundations. All of this can be verified. We are trying to post information on him that is accurate, verified and dignified and does not include all the slanderous and obscene press about him in the tabloids.

The current profile is clearly anti-semetic, slanderous, immaturely written and demeaning. It comes across as a tacky tabloid.

Jeffrey Epstein in our view should be depicted accurately and with the dignity that he deserves.

Could I please resend you and the other editors involved, our summary for your review and approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgeorge12 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stgeorge. There's a couple of problems here. First, you are editing with a conflict of interest, because you are interested in depicting Mr Epstein in a positive light - you say you want to describe him with "dignified" information, but we're an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a Who's Who. We describe people in neutral terms, not positive or negative ones, and it sounds like what you want to do is write a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. In addition, in your efforts to sanitize the article, you were removing well-sourced content - content supported by mainstream news articles and the like - and replacing it with completely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable information. Again, we're an encyclopedia, not an upload-your-personal-biography site, and we require that information in our articles, especially when they involve living people, be verifiable and neutral.

I've taken another look over the content you removed, and I don't see anything problematic, insulting, demeaning, or damaging in most of it. Our BLP policy does allow the removal of poorly-sourced or non-neutral negative information about living people, but other than one paragraph sourced to the Daily Mail - which I've already removed from the article, and I do apologize for having missed it the first time around - nothing in the entire section you blanked appears to be negative, let alone poorly-sourced. If you believe there is non-neutral or unreliably sourced information in the article as it currently stands, you must go to the article's talk page and explain there what the problem is, because we can't read your mind, and while we're happy to make sure that our BLPs aren't defamatory, we cannot allow them to be "whitewashed" so they only say things the subjects approve of. That's currently what it looks like you're doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Back a few days and already accumulating fans! --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I was like, "Oh, yep, Graeme must be huggling today, let's mop this up..." :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fluffernutter,

Thank you for your message. I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should be objective and neutral. However, there is a clear imbalance of information on Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, he has been involved in sex scandals and was convicted, but a huge part of his life is also involved in legitimate and extremely important scientific research and funding around the world. And I'm talking about truly cutting edge science, not to mention the millions that he has donated to science institutions and to scientists. There is a ton of interesting and compelling press on this. His support of cutting edge neuroscience and M-Theory. Important for the encyclopedic reader. So my question is: who decides what should be portrayed first? The scandals or his science career? And if the latter is critically important, shouldn't it at least carry half the weight of the article? Who decides how to weigh the information? I would like to review this and have more true balance of the man displayed. His science work is very important around the world.

My second question is, how do some people like Prince Andrew, get away with a completely stellar Wiki profile when it is clear that there are tons of reliable press sources linking him to sex scandals. Please look at his profile and you will see that it is unbelievably whitewashed, despite all the reliable negative press out there. Even Bill Clinton's profile is remarkably stellar. And though it touches on his scandals, there is no mention that he was impeached or that he was convicted of lying to a Grand Jury. So how do these people get away with it? Is there a secret Wiki protection team that allows this?

Thanks for your thoughts, stgeorge12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgeorge12 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

November 30, 2011 you deleted the page titled "Jameco Electronics". Resason stated was A7. No indication of importance. I am writing to request the page be re-stored. The page is referenced by several other pages as well as linked to several other pages. Including the city of Belmont, CA page, several electronic hobbyist's community pages and a few DIY pages. Jameco is an electronic distributor in Belmont, CA with ties to the large Do-It-Yourself and (so-called) Hacker communities.

I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.100.162 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted per speedy deletion criterion A7, not having an assertion of importance. Since the article didn't have any evidence of importance, let alone notability, and thus doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, I'm unable to restore it. If you wish to, you may pursue creating a new article about the company that does meet our inclusion criteria via the Articles for Creation process. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you reviewed them all, but some of this user's stuff is quite insulting, like this one. Calabe1992 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He's now back as User:98.176.128.144 also. I just reverted one. Calabe1992 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like we've cleaned up the worst of it now. Drop me a note if you notice him reincarnating again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the previous one; it looks like it's actually someone else - had multiple IP abusers at the same time and got turned around. Anyway, I'll leave a note if I see anything else from him. Calabe1992 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While technically true, there's the Jimbo Appeal still left in the toolchest. I know it's not a best choice, (and it's possible it could boomerang immensely) but there's still that option. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. "Body of the last resort available before taking the nuclear option and possibly burning us all to death in firey drama" didn't have quite the same ring when I was writing the statement, however... 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Per your comment at Malleus's latest ArbCOM case... I want you to know, that I am 100% right. ok ;-0 ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

up zorry no again make Carliitaeliza (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

whath?safety? my information is for all no succeed nothingCarliitaeliza (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hola you removed my information?Carliitaeliza (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting that page. The vandalism was coming over from a couple of trolls on facebook. kataanglover1 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. That was rather an overwhelming rush of messiness! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

--Zalgo (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

...for removing the vandalism at my talk page. The thing that gives me pause is that some of our fellow contributors are probably allowed outdoors, even if only for short lengths of time. Cheers, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

S/he's back. Lagrange613 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks guys! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Flutter for the section adjustment to Epstein. I agree that Life should come first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottotiv (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools (I saw your award to FisherQueen. I thought after your work on J.E. you may aprpeciate this) Egg Centric 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

here's a fattening burger! Punchfister (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked in August and it just now expired, and right away he was back for more of the same. Bogus legal threats both times. Maybe a longer block than one week will larn him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I've upped it to six months; we'll see how he comes back and behaves after that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. After another 6 months, and another, and another, maybe he'll find a new hobby. Or maybe he'll have graduated from Jr. High by then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He is. This guy has been constantly stalking my contributions and undoing them for the longest time. I'm suprised I still have to put up with this. He has been insulting me and swearing for no reason for awhile. Can you please ban Ukboxen and his IP for good?

The account he's on now is 199.180.253.185

This is evading the ban you put on him that expires tomarrow (And again, I recommend you make it permanent).

Proof that it's him is on his contribution list. He is undoing the same pages that Ukboxen did and is making similar changes. Please ban him for good, I'm really tired of playing his undo game.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reblocked the main account and blocked the IP, both temporarily. If you want to pursue a permanent ban, I would suggest you post to WP:ANI explaining what has happened in the long-term and why the block needs to be permanent; I'm not equipped to make that judgment myself. Similarly, if you see other IPs or accounts you believe are the user in question evading a block, you would be better off submitting a report to WP:SPI than to my talk page. I am not able to investigate the matter thoroughly; only a checkuser can do that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffernutter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fluffernutter. The appropriate wheels are now in motion :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, happy to have been of service :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please protect Papiss Cissé. It's going absolutely nuts. Calabe1992 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sheesh, did he lose a game and piss the internet off or something? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't know what the hell went down. Calabe1992 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me why the list of unreleased albums can't be removed? I don't think they're relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.226.45 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that you blanked almost the entire article without any explanation. That looks like vandalism, so I reverted you. If you have a reason, please put that in the edit summary when you remove the content, so people you're not just a vandal. 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I put a reason before the last revert. But now, I don't even know if I can edit it without risking another warning from someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.226.45 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you think your edit is going to be controversial, the best solution is to discuss it on the article's talk page and get other people's opinions before you make it. So I would suggest you start a discussion there, or if you have, wait for other people to weigh in there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

that I've undone this Huggle revert that you made because it wasn't an unconstructive edit (it bypassed a redirect). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in banning him before.

But he's back again.

178.99.197.8 made similar edits on Timothy Bradley

178.105.91.245 and 178.99.102.97 on Vitali Klitschko

And so did 178.105.112.60 and 178.99.226.69 on Vic Darchinyan

He keeps on changing his number slightly and vandalizes the page in parts. But it's clearly him. He's making the same changes and has already vanadalized as a 178.

Is it possible to ban him for good or will he always be able to come back? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a checkuser take another look, and unfortunately, the IP range he's operating on isn't blockable (it's too big). We're going to have to cope with this by protecting the pages he hits, instead. I've semi-protected the three pages you listed, each for a month. Please let me know if he does the same on other articles, and I can protect them too. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

178.99.59.32 has attacked Andre Ward, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Juan Manuel Márquez and Erik Morales. These are most of his favorite places to attack, I should have said that yesterday. He also likes to attack Arthur Abraham and Wladimir Klitschko. All the edits have already been undone. Please protect these pages too. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC) ‎

‎

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As per this edit, please remove any and all unauthorized quotes from your userpage, as they amount to nothing but blatant copyright violation, per your own admission. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of there being any quotes on my userpage, authorized or otherwise. Am I missing something that you're seeing? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: how do you feel about Wikiquote, a massive compendium of unauthorized quotes? 204.69.190.254 (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly I think it's a project I don't know anything about. I'm not familiar with the copyright status of its content - if you're concerned, I would suggest bringing it up on Wikiquote itself. Someone there should be able to help you figure out how they handle copyright concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just avoiding the question. You know just as well as I do that the project is a compendium of unauthorized quotes, which, by your own admission, is illegal. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, I think the IP address is talking about the barnstars and so on. Apparently, despite the fact that the people posting them on your user talk page agreed to a statement which reads "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", and that this is a common practice, this is somehow a reasonable analogy to releasing IRC logs without permission from a channel which has as one of its base rules "no public logging". Or perhaps that releasing IRC logs is somehow similar to compiling a quotes directory with well-known quotes from public figures from published works. With logic like that, the IP ought to consider a career in politics. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Or perhaps that releasing IRC logs is somehow similar to compiling a quotes directory with well-known quotes from public figures from published works."

Now i'm no fancy pants city lawyer, but I'm faaaaaaaaaairly sure a copyvio is a copyvio. If posting 2 lines from an irc log is a copyvio, the same amount of text from a public figure is a copyvio. 'Public figures' and 'well-known quotes' don't matter any more than 'private figures' and 'quotes by nobodies'. Those are copyrighted works, published or not published. Hell, by your definition, famous recluse JD Salinger was a public figure. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reported the IP for continuing harassment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly note about 174.95.88.213: You missed a couple of articles: [4] [5]. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You might have missed this, so I'm putting it on the bottom of the talk page:

178.99.59.32 has attacked Andre Ward, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Juan Manuel Márquez and Erik Morales. These are most of his favorite places to attack, I should have said that yesterday. He also likes to attack Arthur Abraham and Wladimir Klitschko. All the edits have already been undone. Please protect these pages too. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've semi-protected the first five of those - someone else protected the sixth, and the last two don't appear to have much going on in their histories. Feel free to give me another poke if the vandalism on the latter two articles ramps up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow's idea of "attacking" is in reality someone cleaning up his mess. It's HIM who's attacking these pages. I cleaned up the Hearns and Hagler records a while back. Have you even checked for yourself rather than taking TheShadowCrow's word for it???

Compare my edit of the Vic Darchinyan page from 16:22, 19 January 2012 to his edit and see for yourself who's "attacking", committing vandalism and creating a "huge mess". He also doesn't even seem to realize that wikipedia itself is not a valid source. 178.98.121.248 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You reverted out a change I made to the Drew Bledsoe article in which I inserted into the INFOBOX NFL PLAYER template in his article, a link to his birthplace, Ellensburg, Washington instead of just having it as plain text. I was puzzled why you did this. Many NFL player articles on Wikipedia don't have the birth place in the infobox linked, but some do, like Peyton Manning. And there is no article link in the article to his birthplace. A clarification would be useful. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! The removal of the wikilink to the city was an error on my part - I was reverting a bunch of vandalism that your edit was interspersed with, and your change got caught up in my revert. Please feel free to reinstate your change. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I was wondering. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ukboxen has returned as ValuevNiko in order to bypass the sub-protection. His edits are the exact same in the Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones Jr. pages. I'm sorry I have to keep troubling you with this issue. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken a look and found a cuple more socks, and blocked them. Courcelles 02:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a minute, could you assist me here? I'm trying to get this deleted for someone who needs a wrong spelling of the article moved to this version. Thanks. Calabe1992 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't right now, but I might be able to get to it in two or three hours if you still need it then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, think i did it. Check my work and make sure I did what you needed done, please. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, and appreciated. I don't know what the below IP is doing. Calabe1992 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to help :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Vatsavl Voorvsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.52.42 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The content that you deleted was under the controversies section; and hence its neutrality was conditioned by that. The current Wikipedia listing for Ms Dutt reads like an advert, it is sanitised and idealised.

It is a hagiography, but to people in India and around the world the NDTV channel and Ms Dutt have long been known of her inherent bias and anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim agenda (I believe that her husband is Muslim). It is an issue as well as I nite that her spouse's details have also been removed.

The issue of the NDTV and Barkha Dutt silencing a blogger under the threat of legal action in the Netherlands should be repulsive to anyone who cherishes free speech and the free-flow of ideas. It is time that this incident be included as it is actual event and is documented.

The listing of the quote that Barkha Dutt was the most 'Most theatrical/worst reporters/anchors' was a direct quote from a published report, which was based on a statistical report. In that same report Ms Dutt's reply was also published.

I believe that the entire incident should be reinstated.

Stochos (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the facts are true is actually immaterial in this case. The way you wrote about those facts was very non-neutral, and for that reason we cannot accept that writing into Wikipedia. I would suggest using the article's talk page to ask for people's opinion about how to word and weigh the facts neutrally so that they're suitable for use in Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (even your condescension). By your standard the entire article needs reworking. There are numerous 'citations needed' Every statement that lacked citation was positive. Somehow that is allowed in Wikipedia.

Objectivity is needed. In order for you to be consistent please remove those comments too.

Stochos (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We edit-conflicted so that I overwrote your reversion to a non-attack version, but in fact the versions we chose to revert to seem to be identical. I have protected for a week and will post at BLP/N to try and get heads banged together. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just leaving you a note saying the same thing! One difference between our versions though - your version contains an unsourced paragraph about a lawsuit involving the article subject that I removed per BLP. Would you consider re-removing that while the combatants hash out everything else on the article talk? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what is the deal with that article? It's an obvious orphan, yet I couldn't believe how long the edit warring had gone on when I found it (that was when Reaper protected it). I only found it because Huggle detected one of the reverters as probable vandalism. Calabe1992 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, I missed that, and I have thought hard about your request, particularly as the item is unsourced, but decided not to because (a) having protected and cited m:Wrong Version, I don't want to seem to be adjusting the content, and (b) without that, it really is a bit of a hagiography. I posted at WP:BLP/N#Jamie Comstock, and other people are taking an interest, and I have invited the edit-warriors to come to the talk page, so I will probably unprotect tomorrow and start blocking if edit-warring resumes.

Calabe, I think it's just two really obstinate people neither of whom took the trouble to ask for help or find out about BLP/N or anything. A classic object-lesson in why we have BRD and 3RR. I'm amazed nobody noticed it before. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffernutter. While I've been a long-time user and contributor, when it comes to reporting / dealing with vandalism, I'm sorta' in the dark. I noticed you and a few other users have been reverting edits to this page. You last warned the anonymous user 94.253.206.45 yesterday about vandalism to the page. It seems this user made more erroneous and vandalous edits today. I think I've reverted them properly, but I'm not sure what to do next. Your warning seemed to indicate the IP would be potentially blocked for the short term. However, I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Lostraven (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like you fixed most of what they did - I made one more small fix, but other than that, you got it all. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for continuing to vandalise. In general, if someone is vandalising despite warnings, you should report them to the "Administrator Intervention against Vandalism" page - the admins there handle blocking, etc in response to vandalism. If you want to do some reading-up on how you can help handle vandalism, Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism gives a good overview of what processes we have outlined for how to deal with it. Thanks for your help! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll definitely be sure to follow up by reading the suggested material. I always feel uncomfortable dealing with vandalism and striking a compromise when it comes to disputes of wiki material. But it's a reality of this site, I suppose. Thanks again. Lostraven (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter--I don't know if you saw my comment (about you!) here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (2nd nomination). I've taken it one step further since no one opposed me (silence = consent): see this edit. i like to think of WP:Fluffernutter as a kind of "Speedy Close." Happy days--we expect you to start next Monday, 4 AM (your timezone). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really going to have to look into those salary negotiations with The Powers That Be. They promised me a 50% raise from $0 to $0, and I've yet to see that reflected on my pay stubs! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you don't mind but in this edit I moved your comments on the clerking proposal to the page where a fuller discussion is happening. There was a danger of them being overlooked at AN. Please forgive the boldness and thanks for the comments! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm still sort of stumbling around trying to get my bearings on today (need moar coffee!), so I appreciate your organization :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fluffernutter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fluff - I'm sorry to bug you about something related to this whole mess again, but the recent behavior of User:Cybermud has been problematic, and I would appreciate it if you, as an uninvolved administrator, could review it. The terms of probation for the article require that editors avoid continually discussing other editors and focus on improving the article instead. Some of his recent edits have commented a lot on other editors, including some severe accusations of vandalism in diff. Some other diffs that I think are problematic: [6], [7], [8]. (I've approached him about the specific issues in these posts, but he's indicated he sees no problem with his edits, and has asked me not to post further on his talk page.) Kevin (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy tonight, but I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And, having failed to get to it still, I've requested some outside eyes on AN. Hopefully someone there will take up the banner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) signing for date, a bit late A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What's going on with John Kiriakou? The correct action was definitely reverting FlannelPanel24's redirection edit, which deleted a notable BLP and was based on a 2007 discussion. But then you undid your revert and said whoops? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was using huggle which is intended to be used to revert vandalism. I reverted initially because the page-blanking looked like vandalism, then realised the edit summary had cited an Afd that looked perfectly valid, so I undid myself. I'm not involved in the article other than that, so if the AfD has been superseded, I wouldn't know about it. If you know what's going on there in general, please feel free to fix where I and the other editor went wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter, I watched your Wikimania presentation and thought you might be interested in:

• A Panel Discussion at Wikimania 2012 on bias, COI and paid editing
• Wikiproject Cooperation, which is focused on collaborating with opt-in disclosed paid editors
• Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, a Facebook group of PR people advocating for broader direct editing privileges and learning more about Wikipedia
• I also felt there were some particularly good discussions here

I am a paid editor (see my user page) who believes a large part of the solution is ethical consultants that can be a guardian of ethics to their clients; Consultants that - through disclosure and oversight - are even more accountable to Wikipedia than their clients.

King4057 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting! I didn't know we had Wikiproject Cooperation, which seems like a great idea to me. I'll take a look through your other links soon, but from the title, I'm definitely interested in the idea of the Wikimania panel. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! The Wikiproject is brand new and the founder Silver is looking for more active members as paid editor mentors, to improve the page and so on. I'm definitely a believer that paid editors can improve Wikipedia under certain circumstances and am glad to see more practical discussion supporting those circumstances where it can be. King4057 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You look like you're a tad more experienced than I am. Did you notice that the guy used multiple IPs? How does one ARV that? Also, thanks for the assist! I am r000t (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's a neat, Twinkle-ish way to AIV multiple IPs that seem to be one person - I'd probably do an AIV report for one, then hand-add to the report the other IP(s). Rangeblocks can be useful for something like this on the admin end, if it's a big enough problem, but for something like this with just two IPs its possible the admins at AIV would just choose to block both. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are you seriously comparing those who hold a different view on civility to racist southeners? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm using an example to demonstrate that yes, sometimes people's own standards aren't those that are acceptable outside of their own small community, and no, it's not some sort of horrible abuse of power to tell those people that they have to follow the standards that everyone else holds, rather than their own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

However, I've added a note there clarifying the intention of my statement, to make sure it's understandable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still troubled by the implication of your remark – as a European editor and not as the case clerk –, but I thank you for the clarification. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)