Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Archives
June 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 – 14 July 2006

Paul Dacre

Perhaps I'm getting too involved in this and having done my 3 reverts in 24 hours, I'll use the time to cool off, but surely calling someone a racist, paedophile and sexist is vandalism. I'm willing to take NawlinWiki's point about how it can be viewed as a content dispute and I suppose there's a fine line between the two categories. Paulhinds 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:GoGoGobots

Okay, these pages go in circles. One page says that stuff like this goes in another page, and that page links to another, and then that page links back at the first one, so I'm going to report this person here. He only edits the Gobots article. He has changed it 12 times. He always does the same thing. He changes it from Gobots to K-Mart Bots or something. Obvious vandal. Please ban.Triikan 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bingolice and his compulsive edit warring, as well as avoiding punishment with multiple accounts

User talk:Bingolice and User talk:graal_unixmad are probably the same people. Bingolice has been warned once, and what is probably his second account has continuosly reverted edits. While I know that my reverting is probably illegal, I apoligize, and have ceased it pending review from an administrator. An administrator had previously ruled that the article is fine but needs more sources added. This individual has engaged in personal attacks (and real ones, as in personally attacking users, not their motives or their actions). He is now trying to get me and others banned because we did not let him vandalize the article, but since edit warring isn't going to do any good, we are hoping that an administrator will review the case. Di4gram 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have we gone soft?

User talk:72.65.235.239 - I've recommended this user three times for a block. The latter two times reasons were given, "hasn't vandalized in two days" and most recently "hasn't vandalized in 30 minutes". How is not vandalizing in 30 minutes a valid reason not to block a user? All the user seems to be doing is taking a short break after being warned and then going right back to vandalism again. This account has virtually no useful contributions other that blatant anti-drug and alcohol vandalism. Is our stance now to keep slapping users with warnings and letting them continue to create more work for others, rather than blocking them outright? --Liface 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Yesterday, I managed to report this guy, and he had not edited for six hours prior to my report (this may not be relevent, but he was a sock of another user). I would suggest asking the admin who gave you that response why he said that. —Whomp t/c 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just relist it again if the account shows more vandalism and hope another admin handles the case. --Liface 03:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning behind the IP I reported. If a person vandalizes repeatedly, and its clear from their edit history, we look the other way so long as they haven't done it in a while? If only the police worked that way. --Bobak 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not the police. You're under arrest for the comparison... --Lord Deskana (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL... as a quick sidenote, Musical Linguist was kind enough to explain some of the inner workings of the administrator action cabal ;-) --Bobak 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK "Admins are never obliged to place a block", "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures used to prevent damage to Wikipedia..." If an IP (which maybe dynamically assigned) isn't currently (recently) vandalising then a block is not preventing any damage, if it is dynamic or shared and someone else is impacted it is arguably doing damage. --pgk^(talk) 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem. Many of the admins in the anti-vandal cabal are slow, to be polite, in blocking a user. That's one reason I rarely report anyone anymore. It often seems futile. Rlevse 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You must not run into me very much. ;) Syrthiss 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should issue a new standard for blocking...? --KojiDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new in this topic, but I personally would recommend two standard approaches:

• Nothing is wrong with being slow, but it is awful being sloppy or not consequent in blocking.
• I recomended today a user IP for being blocked, which had a last warning message from January. I am in principle fine with the policy that users are not blocked after they have not edited for a while, but this should be pretty clear to them, too. So, I would like to see an additional short not-blocked-because-time-bonus-note on those user pages.

My two cent, JKW 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For your second point, how do you know it was the same person? An IP can be reallocated and reallocated. --pgk^(talk) 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That is PRECISELY why ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED on wiki. And as for the time delay, I've seen admins fail to block when they revandalize after a blatant or test4 was issued a mere 5 minutes previously. No wonder there are so many vandals on wiki.Rlevse 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well requiring accounts has been discussed numerous times and downside deemed to outweigh the upside. Many anons aren't vandals, someone reading might see a typo (say) and fix it, have to go through account creation etc. and they quite likely won't bother. Remember the project is about building an encyclopaedia not eliminating vandalism. (The latter of course helps the former but it shouldn't be at the cost of the former.) However that is not something we can decide here, bring it up on WP:VP if you want to drag that up again. I was responding to an instance concerning several months between last warning and vandalism. Did you ask the admin to clarify why they didn't feel a block was necessary when someone got warned with test4 and then carried on vandalising within 5 minutes of getting that warning? --pgk^(talk) 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that at least shared IPs should be prevented from editing without accounts.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with posts

For some reason, recent vandal reports that have been made have not been able to use the Wikipedia code and have simply shown up as the characters that are typed when posting.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot a </nowiki>. I put it in for you. MER-C 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a template for use with this page

I created the following template for use with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It's {{subst:Non-admin fwarn}} and is seen below:

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.

Please consider it's use on offending user talk pages to notify them of being reported on this page. If it's acceptable, let me know what I can do to add it to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thanks, BrianZ^(talk) 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it add to the existing ones? It's a little wordy and contains at least one spelling error as well. --Guinnog 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It adds a link to WP:AIV so that offenders know that there is a record and report of their activity. Less-persistant vandals (such as ten year olds adding the phrase "Joe Smith smells like 3 day old diapers" to the NATO article, may stop at the suggestion that admins are watching them and aware of their activity. Also, Many other templates are in the form of "Stop... or I'll say stop again." By using this template, non-admins can state that the offending user has been warned several times and now reported as a final resort. As far as spelling error... Where? I can be wordy myself so I understand what you're saying. :) Thanks for your input BrianZ^(talk) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Made changes based on Guinnog's suggestions. BrianZ^(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I've never been a big fan of linking vandals to AIV. Most probably don't know it exists, and telling them, "You've been reported here!" might be a form of WP:BEANS. I think getting in the practice of linking vandals here would increase the number of times vandals try to remove their own entry or blank the entire page or who knows what. Anybody else agree, or am I just being too cautious? (P.S.- On these same lines, though, I wouldn't be opposed to saying, You have been reported to an administrator, who will review your edits shortly. without the link.) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes like you requested, as after hearing your POV I agree with you 100% EWS23. Please see changed template above. The warning itself still let's the offender know that they have been reported to administration and blocking is most likely inevitable yet it's not in a threatening tone. BrianZ^(talk) 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This template seems sorta usless to me...This thing seems like an inbetween for test4 and test5, which is pretty pointless to me. KojiDude (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never thought that test4 and test5 were something a regular editor without admin permissions should use. They basically say, "Stop, or you might get blocked if an admin notices your vandalism." (Unless I'm wrong and they are added to a category that admins regularly check). This template tells the vandal that administration has been notified of their behavior directly. If I'm wrong and test4 and test5 do add a user to a list patrolled by admins than I agree, this template wouldn't be needed. I personally never tell someone they'll be blocked the next time that they vandalize if I can't be sure they will. BrianZ^(talk) 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of telling people they've been reported here. It effectively says "I want to block you, but have no power myself" which just encourages vandals as they know they're getting away with it. -- Steel 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but, if used correctly and the user is added to the WP:AIV page at the same time, they won't be getting away with anything. I also disagree that non-admins don't have power. I think that we all have power to make WP better, we just don't have permissions to block users. We have the power to notify administration to curtail vandalism and other poor behavior. BrianZ^(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote for use

Please discuss improvements to the possible template in the space above. If we can't come to a concensus, then I'd just assume the template be deleted. Please vote here:

• Yes - Granted it's my template, but I've had about 3 instances in which I wished I had something like this in the last 2 weeks. It's why I created it. BrianZ^(talk) 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - or something like it. Rklawton 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• No per Steel's comment. --Chris (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

*Yes - As said... if you WANT to use it, you can use it... but if you dont want to use it. don't. --Deenoe 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral After a short reflexion.. I figured that giving them the link they would probably vandalize the list too... --Deenoe 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are we voting on this? If you want to use it, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. -- Steel 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to arbitrarily add a template I created to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I was under the impression that it should be voted on and approved by a group. I was trying to do the right thing. If it's unneccessary I'll add it to the page. BrianZ^(talk) 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A vote isn't really appropriate. If you want consensus, you have to convince others that the template is good, or be convinced that it isn't, not take down numbers. Do you think that the current templates, specifically the ones with the stop hand that say it is your "last warning" and you will be blocked for vandalism, are ineffective? I don't think that a vandal should at all be notified of this page, or given any sort of peek at how Wikipedia works to stop vandalism. If this vandalism will encourage vandals to come to this page and remove vandalism warnings, of it will be a sort of WP:BEANS, that leads them to realize they could mess up Wikipedia even more than just adding obscene words, that escalates the problem from what might just a be a kid who will stop given {{test4}} and someone who realizes they could have even more "fun" by messing up administrative noticeboards, etc. All the vandal needs to know is that he will be blocked if he continues. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But you know this, don't you? ;-); btw, I don't see a need at all for this template, and have to echo Centrx in this regard. Lectonar 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Centrx, It's the reason I changed the template. It no longer points users to WP:AIV because it has already been said that leading vandals here is inapproriate. I feel that the template is neccessary for non-admins, because we can't be sure that they'll be blocked when we place a warning on their talk page. I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend and thought about this alot and now have a fresh look at this discussion, I'm even more convinced the template should be used and since improvements have been made based on everyone's concerns, I would consider this voting/consensus a success. I do feel I did the right thing, and I will continue to ask for peer advice before adding templates to Wiki community pages. Solution: I'll add the template to my userspace and use it myself and if others would like to use it, they can find out where it is. I will not add it to the Template Messages page though. Maybe someone, who is more qualified then myself, will in the future. Thanks for all your valued input, each one of you should receive a wikithanks and I would if I had more time. :) BrianZ^(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Purge link added.

I noticed that after the main page had been emptied, one entry was still left no matter what I did. Therefore, I added a server-side cache purger. I did not add it to the header because it would purge the header's cache, not this page's cache. Jesse Viviano 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning process

This is at least partly beyond the scope of this page; so may maybe this is not the right forum. If that’s the case, where should I go? I can’t figure out the warning process. Specific issues:

• If I discover that someone has vandalized three pages at once, is it legitimate to issue {{test}}, {{test2}}, and {{test3}} at the same time? Or does there have to be separate vandalism after each warning to justify the next?
• The instruction says, “Do not list here if … The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week).” Does that statement imply that if someone vandalizes regularly twice a week, he should never be reported?
• I can’t find anywhere that it explains the standard for issuing {{blatantvandal}}? Do this and this qualify? --teb728 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Typically, one doesn't issue multiple test templates at the same time. They're issued seperately because it gives the user time to read it. If they don't correct their behaviour, you issue the next one. etc. As for the blatentvandal template, the talk page is the closest thing to a standard, and says: "This is intended for use where vandalism is extreme or obscene and not for newby tests and general silliness.". For incredibly extreme cases, {{test4im}} can also be issued. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

If your repeat user is stopping just short of a test4, then coming back a week later to continue, I'd issue a bv or, if it's repeatedly repeated, test4im. If all of their edits seem to be vandalism and they're repeatedly leaving at test4s, I would at least try to report it here. IP addresses are a different issue, though, because multiple people may share the same one. It really depends on the specifics of the situation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More sysops watching this page?

Is it possible we can have more sysops with experience dealing with vandals watching this page? Twice in the past 12 hours I've had to point out an AIV backlog to a sysop on IRC (#wikipedia), but we simply can't afford to have more than a couple of people listed here for more than, say, 10 minutes. It puts more strain on the few RC patrollers we have left (I used to do up to 150 reverts per day but had to stop due to other janitorial tasks needing attention) and doesn't take that long to empty. --Draicone ^(talk) 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to be backlogged more often; not sure if that because there are less admins watching it, or more vandals. Probably the latter. You'll probably want to post this elsewhere (if you haven't already), since most of the people liable to read it are probably already watching this page. -- Natalya 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check timestamp of last warning to that of last vandalism

Several times I've seen users get banned while I'm looking into the cases listed on this page, even though they have done nothing since the last/only warning. Just a reminder. (This is a lot easier to do if you set your time zone to +0, so the signature timestamps match those in the contributions log) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to my blocking of User:Luci-chan, I'm pretty sure the blatant vandal warning came between the two acts of vandalism. (It was hard to tell, though, since it all happened in a 2 minute time span, and Wikipedia doesn't give seconds, only minutes) —Mets501 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to any in particular, just been seeing it a bunch over a couple days. If you're trying, don't worry about it :) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) —Mets501 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of last few hours?

On point number 3 under the sub-section of Editors, it is stated; The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. Can I know what is the definition of last few hours. Could it be three or even up to 20 hours? The statement is a bit vague here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably should be the last "couple" hours, basically like 0-3 hours, I think. —Mets501 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends if it's a shared IP address or not, too; you might have ten different users using a shared IP in an hour, but one user with their own IP/account might vandalize articles throughout the entire day. If you're in doubt about the time being a bit too long, you can always leave a final warning, but use your discretion. -- Natalya 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Media:Example.ogg appears magically; 670+ ghits

I was editing my page and [[Media:Example.ogg]] appeared magically. I recently downloaded CorHomo. The discussion page (found by popup) for [[Media:Example.ogg]] has this message:

This is a page used by kiddie vandals to insert nonsense into Wikipedia.
 Bart133 (t) 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--Ling.Nut 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

not sure what to do / newbie report

Hi, browsing Wikipedia, I discovered something strange on that page : Spear of destiny (I "reverted" it, look in the history), I think it's form of vandalism but I only read wikipedia, I don't know the terms, there seem to be very much rules and terms, so I try to report it, hope it will help. thanks -- 83.214.221.37 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was vandalism, thank you for reverting it . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be simple vandalism. Basically what you did was all that needed to me done: revert and move on. If the user continues to vandalize, simply report them at WP:AIV. --Chris (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Need some help understanding warning of vandals

User:209.43.33.201 was warned and blocked on 5 May 2006. He received another last warning on 15 May 2006 but was not blocked. Now, on 14 September, he has vandalized again. I have left a test4 warning. Is this appropriate. It has been 4 months since the last vandalism and since this might easily be a school account, it might not be the same person. Are we supposed to go back to a first-level warning using "test" or should we pick up where we left off with test4?

--Richard 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its possible that the ip address has been reassigned considering it hasnt been used in months. So assuming good faith, I begin from test 1 -- Lost^(talk) 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a reverse DNS (that's OK, right?) on the IP and it is indeed a school account, one run by Hamilton Southeastern Schools near Indianapolis. I am inclinded to believe that Richard's analisys is likely correct, and that the gap in vandalism is due to the summer holidays. I'm having a similar problem with the item below. Maury 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Long term block appropriate when?

I was wondering if anyone could help me with the problems being caused by User talk:216.185.69.97. This is an annon account, but given the edit histories it actually appears to be a single student within the school. Almost every edit in recent times has consisted of two or three edits to the same article, generally to insert sophmoric scatalogical comments. Several admins have applied blocks, including myself, but a new graphitti run starts as soon as it wears off.

Is this an example of an account that could safely be blocked long-term (ie, until school ends in June) for annon users only? If a user logs into the account, will they be directed somewhere where they will clearly see what has happened, and what to do about it? I'd hate to end up blocking an innocent user who can't even figure out what's going on.

Maury 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a tough one. Historically, we really don't like applying blocks of more than hours to IP addresses for fear of collateral damage (the first experience of a new Wikipedia users should not be to click edit and get a "you can't edit" message, after all). So I'd be fearful of imposing a block of any appreciable length on an IP.

However, that isn't to say I haven't done so in the past. If the IP in question is clearly only one editor (and I don't mean "mostly" or "mainly", I mean "only") then a block of length is not inappropriate, especially if accompanied by a request to contact Wikimedia or the blocking admin directly for confirmation. If the IP is regularly, but not exclusively, used for wide-ranging vandalism, then an anon-only block of median length can be justified, but is likely to be overturned should any legit user complain. If the IP is producing legal or death threats, or targeting a single user with hate speech or personal attacks, then I would block but watchlist the talk page in case of an appeal - and request that the IT administrator at the IP contact me or the Foundation.

I suppose it comes down to individual judgment in the end. Suffice to say it's a subject were we do block anon shared IP addresses for long terms, but really wish we didn't. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is...

...removing large parts of an article - but part of a content dispute (whereas the warring parties don't communicate) considered vandalism - as per Blanking? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be if it's done in bad faith. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, please view Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje (and their talk pages and histories). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong..

...but WP:AIV is NOT the place to report about bad usernames, is it? --Deenoe 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but it does grab admin's attention if they happen to miss it on the Recent Changes. Doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is obviously offensive, this is the correct forum. See Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames, "Changing inappropriate usernames". Accurizer 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone reported a username that was Mediacorpinc or something like that. --Deenoe 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

{{blatantvandal}}

I've seen a lot of people leaving a single {{bv}} on a talk page and treating it as the final warning. I can see that this would be a correct response in some situations, but giving only one warning for all instances seems a bit harsh. Personally, I'll start with {{test1}} for most cases, or {{test2}} for obvious vandalism, and continue to rewarn as necessary. In my opinion, a single {{bv}} seems insufficient. Isopropyl 02:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To report, it is needed a test4 or a bv tag. I believe I have used the blatant tag only two or three times, most times preferring to use the test ones. However, the tag exists, and we don't all have the same definition of "test". -- ReyBrujo 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

{{bv}} certainly has its uses, I've used it in place of a block that would have been warranted as disruption withough warning, then watched the contribs. About half those times the next edit ends up being vandalism/personal attack/etc, resulting in a block anyway. It is certainly not for use in all situations though. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Of all our misused tags, BV is probably the most misused, albeit for the noblest of reasons: it seems most often used by new users just discovering vandalhunting and thus fired up about the subject, or by new and established users when an article on their watchlist has been hit (especially if they created or greatly expanded that article). I've always been reluctant to use it as the vast, vast majority of vandalism is actually people testing, even if they test by adding "OMG! IVE HACKKD WICKEDPEDIO! JIM IS GAY!".

Honestly, we should be more easy going about testing - the wiki idea is a startling and strange one to most new users and the very idea of opening a page, changing it and saving it just sounds mentalist to most of them. BV really only applies to vandals who are plainly editing with knowledge of Wikipedia already (eg sockmeat) or have no hope of redemption - and the latter category should be judged very conservatively because the consequences of being wrong are profound.

Nevertheless, when correctly used, BV is very effective - either the vandal stops or is blocked. Easy. But, right or wrong, we don't have a zero-tolerance policy to simple vandalism because it would hoover up too many non-vandals who will be the next generation of editors. In that, xaosflux is right to be cautious of the use of it and Isopropyl and ReyBrujo are both right to remind us that we damage a very useful tool by over-using it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use BV frequently for a vandal who has vandalized a number of articles, but who was not caught or warned while they were still likely online. Example, I'll be checking my watchlist with VP and find some vandalism that occurred hours prior. Before clicking on Rollback, I'll check their contribs and see that they edited a number of articles and are still on "top" of each. I'll revert all of them and then leave them a BV. I also like to use it for "sneaky vandals", who purposely change facts in articles (more than twice), especially numbers, which are often not noticed by other people. Finally, I will occasionally use a BV, in cases of strong sexual vandalism or some "Colbert" vandalism, but usually if they have already received at least one test prior to that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I keep a lookout for vandalism, and I use BV first either for vandalism-only accts that have had a bunch of vandalism edits within a short period of time without being warned, and for aggressive blanking/vandalism. Just because it's obvious vandalism doesn't mean I BV, but things like blanking with 'Die, Wikipedia f***tards, I'M CUMMING TO YOUR HOUSE' etc get a BV from me. I used to use BV more when I started, mostly because I didn't know any of the other tags, lol. Also because of the rule about not blocking without a BV warning. Anchoress 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP

Okay so can someone please help me out here. I am being harrassed by TV Newser. After a long discussion tonight with a fellow wikipedian, I decided to remove a link section that i posted. This person has now accused me of being a vandal and keeps putting that stupid sockpuppet thing on my user page. The page in question is Trading card. He is calling me Scott and instead of going to the talk page to work it out he's just editing everything. I think there is a limit to the number of reverts and i'm sure we're both in violation. Can someone help me out.

• The above was placed by Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is showing a lot of the signs of the User:Spotteddogsdotorg sock ring. TV Newser Tipline 10:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Leave ma alone TV Newser, i'm not doing anything other than removing content section I ALREADY GOT YELLED AT FOR!!!!!!!Tecmobowl 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)