Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2010/August

Vandal block 138.130.88.105
Intentional vandalism. --Panic (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done. Blocked for a week. – Adrignola talk 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block 71.82.64.75
Intentional and hard to detect vandalism. --Panic (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * s/he has only done one edit; perhaps s/he's just bored. Can s/he be given another chance? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:X mark.svg|15px| ]] Not done. Please don't ask for a block for single edits.  Instead, please install the Twinkle warning gadget in Special:Preferences and give the person a warning, as I just have.  This allows for an attempt to encourage constructive contributions before smacking down on the block button. – Adrignola talk 12:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit was clearly bad intentioned. Boredom isn't a justification to allow people not only to intentionally deface our work but to make it harder for us to detect it. To me that action was worth a block how long or what other solutions to apply is up for the administration to decide (I don't mind them being as benevolent as they like, I like that they have the time to be so). I don't make a fuzz in most ambiguous non-productive edits, even if repeated. This isn't one of those cases. Practice also demonstrates that unregistered users rarely interact with requests made to them, so any other measure will be at best palliative. --Panic (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, making a bad-faith edit, no matter of what nature does not justify a block as long as the edit is not excessively ill-intentioned (eg. a user tries to blacken a certain person's name through Wikibooks). The purpose of blocking someone is because that someone's edits are posing a threat to Wikibooks. When a bored person vandalises in order to get attention, this does not mean he is some evil vandal who wants to destroy the project. We cannot confirm that he is persistent until he vandalises again after a warning. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would share your opinion regarding registered users. I think registered users can be reasoned if they participate in a dialog, even demonstrated vandals (I have spent time in such actions before).
 * You are inferring that boredom is a valid reason to permit for people to take objectionable actions, I can't share this vision. They can with less efforts spend the time reading and fixing our works, this individual did make an effort to hide the vandalization. It shows not only bad intention but deception. --Panic (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot identify any element of deception in the edit. Please try to think like a silly child. Do you think a silly child deems it 'deceptive' to, say, modify his older brother's school essay a little bit? No, that's a practical joke. Clowning around is not deception. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making assumptions, I read it differently. This is why blocking is mostly a judgment call even more since we don't have a block policy. I'm all for second chances and leniency and note that I not pushing for a block, I respect the decision of User:Adrignola, that may require in a later date to followup on the decision by spending time and making an effort to educate the user and/or correct future edits. If it was I the one making the final decision I would perform minimum block and put the burden of any clarification on the user. I do think that treatment of unregistered user and registered ones should be a bit different, the latter have demonstrated a minimum of commitment to the project by performing the registration, note also that unregistered users are excluded from some processes by valid reasons (I've looked on the block policy draft and think that this should also be included there). --Panic (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

202.45.119.15
Looks like a dynamic IP trying his or her hand at persistent vandalism. Should be blocked... Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For one silly edit? I think not. I'll watch though. –   02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's a dynamic IP. Please look at the page history of the page he or she vandalised; there are many similar IPs trying to vandalise. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 03:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Page protection might be appropriate then. –   03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient permissions
I am one of the editors of the Radiation Oncology wikibooks. We have a page on vaginal cancer), which I want to split up into subpages (ala other cancers such as cervical cancer. What I envision is: Staging, Overview, Treatment However, I get the "Insufficient permissions" block: "The account or page name you have selected is inappropriate on English Wikibooks." Would one of the administrators be able to create these pages for me? It seems once the page is created (e.g. the original vaginal cancer page), I can then edit it fine. I believe the use of the medical term in this context is appropriate. Thanks! Tdvorak (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Your work here has been most impressive BTW.  I am only happy to have been of service.  If you need anything else, let us know! --Jomegat (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Tdvorak (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of user User:Thekohser
Please perform the unblock of Wikibookian Thekohser as expressed in the community discussion process at last block of Thekohser. A consensual decision since the two standing objections have no valid argumentation as they failed to provide any substantiation for their position (as requested). --Panic (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I must recuse myself from performing this, having performed the previous unblock prior to the latest block. Another administrator must address this issue. – Adrignola talk 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "no valid argumentation" and "argumentation, but Panic doesn't happen to like it". Kohs will not be unblocked; he is banned on all WMF wikis. –   21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My liking or not is not the point, if I did act solely on my own view point I would have brought the subject faster to the community attention, as I'm sure you remember, I objected to your interference as soon as you silenced the user on his talk page. I didn't act on my liking as you did, and my moderation in dealing with the situation demonstrates more tact that yours. In fact I had hopped by now that you realized what you have done here. Our community shouldn't be instrumentalized to pursue and realize private decisions. I think we have proven that you did not act within the community consensus and did actively violate our policies. Policies that every Wikibookians is required to enforce. I do however encourage you to pursue a resolution on the proper forums and execute the community decisions... --Panic (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I hinted at in the Reading Room, I am personally unwilling to take action without a fresh discussion. Thenub314 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What can rehashing the issue again alter to the fact that Mike has continuously violated our rules, the normal decision process, as he subverted the first steward's block, without consulting the community (as the steward required), the BeBold as he reverted Adrignola unblock (even after the community clearly indicated support for the unblock) and ultimately any reinforcement of the first block of the steward or new block on this user by a Wikibookian (that was why I asked in what function Mike was acting) is a clear violation of the Administrators policy "Administrators are expected to follow applicable policies concerning blocking users and IP addresses. "Infinite" blocks should not be employed unless specifically warranted. Legitimate users should not be blocked unless they are demonstrably disruptive to the community. If an admin blocks a legitimate user for no good reason that is a major disruption and a violation of this policy", the text is clear and cover this specific instance when it dictates that the target must be demonstrably disruptive to the community in fact by this policy Mike has been a cause of major disruption to the community himself, this started to become clear when he continues to intentionally make incorrect accusations or affirmations like above, about the user being "banned on all WMF wikis", or starting shenanigans like the issue with the CU flags.
 * Can you envision any possible discussion that can be used to validate those issues, do you disagree with any of the points we have already brought forward and I resumed above, do you still defend that Wikibooks should replace meta in analyzing and censure users across projects ? Do you see the Wikibooks community as aware or interested about the antics people engage in elsewhere ? (there is precedence in my affirmation that we don't, an obvious reasons why we shouldn't, I will gladly discuss that point if you wish).
 * In fact not acting on the issue will undermine any legitimacy any admin has on implementing our rules.
 * The issue here is not the blocked user but the process, that he will be unblocked is guaranteed, unless we get a clear indication from WMF, delaying it will just make it take more time and permit the issue to fester on... --Panic (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, when I read the above policy's you quote, I see no explicit violation. It is a very grey area in my opinion. The question of whether or not a user should be globally locked user's account should be detached and unblocked is not clear. It is a resonable point of view that the global lock of a user is a does specifically warrent a local block, whether or not we agree with it.
 * I don't see any violation of be BeBold policy. Nothing says you can revert another users edit if you disagree with it, and Mike's reblock could be viewed in the same spirit.
 * I don't personally feel wikibooks should replace meta. In fact when push came to shove I am against detaching and unblocking, even in cases when I disagree with their methods.  One of the purposes of meta is to block cross wiki vandals globally, and I don't like second guessing them.  But I am sure I am more or less alone in this opinion.
 * I can't speak on what the community feels about antics elsewhere. Personally I do care, if the activities elsewhere are sever enough, and I am content to let meta handle the actual decision, as that is part of their scope.
 * So the question might be why would I ever want a further discussion? The answer is that I was not part of that dicussion, and I hope I might bring something new, or at least express my opinion.
 * Additionally I am not entirely content with the process that decided concensus for an unblock. Did it really begin on the 9th and end on the 13th? We usually give at least 7 days from the last comment before we close an RfD.  This entire conversation took less seems to have take less than a week.  Did the community really have enough to to think about it and throw their their two cents in? I would not think so, but I am biased because it escaped my radar entirely. Thenub314 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue has been around since the first discussion I linked to on the other page, the one you were originally familiar with. There's been plenty of time to think about it.  This isn't an RFD, it is a block that prevents someone from actively participating.  Blocks have been undone in shorter time than was taken in deciding to undo that block.  Let's examine the order of events.  1) Global lock by Pathoschild.  2) Removal of global lock by Pathoschild and local block implemented instead to allow communities to decide.  3) Readdition of global lock by Mike and a disabling of talk page editing.  4) Talk page editing enabled by Adrignola.  5) After a snowballing of comments supporting unblock with the last person to block (Mike) the only objector, Adrignola unblocks.  5) Mike then reblocks with comment "banned" and disables talk page access once again.  Check the block log.  Be bold is a guideline and doesn't condone controversial actions and doesn't ever justify wheel warring.  The original block was as "requested by Jimbo"  yet this was shown later to not be an office decision in the initial local block by Pathoschild: global lock changed to local block to let local community change it.  If the user is "globally banned" it's only because Mike reimplemented the global lock and now he's using that action performed by himself to justify the block here.  What was his reason for the global lock?  "per discussion.  As I said on the other page, stop with the back-channel discussions.  I want to see that discussion or it's invalid and has no bearing on local proceedings.  – Adrignola talk 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been defended in past situations and I think it is on the draft of the block policy that a block should be first reconsidered by the one that executed it in the first place, I think that this is a reasonable request and would prevent situations as seen in the past and BeBold actions like Mike's attempt to prevent the user to request an unblock. I've been rereading what was said and I would like a clarification (as I don't know how to see when a SUL account has been locked and am not sure of the implications). Looking at the original account of Thekohser I see several requests for unblock at the time I presumed that since they weren't signed that it was interference from others but after the recent discussions and by the claim made on the last request for unblock I get that all requests did come from the user and because of the SUL lock he even able to log in and not being yet blocked by Mike to edit his talkpage couldn't do so. Is this right ?  --Panic (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been discovered that a globally locked user is able to log in and view their watchlist. Only one request was placed on the talk page for unblock by the user, once the user was able to edit his talk page.  The previous requests were made by other users.  To determine if an account is globally locked, view the user's contributions page, scroll to the bottom, and click the SUL link.  If they are locked, it will say "yes" next to the "locked" line at the top of the page. – Adrignola talk 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ho. I thought that the SUL lock was the reason since in his last request for unblock he stated "Unblock request - 3rd attempt (from own User account)". I was lead to understand that all requests did came from him and thought that the SUL lock was the reason he didn't properly sign the previous ones. By your reply I still don't understand. A user under a global lock can requests an unblock ? If not it clearly indicates that a global lock shouldn't target registered users as it would prevent a request for unblock even if the text states "Global blocks should be placed with the lowest expiry possible, while still remaining effective. All global blocks should have an expiry.". I know that we locally can't do much about it and that the present situation is not normal (but it is a sufficient reason to include something in our future block policy) to help users and admins understand the situation created by a global lock as even Mike a steward himself demonstrated confusion about the process.
 * One other issue is in regards to the backchannels, this isn't the first time people fail to comprehend the problem and danger of establishing outside of the community a "small" consensus that leads to the illusion that a given situation has been agreed upon and promotes intransigence based on mutual support. I don't think there is much that can be done to prevent the situation or think that the practice can be controlled, but it clearly has been demonstrated that it is a real problem, the best way to act on that regard is to publicly call participants to reason and publicly repudiate the practice, especially in dealing with situations that access to the discussion isn't public. Such communications also have a high probability of being impartial and promoted by one of the side involved in a dispute, records can't be guaranteed and verifiable. Wikibookians should avoid participating in such activities to address points of contention and in these cases even personal communications on those issues should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think creating a guideline would be required but these facts should be often restated as to combat groupthink. If anyone has an opinion make it known to all, referenced to you and verifiable by all. --Panic (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, I haven't read the above post by Adrignola )
 * Aah, but that is why I have gone to the effort of making clear to separate the issues on the previous discussions and to provide a clear order on how the issues should be analyzed (since they are a sequence of interconnected actions, one depending on the other, or even an accumulation of errors, that is how I see it).
 * "I see no explicit violation. It is a very grey area in my opinion.", how so? "Legitimate users should not be blocked unless they are demonstrably disruptive to the community.", the user is registered and has complied to our local rules, he has made edits (contributed content) and never engaged in any disruptive activity ipso facto (by that very fact) he is locally "unblockable" as we don't have reasons to justify it.
 * "The question of whether or not a user should be globally locked user's account should be detached and unblocked is not clear.". The issue of "global lock" is outside of our control, the steward that acted to change the global lock into a local block, made it clear that it is up to us to block the user, the detachment and unblock has been validated by a community discussion that at the time it was going to be implemented was interfered by Mike, without any justification in a personal and unilateral decision as a Wikibook's admin (a violation of the proper use of the tools), the right solution, and in line with our guidelines was to respect the community decision (he had the chance to participate and was clearly aware of it). In fact Adrignola didn't require the backing of the community since we aren't bound by the "global lock" (you can't point me to any text that guides the process of detachment, except to the part that says that local admins can do it) it is an external decision processes, we can't accept any process that has a local impact but excludes the participation of our community, except a ruling by the WMF.
 * "Nothing says you can revert another users edit if you disagree with it, and Mike's reblock could be viewed in the same spirit." no it couldn't, because the community had already demonstrated that the user was wrongly blocked (we didn't perform any unblock action we were acting on the request of the Steward to validate locally his block), in fact Mike actions to alter the first block were the one covered by the BeBold but after the user requested the unblock of the sock puppet and then of the primary account, the process is guided by the normal decision process (as it constitutes a direct opposition to Mike's actions), after a comment by Mike and in light of the situation of no support for the block and a clear indication that Mike was abusing the tools, Adrignola performed a correction to the situation, correction that Mike unilaterally blocked not by a reversion (since the new situation is not the same as per the first block) but by performing again a new distinct block as the user is again prevented to writing on his talk page.
 * "I don't personally feel wikibooks should replace meta. In fact when push came to shove I am against detaching and unblocking, even in cases when I disagree with their methods. One of the purposes of meta is to block cross wiki vandals globally, and I don't like second guessing them. But I am sure I am more or less alone in this opinion." I don't think you are alone I do share the same vision and must of the people that discussed the situation seem to agree the global lock was abused, we even looked on the tool's history and past functions, it clearly wasn't created to be used like this. But again debating this should be done at meta.
 * "...I was not part of that dicussion, and I hope I might bring something new, or at least express my opinion.", "I am not entirely content with the process that decided concensus for an unblock", "This entire conversation took less seems to have take less than a week.". No one has yet prevented you to express your opinion or failed to provide you with a reply even if I still don't see the previous opinion about the users presumed actions as having an impact on the local processes. I see move validity on the points you are now raising (that have not yet been addressed), even if I don't see how they can be interpreted in any other way. You also made a mistake, you point to the events as an action to unblock the user, that is incorrect, since no local decision process validated the block in the first place there is no need for a process to unblock (much like the CU tools of Adrignola or if Mike decides to restore his own CU tools), what we have analyzed so far was if the first block had community support (it didn't) and if Mike's interference was correct (it wasn't). By these facts the only person that has been damaged by the situation is the user that remains blocked, as he hasn't been determined a danger to our project there was no reason to make his ordeal longer. You are again free to disagree with my option but it was clearly stated on the beginning post. --Panic (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortably aware of having lost track of various points raised that, taken individually, I would have liked to reply to had I had time. Here, though, are a few miscellaneous comments that come to mind.
 * I agree with Thenub's suggestion that the unblock "consensus" process should have been longer. Serious business warrants serious deliberation that should not be rushed.  Coincidentally, the days during which it happened were in a window of time when I couldn't get involved &mdash; which only matters here in that it illustrates one reason why serious deliberations shouldn't be rushed.  I construe the situation as attempting to establish the will of the local community so that if/when some admin then chose to unblock they would have the weight of a local consensus behind them; and the discussion was not long enough to do that.
 * The policy says that administrators should use their judgment. It says that malicious users should be blocked, and when describing users that should not be blocked it specifically excludes users that are "demonstrably disruptive to the community".  Quite independent of whether the word "community" should be construed in its narrowest possible sense in the context of this particular passage, the passage also does not pick nits about what sort of demonstration may be considered (nor should it; over-specificity would only create loopholes, to the detriment of... the community).  Apparently, what sort of demonstration is needed is also a judgment call.  Speaking of judgment and sorts of demonstration,
 * an earlier remark by Adrignola referred to assessing Thekohser based on some other projects not liking him. That was not the basis of my assessment.  Being disliked was never what I primary studied; I was more interested in what Thekohser had done and said.  If I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to another Wikibooks admin's judgment that Thekohser is malicious and demonstrably disruptive to the community, it's not just because that judgment is shared by others elsewhere.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of the time the user had been "improperly" blocked (since the Pathoschild correction clearly indicated that the solution needed clarification) and that the user created a sock puppet to contribute to the project. Did you noticed the first block action by Mike on the logs ? The situation has been under discussion long ago before I brought it to the general forum in 8 August 2010. Unblocking the user wouldn't be a "serious business" as there is no expectation he would perform any damage, in fact it would be proper to have started the process with the full participation of the user.
 * We are talking about a Wikibooks policy that guides Wikibooks administrators on Wikibooks blocks I think that interpreting community in any "global" way is unrealistic, even more if you take in the rest of the text. --Panic (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that Pathoschild's actions were a "correction" when in fact they were a mistake. Thekohser is banned from all WMF projects. I don't know how to make that clearer. –   01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be proper for Pathoschild to correct his position on the subject or you as a fellow steward to remove the local block and restore the global lock, removing the burden of the decision from the local community. The user shouldn't be locally blocked that was already made clear.
 * I also take the chance to point out that the text describing the global lock/block has several contradictions to the recent use given to it, in particular the time limitation.
 * Is Thekohser banned from Wikiversity ? The last information we got was that he had been unblocked there.
 * Can you finally point out the location of the discussion that validated that "global ban" and the stipulation the makes us bound to that decision?
 * Clearing those issues would indeed and as was already stated close the issue. Please use the thread below for the reply, that thread is covering the general process not the regularization of the local block.


 * --Panic (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Pathoschild to correct his action or comment you assertion of the global ban. --Panic (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By our own examination and by the reply I got from Pathoschild, Thekohser  is not banned from all WMF wikis and the global lock tool was abused. Continuing to make the allegations to the contrary is not only misleading it is disruptive, if you don't have a declaration to the contrary by the WMF explicitly stating that Wikibooks must comply with that decision you should respect our community will and stop the disruption.  --Panic (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Haa"? I have to say I really don't appreciate being laughed at. Thenub314 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In context, it seems likely to me to have been intended as an exclamation of enlightenment, for which IMHO a more natural choice of letter sequence would have been "Aah" (or "Aha", in a pinch). --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aah seems right... --Panic (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed, my understanding is that Haa doesn't indicate laughter (and I can't believe you took that as my intention, especially in the context of this discussion). Ha, ah or Hah can mean laughter but not only that. I could have used Ha! but didn't, that interjection I believe is a contemptuous reaction, and demonstrates disdain. It was an expression of "You see, I had already thought about that point", it really was an error of translation nothing more.  --Panic (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An arbitrary break
Unless I'm not getting something: — I-20 the highway  00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Drini/Magister Mathematicae locks Thekohser's global account
 * 2) Pathoschild unlocked it and converted the lock into local blocks
 * 3) This meant that we could decide whether or not to ban Thekohser
 * 4) Mike.lifeguard relocks the global account "per discussion" (and doesn't link to the "discussion")


 * As we don't have a specific block policy all the rules we have for the action require that the user be locally disruptive. Since the original transformation to a local block was not a local decision by consensus we already took the steps to validate the block locally as per the request and contact made near Pathoschild (no consensus or if we discard the opposition of Mike as the argument is based on actions outside of our scope of intervention, a consensus not to validate the block). --Panic (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is indeed my impression of events. It's a more concise version of what I wrote above.  What's happened between steps three and four is not clear. – Adrignola talk 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Pathoschild reply at the meta, I got a clarification that the conversion of the global lock in a local ban was discussed and it was based in the realization that the use of a global lock as a tool to exert a global ban was not consensual.
 * So the first error seems to be the Drini/Magister Mathematicae locks on Thekohser's global account as an action that failed to obtain consensus. --Panic (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The mess I made
Will an admin please clean up the mess I made just now? I think I did something wrong with the importing of Template:Infobox archaeological site. I'm sorry I messed up, since I'm new to this. Thanks a million! Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't ever click the option to import all templates with an import. We customize a lot of them for our use and that will overwrite them. – Adrignola talk 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. Carry on. – Adrignola talk 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to import it again without making a mess. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis on edits by 165.138.245.1
I have just reverted one edit, and did a look around on previous edits, some seem in a gray zone others I don't have the knowledge to verify if they are correct or some seem to have issues of POV and there are also some content deletions, to be looked at. My idea is that the IP is shared and the person that is doing the "strange" edits is aware of it. --Panic (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur - looks like a shared IP with a vandal hiding amongst more constructive contributors. The IP is registered to Indiana Department of Education and looking at the global contributions I see a typical school editing pattern (i.e., generally poor quality with many "humorous" edits). I'll take a detailed look at the books the IP has been editing. QU TalkQu 15:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Panic (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been through and looked at these, modifying where necessary and reviewed the latest versions. To be honest, there wasn't that much "vandalism" but they were certainly worth a checking over... QU TalkQu 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my view. I just lacked the expertise on the subject to clearly categorize all the changes. Thanks for the cleanup job. --Panic (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block 63.232.18.26
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.232.18.26

Redirecting talk pages to main page. -Arlen22 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So far just mine and Adrignola's. -Arlen22 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

21:22, 31 August 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:QuiteUnusual ‎ (Redirected page to Main Page) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:21, 31 August 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:63.232.18.26 ‎ (Redirected page to Earthquakes) 21:21, 31 August 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:63.232.18.26 ‎ (Redirected page to Earthquskes) 21:17, 31 August 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arlen22 ‎ (Redirected page to Main Page) 21:14, 31 August 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Adrignola ‎ (Redirected page to Main Page)
 * Already blocked, thanks. QU TalkQu 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)