Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 4 July 2013 (→Involved much?: Quote from policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Rev deletion on ProtectMarriage.com

Hi Toddst, I saw your revision deletion of this edit on ProtectMarriage.com. The edit summary is simply "Undid revision 562185092 by Binksternet (talk) - Bigots protect bigots.", which doesn't seem to meet RD2. Could you explain (or review) this deletion? Thanks! Prodego 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It seemed pretty obvious that that was a purely disruptive smear directed at Binksternet. I suppose you could interpret it as "ordinary incivility" but I see it as more than that. Feel free to undelete if you disagree. I can't see what the benefit of doing that would be though. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock trolls and sleeper accounts abounding

The proverbial feces has hit the fan at Talk:Pink Floyd regarding sock-troll-time-wasters. Can you please provide some assistance per WP:DUCK. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc 20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much Todd! GabeMc 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the good work you do protecting the project! Thanks much, we all appreciate your efforts! GabeMc 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another Kinsella sock

Kinsella is back as 216.191.220.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Take a look at the history. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

	setting me straight
	Thank you for setting me straight let's just be friends Digifan23 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Missunderstanding

i'm a not a sockpupet of WilliamT569 (talk · contribs) (while i understand why though i was) it's the truth and how can i clear this up? Digifan23 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've remove the sock tag. Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You Digifan23 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Memorex, protection of

Hi Toddst1, You protected Memorex in 2010 because of edit-warring. Think we can try opening it up now? Cheers! Crazynas 09:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seemed a bit excessive. I suspect it was an error. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate a look

After your conversation at User talk:Digifan23#Unblocking? Digifan23 tried to do the right thing at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#TV Land, but I had to shoot him down for lack of talk page discussion. If you've not looked at his opponent IP editor's talk page and editing history — 76.92.148.191 (talk · contribs) — DF appears to be trying to deal with one of those editors who are interested in adding fancruft information to WP but not particularly interested in sourcing it or talking about it and who have already been blocked for six months for apparently just that (though it was kind of hard to tell for sure from the block notices), only to come right back and do the same thing. Dealing with an editor of that kind, especially an IP editor, is hard for even an experienced editor, much less ... well, you get the point. I hate to see someone who's now trying to do the right thing be so frustrated. Is there something you might do? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a note. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved much?

Toddst1, you've got to be kidding me if you think you get to close a sanction discussion that you opened. When you propose sanctions on someone, you don't get to close it. Hard to assume good faith when you pull a stunt like that. Closing a discussion might not require the tools, but imposing a sanction is an admin's responsibility and I don't want to have to take you to Arbcom for violating WP:INVOLVED. Relevant quote from WP:CBAN: "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly."--v/r - TP 21:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)