User talk:Him/Archive 1

Hail, Citizen! - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here three days and not a dickhead yet? Sucks to be you - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Thanks, the true owner of this computer should be back soon. I'm sort of babysitting. Him (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You!
Aceword up 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Me! Him (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * THAT! Aceword up 12:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Email
Hey man do you have an email that I can reach you at?--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Him (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool. I just wanted to ask what the removed content was that was posted on the WIGO:CP talk page (I wasn't asking for specific personal information, I was just curious about the nature of the content). I asked for an email, because the head admins here asked that it not be discussed in the open.--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Him (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What, you won't even give me a hint? Sorry I'm just curious by nature.--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about this block?
You blocked 88.102.143.233. Are you sure whether the user was blanking or removing vandalism? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good call to me. He blanked that section twice. I'll pop a note on his talk page just in case he's a wiki newbie and not totally aware of what he's doing. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 13:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits in question contained personal information and were obviously inappropriate for this wiki or indeed any public website. This user is trying to drop Thunderf00t's docs, using RationalWiki as an instrument. Not cool. --Ondrej.marsalek (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please discuss any such blanking on the talk page before acting unilaterally. I didn't actually read it but took action against an unexplained removal of a large amount of material. Him (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps true in a general case. In case you drop someone's docs, especially when you're well aware it's a sensitive situation, they need to go offline first. After that, we can talk about how you should not have done that in the first place. --Ondrej Marsalek (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My rollback
I rolled that back because of the risk of the information in BoN's post being legitimate. I also hid the revision from view. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we blast the revisions in Thunderf00t, too?--ZooGuard (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go have a read and see if it's something that needs doing. I wouldn't mind getting some opinions though on what I'm doing. I'm no fan of hiding revisions. Him, send me a mail if you want to know what I've removed from your talk page or would like me to stop doing this. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust your judgement, CR. Him (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, we are just trying to resolve a rather nasty situation here - Thuderf00t's docs have been dropped on his RationalWiki page. This was done in this revision:

05:10, 22 January 2011 68.112.188.101 (Talk) (20,762 bytes) (→Activities) (undo)

We just wanted to fix this but have very limited experience with RationalWiki and the MediaWiki software itself. Therefore, we misread the revision history and tried to fix by removing the text instead of undoing. Could someone more competent please remove everything from the mentioned revision onwards and ideally also lock the Thunderf00t article because the danger of another attempt to drop the docs? Thanks a lot. --Ondrej Marsalek (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see I've removed all revisions that contained the personal info, but let me know if I missed anything. I can understand Him's initial reverting, since the whole "zomg blanking" thing did initially seem suspicious. I'll add the Thunderfoot pages to my watch list in case new stuff appears. I don't think that the policies allow for locking right now, and it's arguably a bit ineffective given that this BoN could just repost the same information in any article of their choosing. Probably best we just watch recent changes for a while until BoN gets bored. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 13:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this looks good. Something still shows up in search results, but that is probably just a matter of waiting for another sweep of indexing. Someone please delete this here now that we're done. --Ondrej Marsalek (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)