User talk:A. B./August 2012

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of August 2012. Exchanges spilling over from late July or into early September may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.

I note that my deletion edit was for advertising and lack of notability. The article was created by an editor with a spam username matching the article. I've blocked that account, although in a moment of weakness I've not blocked account creation under another name.

I accept that my tagging for notability was probably incorrect. The following options are available to us

• Restore and redelete for advertising only
• Do nothing
• If you don't agree that the article was blatantly promotional, I could restore and prod or AfD instead

Let me know your thoughts, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:

I vote for "restore with tags for fixing".

I agree it was created for promotional purposes but if it's notable, it's content we want. It was covered by 2 big Indian newspapers and some of the participants are notable. That's why I did not delete it myself but rather made the note on the article talk page asking that it not be deleted.

The author also created an article about the group's founder which others have tagged for a BLP-Prod. I suspect he was writing about himself.

Many our best editors start out with some sort of COI, not knowing it's against our rules. They write an article about their quasi-notable uncle or correct an entry about their employer. Handled tactfully and redirected a bit, they subsequently end up adding other, more neutral and useful content. This guy's a writer -- maybe we can recruit him to add to our topics on India and/or poetry.

In any event, thanks for keeping a wary eye out for junk and spam!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

OK, I've restored and prodded. I don't think that just tagging is sufficient, given the nature of the first paragraph Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the IP's excessive plot bloat at Chinatown (1974 film) which is far excess of guidelines, is detrimental to the article and bordering on a copyright violation (which is the reason the guideline exists). The IP is edit-warring and unflinching in disregard for the opinion of others apparently so I'm not sure why you are admonishing Old Jacobite for warning him, by my look seems the IP should have been blocked by now and they have a history of such action. I'm leaving this notice to let you know I disagree with your admonishment of someone trying to maintain that article in favour of someone trying to damage it and ignore the actions of those that try to prevent such. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback.

First of all, WP:AIV is not the place for reporting edit-warring but rather blatant vandalism.

• That page has multiple statements to this effect such as:
  • "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Before posting here, please read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide."
  • "Important! Please remember the following: 1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be obvious vandalism or spam."
• The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism covers the same stuff in more detail

TheOldJacobite has been told this before.

Second, whatever the difficulties posed by this IP's behaviour, it's not vandalism. Our Vandalism Policy explicitly addresses this type of editing as "What is not Vandalism":

• "Disruptive editing or stubbornness"
  • "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing"

Third, we have all sorts of mediation, edit-warring board, dispute resolution processes, etc. where experienced editors can get independent, neutral editors to help them sort stuff out in a less draconian fashion. If necessary, a problematic editor may get blocked but usually that's not necessary.

I thought long and hard about how to deal with TheOldJacobite a productive editor who is nevertheless using WP:AIV inappropriately and seeming to get edgier and edgier in his dealings with others, not just IPs. That's one reason I took the time to write him a follow-up note asking for him to reconsider his approach to problem edits.

I'm an administrator that doesn't always get it right, however, so I will reflect on your comments. In the meantime, can I ask that you perhaps try to get the OldJacobite to kind of temper his actions and use other methods of resolving issues?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant diffs (a bit out of sequence, I'm afraid):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheOldJacobite&diff=507221821&oldid=507219654
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOldJacobite&diff=next&oldid=507225174
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOldJacobite&diff=next&oldid=507227444
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mabuska&diff=prev&oldid=507120091
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOldJacobite&diff=prev&oldid=507120265
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=507207669
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.79.75.159&diff=507221420&oldid=479334409

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the talk page: "Clearly notable[1]. Please do not delete."

I deleted it as a copyvio, and also because the link you referred to turns up nothing. I have also blocked the creator as a spamusername since the username is a violation of the user name policy.

If it is indeed notable, then I have no objection if you restore it. I didn't see it though. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulic, I did not realize it was a copyvio -- you did the right thing to get rid of it.

I did a Google News Archive search and came up with many news article about the theater and/or about its productions. Here's an example. So it's a notable topic if someone wants to create a new, original article.

Thanks for taking care of these things. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at TYelliot's talk page.
Message added 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
Message added 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Zion1985's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanx for response and teaching User talk:Almightyvegeta a lesson Zion1985 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this editor will come to his or her senses but if not, they'll just have to be blocked. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you and TYelliot are dealing with an IP, 129.15.131.141 (talk · contribs · count) that's making a number of edits to stadium articles you all keep reverting. I suggest you three get together and agree on how these article should look. If you 3 can't agree, then ask for some help from the appropriate Wikiproject (probably WikiProject College football). In the meantime, I see a lot of wasted effort on everyone's part. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I appreciate all your work on these articles -- you've really done a lot for our NCAA football content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to work with this IP person however, looking at the way he/she has acted to other people trying to converse with them I'd be willing to guess they do not want to work with anyone. I am on thinking that this one was banded from this web site and does not want to reveal them self. I see a few of the same edits from the resent past on some of the NCAA Football. Some of the edits this one does is not bad however the part that is not wright in my mind is the way they seem to come up with old attance numbers and no sorse. The seating would not be so bad except they are the current numbers on past years not every year has the same seating, and AM PM instead of a.m. p.m. I realize this is not that bad. MDSanker 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks MDSanker 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- this makes my day!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A. B.. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for all of your hard work, BTW. Jim1138 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your message. I appreciate that some explanation is due. For months, if not years, a certain anonymous editor (with a very wide range of dynamic IP addresses at their disposal) has continually shown up in the revision histories of various Wikipedia biographies (usually about actors, most of them still living) to insert unsourced content relating to nationality, ethnicity and cultural background (and by so doing, repeatedly demonstrating a disregard for the guidelines at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATEGRS). Alternatively, a superfluous parent category is added when a narrower and more precise subcategory is already included (for example, Category:African-American people is inserted alongside Category:African-American actors). The examples are endless, but the history of the Rick Aviles article (now semi-protected) perhaps best typifies the problem. The user is easy to identify from their editing pattern (a quick succession of edits, none of which includes an edit summary; at any rate, it is often the same set of articles every time). Such is the sustained level of disruption that, in my opinion, any assumption of good faith that may once have existed with regard to this editor has long since been exhausted. I am sure that this latest IP is simply another incarnation of the same person and that they know full well what my warnings are referring to. User:Ponyo has been instrumental in blocking (and, in some cases, range-blocking) when needed in the past and should be able to back up my statements here. SuperMarioMan 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that late posting above - I was still typing after your second edit to my talk page. SuperMarioMan 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just stfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swankymoomoo (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now socking as User:Superchops, and can we please get the ogg and jpg files he keeps spamming CSDed of Commons? MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and 71.172.246.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off-line for several days; I'm sorry to be slow in repsonding. I've blocked the Superchops account. It appears someone on commons deleted 5 of the files -- are there any others?

Thanks for keeping an eye on this stuff!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also blocked the IP address. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check every potential account, but I think that was all of them, as regardless of which sock it was, the uploads were all by OLH. What concerns me is that several of them had been there for weeks with obviously bad licenses. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license issue is worrisome; I'm glad it seems to be taken care of now. Thanks for your work on this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. So, I've found another IP that is vandalizing the same sort of articles in the same manner again. Please check out the edits being made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.165.147.6 -- Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be slow in responding; I've been offline for a few days. Another administrator blocked that IP, but only for 48 hours (probably unaware of the history of the other IPs). I've noted the other IPs on that page. If that or a similar IP strikes again (and they probably will), please feel free to get me or another admin (if I'm unavailable) to block the account. Make sure they know this is an ongoing problem so they don't:

• Expect to see multiple, escalating new warnings before blocking, and/or
• "Under-block" any new account for too short a duration.

Thanks again for keeping an eye on this stuff!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've also noticed an IP who is vandalizing the same articles in the same ways as the other IPs: Special:Contributions/178.117.162.70 Thank you! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I'm sorry to be slow in replying; I've been away. I have blocked that IP and left a note for my Dutch counterparts. So far, here's the history I've put together for this person; all these IPs are registered to the Telenet ISP in Belgium:

• 178.119.63.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:178.119.63.108 - blocked on Dutch Wikipedia
• 178.117.164.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • w:nl:Overleg_gebruiker:178.117.164.158 - blocked on Dutch Wikipedia
• 178.117.164.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.165.147.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.117.162.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

English Wikipedia administrators have made 5 blocks to date.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the vandal is attacking from a new IP: Special:Contributions/178.119.62.179. Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a warning on User talk:24.56.44.192 about uncooperative and non-consensus editing. I saw it because I placed a warning for genre warring at among other places this article against a hidden comment to specifically discuss changes on the talk page. The editor does not seem to be willing to discuss and the IP is sufficiently stable that a longer than normal anon block might be warranted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, I'm sorry to be slow in responding -- I've been offline for several days. I've blocked that IP. If it or another IP strikes again, please let me or another admin know. If it's another IP or account, make sure the blocking admin knows the history of this IP so that he/she doesn't:

• Expect to see multiple, escalating new warnings before blocking, and/or
• "Under-block" any new account for too short a duration.

Thanks again for keeping an eye on this stuff!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another blasted (edit conflict) ! So I thought you may not have noticed my closing post. Ha ha! so am I. Post Script. It is the same with both IPs (not just the one, as you write above) and the warning process with STiki is automatic providing I have it checked "on". The developer, Andrew West, is working on revising this aspect. I understand he aims to give us more control. Thank you for being so concerned for me and being so charming. Good night. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the nice note! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] You earned and deserve it. Thank you! Sincerely -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AB, 173.81.186.166 is an IP hopper who has been previously blocked at 173.81.190.232 and 173.81.182.46. The former had a block last of 3 months, the latter was 6 months. All trace back to Suddenlink Communications in the Point Pleasant/Gallipolis, Ohio area. All edit television station pages exclusively and only their digital television sections. Could you please block 173.81.186.166 and do a range block on all the ranges of the IPs listed, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that one IP. I'm taking your word for it that all the IP's edits were vandalism even though it doesn't look like anybody was sufficiently troubled by them before to warn this person. I'm basing this in part on the history of the two other IPs.

I'm discinclined to block every cable TV subscriber in the greater Point Pleasant, WV area -- that's an area with a population over 50,000. Blocking them all seems like a draconian approach to the issue. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the single block, much appreciated. :) I figured the rangeblock would be out, but it doesn't hurt to check. Seems rangeblocks are hit and miss anymore and not a very effective way to block problem editors. Anywho, thanks again for your help. :) Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A.B., if this article is not already on your watchlist, please look at the recent history, including the speedy delete, which I declined. My two biggest concerns are the conduct of the requester and whether any BLP violations exist in the article as restored to its state just before the requester blanked the article. The editing history of the requester (who was the original author of the article in 2006) is troubling. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away; I apologize for being slow in replying. I left a lengthy comment at:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#Dan James Pantone

I now wish I had supported deleting this article during its inconclusive 2006 AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A.B., I commented at BLPN specifically on the issue of WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]