User talk:A. B./September 2012 - December 2021

Expressionism spam
Dealt with via the spam blacklist. Seemed easiest. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Carmelo Caruana
I believe the AfD is irrelevant as CSD applies (in my opinion). I did not realize you had already declined the speedy. Contested, sure - by the creator? There isn't any reason it can't be worked on in the userspace. This is a fairly common practice, no? Rjd0060 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I removed the speedy deletion tag on Carmelo Caruana as an administrator reviewing the article for speedy deletion.
 * I noted in my edit summary that I was removing the CSD tag.
 * I explained my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page at Talk:Carmelo Caruana
 * I contested the deletion at Articles for deletion/Carmelo Caruana and explained my reasoning for doing so.


 * I don't read Maltese and don't know how to search the Maltese language press. My next steps were going to be:
 * leave a note asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malta
 * Leave notes for the Maltese article's creator, an established editor on mt. wikipedia, at User talk:Tony Sammut, w:mt:Diskussjoni utent:Tony Sammut and send him an email.
 * Leave a note at w:mt:Wikipedija:Ambaxxata
 * I would not take these extra steps if I wasn't >80% confident that with a little Maltese language help, good references would be found.


 * This was a contested deletion. By my understanding of our processes, that means it's not a candidate for speedy deletion. See:
 * Deletion policy
 * Criteria for speedy deletion


 * I do not understand what your urgency was in violating our own rules so rapidly. I would understand if there were a WP:BLP concern but to my knowledge "WP:BDP" is not a valid excuse for speedily deleting.


 * I spent probably 30-60 minutes researching and documenting this article and the best way to handle it. I take our content seriously, so I am frustrated that someone would so cavalierly overlook my edit summaries, my talk page comments, my AfD comments and Wikipedia's rules.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're free to restore it, of course... I'll just be blunt and say I just hope this doesn't turn into yet another "placeholder" until somebody comes along in 4 years to fix it up. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have taken the next steps that I was going to take before you deleted the article:
 * Left a note asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malta
 * Left notes for the Maltese article's creator, an established editor on mt. wikipedia, at w:mt:Diskussjoni utent:Tony Sammut and sent him an email.
 * Left a note at w:mt:Wikipedija:Ambaxxata which was later moved to w:mt:Diskussjoni:Carmelo Caruana
 * If any of these bear fruit, I will restore the article.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Luke Collins
Please see. WWGB (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

76.29.246.204
It looks like they're warring without addressing the problems anyways so I probably won't need AIV in the end after all; I just hate seeing all of these vandals tearing up articles knowing only a few check them (Chloe's Closet is a low-watched show in the first place, thus the lack of eyes on the articles to catch sneaky vandalism).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Warned at 23:49 (UTC), blocked by 01:00 -- that didn't last long. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rejected link
> Hello, I'm A. B.. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the >page Spam in blogs, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I >made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or >take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 >September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Not wanting to disagree with you, but can you explain to me what is the difference between the linksleeve link and the mt-blacklist link and the one i posted (comment spam wiper)? I'm failing to see the difference. And maybe if you can explain it to me I can make the modifications to get my link approved.

Thank you, Alex Alextrout (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Itemirus (talk)  19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you a bot?
If you aren't don't be offended. I'd just like to learn why did you put the shared IP template at my talk page in the first place.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge, but if I was one, would I be sufficiently self-aware to realize it?


 * You are not the first to wonder about this: User:A. B..


 * To your other question: I was reviewing talk pages of anonymous IPs who had recently received warnings looking for certain patterns involving vandalism from schools. I ran whois and geolocates on the IPs, then tagged the pages to identify the origins of the IPs. This is useful information for administrators since it can affect how they handle problems with anonymous users. Some schools are sources of nothing but childish vandalism ("Billie is gay", "Mary is a poop head", etc.); if they require blocking, their IP addresses are likely to be blocked for longer periods of time. Your shared IP tag was a byproduct of this effort.


 * Since you are editing Wikipedia from Greece, the cradle of philosophy, perhaps you can consider the question of self-awareness in bots while my masters put me in standby mode.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I live alone :(--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being nosy...
Why did you post 'domain tracking data' on User talk:Dennis291? I've not seen anyone do that before. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We sometimes do that with people that add spam. Spammers often use multiple user names or IP addresses, making it hard to know who's a repeat offender. By doing this, if Dennis291 tries to add that link again with a different account, as simple linksearch will reveal the earlier history at User talk:Dennis291. Dennis doesn't look like the hard-core spammer type, but as long as I was already looking at his page, I stuck that on there.


 * If you encounter spam in the future, I encourage you to do the same:
 * Tag the spam with LinkSummaryLive


 * Tag the known accounts with IPSummary and UserSummary


 * Those templates also provide links to some specialized search and information resources.


 * Thanks for asking!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS, You're not related to a brilliant Dutch lawyer also named Peridon are you?


 * I encounter spam every day - it's my main area of operations... Only related to one lawyer that I know of, and she's in Scotland. Only alleged relation from the Low Countries was a Flemish riding school master (apparently in North Wales), but my grandmother could never give the exact relationship or dates. (She couldn't give details of the Black Stewarts of Paisley who weren't hung for sheep stealing, either. I've never found a trace of them.) I won't give the source of my 'Peridon' as I try to maintain anonymity here. It's not medicine or booze linked, though. Back to the spam - I don't block the IP if it looks like a one off in house job. If I suspect a commercial spamming operation, I do block the IP. Very few of my blocks seem to appeal. One at the moment is waxing indignant. I'm off to bed. I'll look at your thingy tomorrow. Peridon (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I almost never block spammers. They just shift IPs or accounts, making them harder to find. So I actually prefer not to block them.


 * What sometimes slows them down and more often stops them altogether is blacklisting their web site domains at WP:SBL. That's what I do with spammers. Any spamming that's bad enough to justify blocking is bad enough to blacklist. Spammers hate it, too. In some cases, it can also cause off-Wikipedia consequences (search engines sometimes look at our blacklists when doing their own linkspam investigations), so we don't do it at the drop of a hat. As a blacklisting administrator, I want the spammer to have seen at least 3-4 warnings before I do this to him. At that point, it's time to blacklist.


 * I used to be very involved with spam mitigation myself from about 2005 to 2010; I've cut way back on Wikipedia (and Meta) work since then. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Online?
Are you still online? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, dealt with now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More eyes needed...
See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, once again. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look in the next day or two. Thanks for all your work on this. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Amsaim (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider notability issue
Hello, A. B. Do you think you might reconsider the "notability" banner that you placed on the article Jonathan Peizer? I have beefed up the article substantially with sources like Wired, Fast Company, and one especially you might wish look at -- First Monday, which is a lengthy one-on-one interview with Peizer, by Geert Lovink. I'm worried that if we reject documentation of the earliest Internet pioneers, an important era in history -- indeed, even in Wikipedia's history, as the Open Society Institute funded the Wikimedia Foundation -- will be buried. Nutson11 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Mr. Peizer’s notability his marginal. If the article went to an Articles for Deletion discussion, the decision to delete this article could go either way. Looking at your references (the links associated with this list can be found at the end of the article):


 * Net puts Mongolia in touch with rest of world, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 19 August 2000
 * I don’t know what this says. Is it about Peizer?


 * Wikis Go Printable, Wikimedia Foundation press release, 13 December 2007
 * Doesn’t mention Peizer. Press release.


 * An Interview with Allen Gunn of Social Source Commons, NetSquared.org
 * Makes brief mention of Peizer.


 * Social Source Commons: History and Appreciations, SocialSourceCommons.org
 * Just one paragraph on Peizer. I don’t think the source is the type that’s used to establish notability anyway.


 * Philanthropy, Grants, and Fund Raising Resources, University of Pittsburgh library guides ("Capaciteria")
 * One paragraph description of Peizer’s web site


 * Careful, you're contagious, Times Higher Education, 31 October 2003, Martin Ince
 * Very reliable source (for notability purposes) — but just a passing mention at the end.


 * Important Book on Technology in the Social Sector], Beneblog: Technology Meets Society, Jim Fruchterman, 10 May 2006
 * Pluses: long enough article. Fruchterman himself is notable. Minuses: It’s from a blog. It’s a review of Peizer’s book, not about him.


 * Book reviews: The Dynamics of Technology for Social Change - Jonathan Peizer, Alliance magazine, Oliver Denton, 1 March 2007
 * Pluses: long enough article.Minuses: It’s a review of Peizer’s book, not about him. The magazine doesn’t seem notable: Alliance (disambiguation)


 * Sysop for Soros, Wired (magazine), Ben Greenman, June 2006
 * Pluses: Wired is a very reliable source. Minuses: The piece is brief. The piece is not about him. Plus: at least they’re interested enough to briefly interview him


 * My Favorite Bookmarks - Jonathan Peizer, Fast Company, Lisa Chadderdon, 31 December 1997
 * Pluses: Fast Company is a very reliable source. Minuses: The piece is tiny. The piece is not about him. Plus: at least they’re interested enough to ask him for several favorite links


 * FM Interviews: Jonathan Peizer, First Monday, Volume 4, Number 2, Geert Lovink, 1 February 1999
 * This may be your best shot. Reliable source. Long. On the other hand, it’s an interview, not about him. But then again, they’re interested in interviewing him. They’re not interested in interviewing me.


 * Adapt These Eight Resources for Your Next Foundation Grant Proposal, GuideStar, August 2011
 * Not much there — someone at Guidestar devotes a sentence to linking to his 20 tips.


 * At an AfD discussion a couple of intangible factors might bias some people even they shouldn't. First Mr. Peizer had an article previously deleted and the comments were pretty adverse: a “vanity article” with attempted sockpuppetry. Wikipedia editors viscerally dislike that sort of thing. They’re also wary of paid editors writing pieces for people and I think your newness here may raise suspicions that you’re working for Mr. Peizer; sorry to be blunt but you need to be ready for this. This is one reason I left those comments on the article talk page; while flagging the article’s issues, I didn’t want people to knee-jerk react to the article’s background and delete it as a non-notable, possible autobiography until you had more chance to work on it.


 * These are just my opinions; I strongly encourage you to raise these questions at Notability/Noticeboard. You might reference this discussion so people can look at my bulleted list above and critique my points.


 * Finally, consider whether Mr. Peizer even wants an article. Articles for deletion/Jonathan Peizer had to have been a painful experience for him. Would he want you to potentially expose him to a repeat? Also, Wikipedia articles do get vandalized and otherwise turn into embarrassments; see:
 * Wikipedia biography controversy
 * Wikipedia is in the real world
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Autobiography
 * An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of
 * Conflict of interest
 * After working on this project for 7 years, I’m not sure I would want an article!
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and initiated a discussion at:
 * Notability/Noticeboard (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You've certainly thoroughly combed through the article's references, and that's appreciated, although I might disagree with a couple of your conclusions (e.g., "The piece is not about him"). I decided to let the Noticeboard discussion run its course without my input, and I see that after nearly a month, it gained no traction at all.  I was fine with the "notability" flag on the article, but after logging in this morning, I found that two more (false!) tags had been placed on the article -- a warning about autobiography, and one about "original research".  That irked me enough to respond in detail to that editor.  I hope that Wikipedia's culture generally is not as hostile to new contributors as it has relatively been toward me. Nutson11 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment to MrFiveThirty
Agreed. I believe his idiocy should be kept off Wikipedia due to its own ridiculousness. It's not helping matters to make this at all "personal". Should I delete the message, or is the damage done and I just avoid that sort of thing in the future? Thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: don't just walk away and don't erase your message either. Strike through what you already wrote and write in whatever you think is more appropriate now. You can use the bracketted s code to do this:
 * example produces example
 * That's been the best way I've seen people walk back comments they wished to retract.


 * That's my two cents. It's just so much easier for me to speak intemperately online than it is in person. I've never regretted retracting or apologizing for my comments around here when I've felt I spoke wrongly. I have, however, come to regret sticking to my guns out of pride even when I realized I was wrong.


 * Thanks for caring about this! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi A.B.

This is my first time using the Talk page, so hope I'm doing it right!

Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia. Apologies about "undoing" the Ghostwriter wiki page about the citations/references...

I looked at the links that you added to my Talk page. So, am I misreading this part...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I wondered if that applies to those parts that I "undid"?? As all of those prices are examples of costs for ghostwriters and readers won't have to "google" for this info?

Also I figured that it was better to have a citation to back it up (as I think all of them linked back to a page with the specific quotation? If not, that does sound unduly self-serving!)

Curious to hear your thoughts and look forward to seeing you around!

J.D.F. Jdf1984 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidance you quote above applies to people that are subjects of articles. So Mitt Romney's article can cite Mitt Romney as a source in asserting that blue is his favourite colour. Barack Obama's article can cite him as a source in asserting that his favourite colour is red. Obama's article might need further backing than just his own word in asserting that he was born in Hawaii since that is, in many eyes, a controversial claim. This also applies to organizations; we'll use Ford's reported sales from their audited financial statements since it's not an exceptional claim. I have never seen SELFSOURCE applied to a class of people. Romney can speak for Romney, Obama for Obama and Ford for Ford, but individual welders can't speak for welders or welding.


 * That's my take. I don't think I'm wrong but you might get another opinion by raising this question at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, A.B.! I agree and think that I totally misunderstood the selfsource guidance, but now I get it. My learning curve is practically vertical at this point!

I just wanted to figure out a way to fix all those "citation needed" on the article page, by linking back to the original quote/information...

Anyways, I will rest my case and definitely chalk this up to learning the ropes! This Wiki stuff is trickier than I first thought, but I did join the Journalism group on Wiki today to help on a few other pages. (I'm a Journalism grad!)

Thanks again for your help,

Talk soon Jdf1984 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

64.251.55.162 block
Why was this user blocked for one minor vandalism, please? - Denimadept (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Denimadept. Thanks for asking. 64.251.55.162 __NOINDEX__ (Cromwell Public Schools) is one of a bunch of vandalism-only K-12 school accounts that have been on my watchlist for a number of years. I didn't block that IP so much for that one edit but because it's a chronic source of nothing but trouble for Wikipedia, our readers and our editors:
 * Since 2005
 * 12 blocks starting with a 24 hour block and escalating eventually to 3 one-year blocks then my two-year block
 * 248 total edits, virtually all vandalistic and requiring someone revert them
 * 70 warnings (approximate -- includes warnings previously deleted)


 * Since the last block expired:
 * 37 of 39 edits were tests or downright vandalism
 * 1 was minor and helpful (wikilinking a word)
 * 1 was perhaps slightly unhelpful but minor and in good faith.
 * 10 ignored warnings


 * 26 abuse filter actions since the last block expired.
 * When it worked, the abuse filter caught some egregiously bad stuff.


 * Of the 39 most recent edits, most vandalism was typically reverted within 20 minutes but some wasn't:
 * 1 hour
 * 4½ hours
 * 18 hours
 * 27 hours (BLP)
 * 7 days


 * 16 BLP violations since the last block expired.
 * Typically they were schoolkid-type stuff involving either named classsmates or disliked celebrities:
 * ,,,,,,,,,, (4 edits),
 * Many of these edits look more silly than libelous in my eyes, but not necessarily in the eyes of their subjects.
 * Even if subsequently reverted on Wikipedia, these edits get propagated and perpetuated across the Internet by the hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors that don't continuously update their scraped Wikipedia content


 * 21 edits on other Wikimedia projects, while not covered by this block, have mostly been just as unhelpful:
 * commons:User talk:64.251.55.162
 * q:en:User talk:64.251.55.162
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/64.251.55.162
 * A nice exception: these 6 edits were not vandalism!
 * w:es:Usuario _discusión:64.251.55.162
 * w:simple:User talk:64.251.55.162
 * w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/64.251.55.162


 * As I said, I didn't so much block this account for what it had just done but more for what it would continue doing.


 * This is a soft block, so registered users can still edit from this IP by logging into their account. Juvenile editors are an important source of both good content and cleanup on Wikipedia; some are admins. At schools like this though, unsupervised computers are like holes in our hull that anonymously leak content out and garbage in.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS Other than kiddie vandalism-only school accounts, I'm probably more cautious about blocking people than most administrators working on complaints at WP:AIV.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the extensive answer. I've been reverting vandals for years, and I've no idea how you're managing this, but more power to you!!  My basic concept is that children should not be on the adult internet unsupervised, but I don't limit that to legal minors.  Not all of them are idiots, and not all adults are mature enough to deal with this kind of freedom well. - Denimadept (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Chloe's Closet Season 2
Go To http://www.moonscoop.com/files/FREE/Chloes%20Closet%20MIPTV%202012.pdf and go down until you see Season 2 Now In Production. and go down again until you see Carys Mozart. its True 76.29.246.204 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I blocked you previously not for lying but for disruptive editing and failure to cooperate and communicate with other editors. There were other editors and administrators that wanted to just block you away for a long time but as a compromise, instead of that, I gave you some special instructions on your talk page -- twice. Please follow these instructions carefully: make no edits to any articles without first getting consensus from established editors on that article's talk page. Otherwise, I will have to block you a second time -- and for a longer period.


 * As for the link you provided above, take it up with the other editors on the talk page for the article and discuss it with them. I'm not an active follower of this program.


 * Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A plan
Read the paragraph from,

this user BencherliteTalk once was on my section called

Thomas Weinandy
Here, too, I'm not sure what your rationale was to rollback my edit, and to issue a vandalism warning. An apparently COI account twice copied and pasted a curriculum vitae into the article, which is considered disruptive for several reasons, per WP:RESUME. I've again reverted to the non-resume version. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with the IP on this one, for what it's worth. The CV version of the article was entirely inappropriate, the IP correctly removed it and you should not have restored the CV or warned the IP.  Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do smell a rat who does want me out of Wikipedia less than a year eventually, bu I do value Wikipedia enough not to quit.-- GoShow (............................)   21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just reviewing, but what I'm saying is I have had users back in the days who tried IP accounts to test myself and hopefully to be blocked from editing, and I hope there is some answer to protect my user page and any files to not come into conflict with many IP users who have probably do have a confirmed account, although won't say it, if not thanks anyway.-- GoShow (............................)   21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that either administrator Bencherlite or myself are socks who have a long term agenda to discredit you? To be clear, I first ran across GoShow's edits on the reversion to Thomas Weinandy. I see a WP:Boomerang. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't apply among you or the other user, if your stalking me, I'm applying to others from last contributions and don't think all users have been considered under the law policy as well.- 'by GoShow--74.34.71.66 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

12.153.112.21
Dude, open your eyes! The user is reverting, continously, back to information from 2007. The user has repeatedly said they they are aware they are adding inaccurate information (ie: vandalism) and they are just following the sources (sources from 2007). They have not looked for new sources, just reverted to 2007 information, network names, company names, etc. Nothing in admittedly adding inaccurate information and not looking for new sources is in "good faith" as they claim. This isn't something DisRes is going to help with, this is vandalism pure and simple. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, my eyes are open!


 * Dude, here are the instructions:
 * Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism
 * I didn't write them, I just follow them:
 * "AIV deals mainly with obviously malicious edits that require no discussion; complex cases should usually be referred to other boards"
 * "Report only clear violations that do not require discussion or detailed explanations. If there is a reasonable chance that something may not be vandalism, it probably should be reported elsewhere, or not at all."


 * Here's what I wrote in response to your complaint and the IP's comment:
 * "Whatever the pros and cons of these edits, they're not the kind of obvious vandalism we deal with on this noticeboard."


 * I suggest you raise this at WP:ANI. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To sum up, if an admin has to investigate an issue, go through a bunch of diffs, try to figure out who's right and who's wrong, maybe check him/herself for some refs online to figure out what the article facts should say ... well, in that case, don't take it to WP:AIV. There's no shortage of administrators and administrator hopefuls that watch WP:ANI and enjoy sinking their teeth and time into something tricky. WP:AIV is for stuff an admin (who knows nothing about a so-called "List of AT&T U-verse channels") can figure out and deal with in 90 seconds or less. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I owe you an apology. I was on a 3-day sabbatical (for lack of a better word).  No internet, phone, TV, nada.  It was pretty cool.  I had hoped that once I came back this whole thing with the anon would be over with.  I was hoping that the AIV post today would be a short and sweet option with the continued vandalism.  After dealing with this for a week prior to my sabbatical and today, I got pissed when a block wasn't issued and I took that out on you.  I shouldn't have and I apologize.


 * I really didn't want to go to ANI (waaaay too much drama there), but if I have to, I will. Hope your post on the "List of AT&T U-verse channels" talk page and the user's talk page will keep this from continuing.  If not, I will go to ANI.  Thanks... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to bring this to your attention. Particularly the line that states if indefinite semi-protection was enacted on the List of AT&T U-verse channels page, the user would "would merely get an account to ensure that the source is respected and other sources are added".  It is quite clear from that the user is stating they would create an account and continue to edit disruptively regardless of page protection.  Hence I am requesting a block on the IP account, block on creating accounts and a range block (shouldn't take up too many people as it is a company IP). -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

<A.B., I apologize for contributing to your exasperation. I appreciate your referrals to us both, but I wanted to ensure you understood that I was simply matching article information to the source provided. I had presumed my fellow editors were competent enough to recognize that the article should conform to the source provided, that it should not rely on dynamic sources but static sources, and that unsourced assertions should be sourced. It appears that you and Masem have uncovered a nest of poor articles defended primarily by editors who want to use WP as a convenience link to their zipcode's provider offerings. While the article I have in mind may not arise anytime soon, I trust you recognize my intent to stay within WP web-building policy. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I think maintaining an article like that is like keeping a sand castle in the tidal zone: it invites dispute, provides readers with stale incorrect information and soaks up a lot of editorial time. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you say is agreeable and worthy of reflection. Wikipedia is itself a sandcastle. We in the tidal vanguard are merely enjoying in microcosm the probable eventual fate of the whole edifice based on slightly higher ground. I am a sandcastle. I am a mudpie. It is in fact the human conception of Wikipedia, rather than the collection of megabits themselves, that serves as the ultimate bedrock. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD of the U-verse article
Would have perfered you waited to AfD that as I had just added 4 confirming references this morning since the anon was clearly not. From what I read above, still was not going to. Oh well. I understand why you did. If it is deleted, could you save the article after deletion and move it to my userspace or send it to me via email? Thanks... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not AfD the article, although as I wrote in the Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, the thought had just crossed my mind as I signed off yesterday. Someone else beat me to it.


 * I'd be happy to save a copy if needed.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my goof. That's what I get for editing when I first wake up.  Things blend into each other.  Anywho, I figure it will be deleted and as I said on the AfD, I won't be upset if it is. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks A. B. for noticing. User:The Bushranger has userfied the article now but not the talk and is currently out. Could you please also userfy the deleted Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels to User talk:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels? It is relevant to the content dispute. The username has now been approved for and requested for move to the "good guy" so will be moved there after userfication. Thanks in advance. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

72.186.48.128
is at it again here. Eric444 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Be on the lookout for sockpuppets. I tried to set the block as long as I could without forcing him into sockpuppetry. In my experience, it's better to keep blocking the same IP for short periods than to have all kinds of socks hitting you by surprise. 2 weeks is about the outer limit of the typical edit warrior's patience. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you keep an eye out for new IPs from the Tampa, Florida area doing the same stuff; if so, report them to me or another administrator, being sure to include a link to this IP's talk page (that way you won't have to jump through hoops first giving multiple warnings, etc).


 * Thanks for watching over our content. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * from the Tampa, Florida area made a similar edit to Jack Ingram's article here and also vandalised Trisha Yearwood's article here. Eric444 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I just blocked it. Let me know the next IP when it appears. If I'm offline, feel free to get another admin to block; make sure they know the histories of 24.160.92.209 and 72.186.48.128.


 * Thanks for your work on this!. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

208.67.34.233
I don't know, maybe it's because I've seen good edits come from some schools and school districts (including my alma mater), but I just don't understand why sysops these days drop 1 year blocks on schools and even colleges after single incidents of recent vandalism. Personally, I think it's a violation of the blocking policy, since I don't think the user at 208.67.34.233 had been adequately warned before it was blocked; although there are oodles of prior warnings, this is a shared IP and prior edits, good or bad, quite possibly could have come from a different person. Maybe it's just me, but if I were you, I would lift that block, or at least shorten it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue was discussed extensively a few months ago in the thread you started at:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231


 * The alternative to blocking the virtually vandalism-only school accounts is to use WP:ABUSE. You're welcome to try this but I have several reservations:
 * School staff are already stretched thin. Keeping an eye on every computer screen all the time is probably unreasonable.
 * For IT staff that do want to be responsive to WP:ABUSE, the easiest way to stop vandalism is to block Wikipedia. It's much trickier for them to figure out how to allow access to read but not edit Wikipedia. It's still more work for them to allow reading and editing by registered accounts.
 * "Successful" WP:ABUSE actions may do much more collateral damage (blocking all site access and or editing by registered users) than simple IP soft-blocks


 * We have many excellent editors and some admins under the age of 18 with registered accounts. These school IP blocks don't hinder their ability to edit Wikipedia.


 * As a general rule, I am more cautious about blocking registered users and non-school IPs than the average admin. I take a more proactive stance towards primary and secondary school IPs -- most of them are nothing but sources of trouble. I'm glad you say your school wasn't.


 * Before blocking any IP, if the source is not already identified, I'll check whois, run 2 different geolocates, and sometimes a traceroute. I do this to determine if it's a school, library, hot spot, hotel or university. Libraries, hotels and hot spots I block for very short times (<24 hours). For primary and secondary schools, I'll escalate from the last block. For universities, it depends: some colleges' students edit like children. In other cases, whois shows the IP registered to the state university system while traceroute indicates a high school using the state university system for access. (Example, the University of Missouri's statewide MOREnet]


 * If you look at my edit history, you'll see that I have spent a lot of time tagging IPs with shared IP templates of various sorts based on investigating who's really at the other end of the modem. Before I block anyone, I'll look at the edit history (not just the warnings) and spot check 5 to 10 (unless I've dealt with that account before).


 * In a gray area are all the many school IPs that aren't explicitly identified as such but are instead listed as institutional customers of ISPs (examples: Comcast Business Communications (USA), TPG Internode (Australia), Cogent Communications (USA/Canada -- especially Ontario)). In these cases, I look at still more edits. I check the dates and times against the academic year for that country. I look at the quality of the vandalism; disaffected adults working for Air Canada and using a Cogent IP vandalize employer or politicians' pages with embittered comments; they seldom work "poop", "penis" or "gay" into their edits. Their kids, editing from a Cogent IP at a Toronto area school, like those dirty words and they attack video games and celebrities most adults never heard of.


 * So whether you agree with my philosophy or not, you have to admit I do put a lot of thought and care into it.


 * Now let's look at that IP of yours, 208.67.34.233 __NOINDEX__ . When I blocked it, I had looked at the IP before and put it on my watchlist, I saw it vandalizing again, spot-checked its recent edit history and abuse filter and blocked it again. I might spend several minutes sizing up an IP like that before blocking it and I'd base a lot on spot-checking. Let's see how my decision stacks up against a detailed analysis of that IP's history:


 * 93 completed edits:
 * 14 good faith edits
 * 3 useful edits of approximately one sentence
 * 9 minor edits
 * 2 good faith but very unhelpful edits
 * 79 bad-faith edits
 * 1 deleted vandalistic edit
 * 2 test edits (IP reverted own vandalism)
 * 3 vandalistic edits on de.wikipedia
 * 73 regular vandalism
 * 42 uncompleted edits (stopped and warned by abuse filter)


 * 33 ignored warnings
 * 42 additional abuse filter warnings
 * 5 escalating blocks to no effect
 * the last was one year


 * Median time from vandalism to reversion: 1 minute
 * Mean time from vandalism to reversion: 3534 minutes
 * 15 longest revert times:
 * 65,795 min., 55,324 min., 48,175 min., 42,978 min., 1,803 min.536 min., 217 min., 195 min., 161 min., 140 min., 108 min., 32 min., 13 min., 13 min., 13 min., 13 min.


 * I could have let this IP accumulate 3 to 4 more warnings, then blocked it again. But it's a chronic vandalism account and WP:BLOCK allows blocking sooner. Blocking it now gave our readers more reliable content and our editors a little more time to actually edit rather than revert and warn. We have a problem with editor burnout and vandalism is usually one of the top reasons editors (not admins) cite for giving up.


 * At your request, I have reduced the block length -- from 2 years to 1 year. Understand, though, that based on past history, you can expect the following in one year, going through the sequence of escalating warnings, etc. that I sense you prefer:
 * On the plus side for our readers and editors:
 * maybe one good-faith edit of a sentence in length
 * 1 to 2 minor, good-faith edits


 * On the negative side:
 * 5 to 6 ignored warnings before an actual block
 * 7 attempted edits triggering the abuse filter and generating ignored notices
 * 13 vandalistic edits
 * 9 will get fixed within 3 minutes
 * 4 will take much longer to get spotted and fixed


 * The ball's in your court now -- please put this IP on your watchlist and make sure you catch it before it does too much damage in 365 days.
 * Thanks,
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute -- your alma mater is Port Charlotte High School, right? Check these out:
 * 209.26.221.66 __NOINDEX__
 * 204.86.170.87 __NOINDEX__
 * 204.86.170.6 __NOINDEX__
 * 204.86.170.3 __NOINDEX__
 * 216.45.240.198 __NOINDEX__
 * As you said, there may be some good edits coming from those IPs but I see many more that have created headaches for other editors and reduced reliability for our readers.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very well aware of those CCPS IPs, which represent over 15,000 users. As you said, there's a lot of vandalism from schools and shared IPs in general. My beef isn't with that, it's the fact that every written policy here says to assume good faith with everyone, only block after issuing four warnings, and don't bite the newbie editors. While many of these IPs have many warnings, they often represent thousands of users, and yesterday's vandalism could quite possibly been someone entirely different, and today's contributor may have not even seen any of those warnings, yet the IP gets blocked. Worse yet, I see too many admins take the same mentality of treating shared IPs as one person and applying it to universities, corporations, and military installations which have a much higher good faith percentage than K-12s. Furthermore, while we have the form to request an account, it's often times impossible to access an email account from these places due to the webfilter blocking it (my school USED to block all of Wikipedia even; from 2006 to 2012 only the real nerds that knew about the secure server could get access). While the newbie editor might go home and log into his/her account, (s)he might also just forget about editing Wikipedia.
 * If we're going to treat shared IPs as a single long term abuser why do we even bother with the shared templates? Shouldn't the WHOIS template be enough? If we're going to blow these IPs out of the water every chance we get, why do we even monkey around with the one year blocks; why don't we just soft block them all indef and say it's because we get too much abuse from them? Wouldn't that make more sense? Better yet, why not require everyone to create an account, and change the autoblocks to a softblock that prevents account creation from the IP that the abusive account came from but allows already established editors to edit? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I don't entirely disagree with your ideas, I just think it clashes with Wikipedia's philosophy of welcoming everyone. One of these days maybe enough people will figure out that it's just better for registration to be required. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DiveReport.com
Dear A.B,

You have blacklisted DiveReport.com from Wikipedia Details the site provides information regarding diving to see seasonal animals and as such is valuable and useful information for divers specifically. Typically visitors from wikipedia viewed 10+ pages and spent an average of 2min 20seconds on the website indicating that it is indeed information that Adds value.

Of course you can quote sales pitches from our Advertising page, most commerical website have a requirement to make money somehow - the issue really is weather the links were, or were not spam. In this case - the external links were placed on pages where DiveReport.com adds real value to visitors and is not information that can be got from anywhere else, even nearly as easily, online. The data is provided by local and highly authoritive experts at each location.

I strongly feel that these links were not spam, they impact our SEO in no-way what-so-ever as all links are no-follow from Wikipedia (which makes the section you quoted from our site irellevant).

I would kindly ask if they could be restored and DiveReport.com be removed from the Block list. Page editors from the 15 or so page which the external link was added to clearly saw the benefits of the information provided.

Best,

Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.162.92 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Catherine, I blacklisted your site because you kept adding links even as different editors left you messages not to do this. You can request a review of my decision at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but I wouldn't get your hopes up -- I think others will take the same approach. First you may want to go back to those messages we left you at the various IPs you used and read the material they link -- I think that may help you understand the issues that will come into play when your links are reviewed. Be sure to read:
 * External links
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Spam
 * Conflict of interest
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com spam
A quick reminder of this. You now have a very good reason to examine those domains; they're evading the blacklist yet again:





MER-C 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * MER-C, I'm sorry I was away. It looks like Hu12 blacklisted the new domains. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21. Thank you.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned you by name, hence the notification. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for your help with this. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My Section
Ma'am, I read your message and clearly understandble and gladly respectfully to you ma'am, I understood the guidelines, and yes it was just a mistake, possibly the user might have edited back on, or I might have put it back on to complete the sentence, other than this subject ma'am no problem, and keep on the counter-vandalism ma'am.-- GoShow (............................)   19:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note
I just wanted to drop you a note that I do appreciate your comments but the fact is that in addition to article creation and improvement I deal a lot in administrative related areas, partially because there aren't enough active admins and these tasks would likely not get done otherwise. So I hope you'll understand that it annoys me greatly that so many editors think I can't be trusted. This has also significantly contributed to my feelings that the RFA process is a failure and that unbundling the tools is necessary for the long term health of the project. Admins will still be needed to give permissions, would still have the full set of tools and would still be there to mediate but more people would have the tools they need for their niche tasks rather than submit an RFA just so they can block vandals, edit a protected page or be able to pull in more than 25, 000 pages to AWB. Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski
86.159.159.194 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the emphasis on your comment on the above user's talk page - it won't happen again. My intention was not to undermine the importance of your comment for Andy Dingley, but to emphasise it for Wtshymanski.  I have come to know both editors very well and I know that Andy will take the point on board without any extra emphasis or repetition.  However, Wtshymanski had since demonstrated his usual reluctance to take any notice.


 * The Wtshymanski editing issue has been dragging on for years, including an RfC on his controversial editing, the admin decision from which he ignored, even after a subsequent block. You might also notice from his sarcastic comments and edit summaries that he disapproves of editors with IP addresses, such as myself even being allowed to edit articles.  A frequent edit summary for reverting an edit (and not just from me) is, "rv edit by anon" or even, "rv v by anon" ("v" is his abbreviation for 'vandalism' even though it is a good faith edit) with no futher justification for the reversion.  Wtshymanski cannot seem to get to grips with the idea he does not dictate Wikipedia policy. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I see Wtshymanski as a talented, prolific contributor -- and stubborn. I first became aware of him when I saw what he'd done to one of our technical articles, went to praise him and saw all the stuff about the RfC. My goal is to keep him happily doing what he does best with the least disruption possible. Some of his work is problematic but it looks to me like it only gets more problematic when others get in his face. Plus, some of his critics' behaviour has been unconscionable. Most other admins would probably have immediately blocked the editor that posted that stuff about him on your user talk page.


 * He's also not the only content-builder involved, however, so I walk a line trying not to discourage others such as Andy or yourself.


 * Some people say admins are cops. Others say we're janitors with mops. Maybe sometimes we're cops beating people with mop-handles. As for me, I value our content-creators (more than admins) and want them to get along and keep enjoying what they're doing, so mostly I just stick to waving the wet, nasty but soft end of the mop at them.


 * I've told Wtshymanski to stop merging articles and I do expect him to stop.


 * Maybe I'm too nice. Perhaps I should go turn the mop around and whack someone. Probably not. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A not so hypothetical question has reared its head. Regarding the comment posted to my talk page by DieSwartzPunkt that you deleted.  You stated on DieSwartzPunkt's talk page regarding writing such information, that, "Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous".  Fair comment, I have no problem with that.  (Yes, there is a 'but' comming.)


 * But (told you!) Wtshymanski himself has posted a direct link to the very post that you deleted on DieSwartzPunkt's talk page here. Does that now nean that Wtshymanski himself has decided that he does not wish to remain so anonymous and that the material can now be used (not that I was planning to)?  86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, no it does not mean that. See WP:OUTING. We bend over backwards in these cases. It's also not clear he's confirming anything -- just sticking it to DieSwartzPunkt sarcastically (and under the circumstances, with some justification). -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now deleted that material. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good move. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad some of these people aren't air traffic controllers or homicide detectives - hypervigilance has its uses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an even better thing that I'm not in a control tower!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In spite of your instruction to Wtshymanski, he has resorted to merging articles again. And also resorted to not merging them properly leaving the editing history of the source articles unlinked. Recent merges include [|this] and [|this] 86.159.159.194 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio at Alex Ward
Hello! Alex Ward is comprised almost entirely of a copy/paste from IMDb. The original contributor,, has an obvious COI and has been warned/helped/scolded/etc several times. The article should be CSD-G12, but now other editors are removing the CSD so I have replaced it with. Could you take a look and (hopefully) speedy it? Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. This is quite a surprise! -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Telogis spamvertising on Wikipedia.
I hope it's okay posting this on your talk page. The Telogis page is spamvertising on Wikipedia. The same spamvertising they're doing on Glassdoor and paid-for news sites like businesswire, prweb and prnewswire. I request that the Telogis page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckingNorris (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD
For your information, Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your prompt attention to and blocking of vandal users, in particular the recent block of an IP user whose vandal edit I recently reverted. I'd have given a barnstar, but you've received one of those recently, and the kitten was far cuter ;)

Besieged (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 

Channel lineups AFD
Hello, A. B. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski and unrestricted article merging
In spite of your instruction to Wtshymanski not to merge any more articles, he is nevertheless back to his mass merging of articles ways. It started as one or two here and there (presumably to see if you were watching), and is now back to its original flow rate. This is of particular concern because Wtshymanski is now back to merging articles where there is either no justification or support, but also where the consencus is not to merge. I believe he is just getting the mergers from the backlog list but is not bothering to check the relevant talk page (though there is evidence that this is happening in a few cases - I suspect that it depends on whether Wtshymanski himself believes the article should be merged).

The main point of concern is that Wtshymanski still refuses to tidy up the merge by including the and  tags in the respective talk pages so that the contribution and discussion history is preserved. Wtshymanski's approach is to refer the reader in the edit summary, but this is unacceptable as the edit summary soon disappears down the list and is lost in the noise. I note that at least 3 editors other than myself have complained at some time or other recently on Wtshymanski's talk page on this very point (discussion attempt is always deleted without response - standard procedure at any attempt at engaging Wtshymanski in meaningful discussion). I would have attached a list of diffs for the merges, but I figured that you are as capable of getting them from Wtshymanski's contributions history as I am. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:199.182.67.130 block notice
Hi, you marked User talk:199.182.67.130 with a block notice, but the IP is not blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooops!


 * Thanks for catching that. Now blocked. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

 * It's been a really trying day and this is such a pleasant surprise -- thank you!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:173.59.238.107
Hi, this is a dynamic IP allocated to Verizon. I was wondering how you established that this is an Education IP, please? TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right -- it's not a school. I made a mistake. I've been trying to identify IP ranges for problematic school systems and I was going through yesterday's blocked IPs. If an IP I looked at was not a school IP, I still tagged it with a shared IP tag anyway since I'd already dug up the ISP info anyway.


 * In this case, I just plain made a mistake using Twinkle's shared IP tagging feature.


 * 173.59.238.107 is technically "dynamic" since the IP address is not permanently assigned. At the same time, from our point of view as administrators in assessing IP editing patterns, it's more like a static IP. (See Dynamic IP). For a DSL, FIOS or cable modem, I normally tag them just as "shared IPs", neither "dynamic" or "static". If the whois or traceroute data indicates a static IP, I use the static IP tag. If it says it's a dial-up modem pool, I use the dynamic IP tag; dial-up modems get new IPs every session.


 * Thanks for catching my mistake!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for that helpful explanation. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  18:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Links to subsequent and/or concurrent discussions:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 (permanent link)
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 55
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * User talk:MrOllie/Archive 4
 * User talk:Ethicalv (permanent link)


 * Prior relevant discussion with links to other previous discussions:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2012
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Non Notable People
Hi A.B. Could you please help. Two users by the names of TheOriginalSoni, and Bhockey10 keep re-adding a list of non-notable people to the ACHA (hockey) page. I have made them aware of the policy, (a min of a 100 games played at the ECHL or higher), but they both claim that policy does not apply. I fail to see how it does not apply, as wiki's standards in this case are clear. Can you look into this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the note. I quickly skimmed your exchanges and I have these suggestions:
 * Get some additional, knowledgeable editors to weigh in and help. I suggest you post a neutral request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey asking for some others to take a look. I'm not aware of any guidelines on notability based on the number of hockey games played but the Ice Hockey WikiProject editors will. They'll also have much more credibility than I would in this case. Our general guidelines on notability can be found at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO
 * See our policy, "Assume Good Faith". These two editors look like they're trying to improve Wikipedia just like yourself. Lighten up a little bit. While your comments are within the broad bounds of our Civility Policy, even I'm a little intimidated by your tone and I'm not involved in your dispute. Things work much more smoothly if folks use "cheerful" and "friendly" as their standards rather just settling for cold civility.
 * I encourage you to register and get a user name. In theory, anonymous editors using just an IP address have just as much clout in an editorial dispute as an editor in long-standing. In reality, anonymous editors unfortunately don't get the credibility they should. Also, since other people may be using the same IP address, your reputation can get tarred by the poor edits made by others. That's not the way things are supposed to work, but that's the actual dynamic I see everyday.
 * For what it's worth, we have dozens of policies and hundreds of guidelines. I don't know all of them and I doubt anyone else does either.
 * See these pages for the sheer numbing quality of what I'm talking about:
 * Policies and guidelines
 * Category:Wikipedia policies (including all the policies listed on subcategory pages)
 * Category:Wikipedia guidelines (even more pages listed on subcategory and sub-subcategory pages)
 * It helps to be very specific and use links to the relevant material when citing our rules. It also helps to be diplomatic, or else you can provoke a bout of "Wikilawyering" on the other person's part.
 * 90% of what new editors need to know can be found on this one page:
 * Simplified ruleset
 * I hope this helps. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi A.B., hate to bother you but it seems like you've dealt with user 198.84.241.55 as well. After awhile away from editing, it seems the user is back. He continues to pick apart notability guidelines for Notability (sports) and apply the pieces to a cited list. The edits and reverts are boarding on an edit-war and the user has had the corrections explained to him/her by myself and other editors. The list is question is hockey players, the remaining players on the list either meet notability for a stand-alone article or are close to meeting it. They have played either 100+ games at the ECHL (mid-minor pro level) or in the case of Nick Pappas, played in the ECHL's predecessor league. Other players have played in the highest level of hockey in respective European countries in leagues such as the Austrian Hockey League... The user's edits and inability to grasp editing concepts and etiquette that has been explained before, is becoming unconstructive and at times boarding vandalism. Thanks for your help in the matter. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi A.B., the above post is not exactly correct. Bhockey fails to mention that the three people I have removed played in either Turkey, Poland, or the AAHL.  While Bhockey is correct that they have played in the highest level in the nation, it is diffently not notable, nor does it meet guildlines.  As for the AAHL, this league is far below the ECHL.  Furthermore, one player who I have never removed from the list, hockeydb has him as the only player on his club team in the 80's well before the ACHL came into being.  This is a clear mistake, and one that needs to be corrected.  Like I said to bhockey, don't shoot the messenger.  If he does not like the 100 ECHL game standard, then he should try to change the policy.  If not, then he should try to edit within policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sir!
sir i have a problem, this user is doing Edit war, I sent to him two warning messages about that, but not paying attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinema_of_the_United_States&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheClown90 see the record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheClown90

greetings MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been away several weeks; I'm sorry to be slow in responding.


 * It looks like another admin subsequently blocked this person.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

67.218.53.224
I have yet another IP user who refuses to post edits in proper English. 67.218.53.224 has been posting mostly gibberish over the past three months to the point of vandalizing. Unfortunately, ARV has done absolutely nothing about the user.

Furthermore, the IP user is related to users DharakJoo and Dharakjoo1 and marked all three on sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, the case was closed for supposed lack of evidence.

What would be your advice on this situation? - Areaseven (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked several recent edits and didn't see problems -- the English was good and they weren't gibberish. I'd say you have an editorial dispute and this is not vandalism.


 * I'm sorry to be slow in responding; I've been offline several weeks.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about his English? Check out these edits here, here and here and tell me why his grammar is good. - Areaseven (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:A. B./UserSummary
Hi there! I thought I should let you know that I escaped the category at User:A. B./UserSummary per the protected edit request here. Feel free to reinstate it if you think that's not a good idea. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That same question for User:A. B./IPwhois. Could you take a look? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What I don't like about what you did with 64.56.87.247
Yes, I know you probably think I'm a pain questioning what you do with IPs, but I know you do things like this a lot. In this case, you wrote "this IP probably belongs to the affiliated high school", which, based on the edits, was probably an accurate assumption. However, it was not a necessary assumption; the IP was already tagged as belonging to SCF, which was really close enough don't you think? I won't lie, when something is tagged with something like "BOCES Unit 20" or "Florida Information Resource Network" and I can narrow it down to something more specific I do it, but I don't think its a good idea to guesstimate when we don't have to. Case in point: a couple of years ago, there was an IP address belonging to Verizon Business (UUNet) vandalizing articles, but based on the edits, I "guesstimated" that it belonged to Winn-Dixie Stores (a company that hires kids as young as 15 by the way), though a few years later I ended up working for that company and learned that all of their IPs are through an AT&T connection at the corporate headquarters in Jacksonville. When I learned this, I tracked down that IP and switched it to an ISP shared template with Verizon Business as the owner. Now the important lesson in this is that if something controversial would have come from that IP and it made the news as being an IP registered to some company that it's actually not, Wikipedia (and myself for that matter) could have been in legal trouble. Additionally, I don't think it would be a good thing if (for example) the news was reporting that something that actually belonged to a shopping mall's wi-fi network (and I think we both know what demographic likes to hang out at the mall) was instead an "educational institution IP address." It is for these reasons that I try to avoid guesstimating. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI
I just blocked two editors, and filed Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing?
Hello A.B.

I noticed that you have not edited since 28 February 2013. Hope all is well with you and you will return when able. If I do not hear from you, or anyone else can fill me in on your current status I will likely add you to the Missing Wikipedians page. Regards --220  of  Borg 13:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still around -- just not as often as I'd like. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

HELP
Hi. I'm new user of Mediaviki. I created some page that used Mediawiki. Can You help me with some thing or show me somebody who can do it? I need some help with upgrading Mediawiki and set option. Thank You.--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Block referenced on Village Pump
A. B., I would like to let you know, as a courtesy, that I have referenced one of your past blocks on a Village Pump proposal to block school IPs on sight. Perhaps, since perform a lot of schoolblocks, you would like to input your opinion into the discussion? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I just left a response. Hopefully others will comment also.
 * - A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, glad you were able to contribute to the discussion (I see you haven't been around as much lately). PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agora
Dear A. You've worked on this back in 2008, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Oct_2, there are now two (legitimate) whitelisting requests for links related to Agora Inc., which prompted me to look around. I see e.g. Special:Contributions/Glycerrnin, and there seem to be more (still unsure). Mind refreshing this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pinged MER-C as well .. see User_talk:MER-C .. they are definitely still at it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam for a report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated
Hi Mr A. B.,

Feel free to voice your opinion regarding this proposal here. --Philippe Jackson (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 11:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Subpages
Hi A. B., I know you are on a long wikibreak but in case you visit you might like to know that there is a discussion about clearing up Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded at its talk. One minor issue concerns these pages which are in that category because of the large number of templates: Am I right in thinking those pages could be blanked? I'll ping Beetstra in case he wants to comment. I might blank the pages if it's not a problem. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (1 to 1000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (10001 to 11000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (1001 to 2000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (11001 to 12000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (2001 to 3000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (3001 to 4000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (4001 to 5000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (5001 to 6000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (6001 to 7000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (7001 to 8000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (8001 to 9000)
 * User:A. B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia open proxies (9001 to 10000)


 * Why blank them - are they any issue to the reader? Just edit the section and it transcludes.  They don't eat server time, they are just not readable (which they are not really supposed to be anyway).  I can see that exceeded template include size is a problem in mainspace, but it should not be outside of that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They are open proxies from a decade ago. Yes it is true that you can edit a section, and press preview. But to get there you first need to know which page and section to edit - assuming you are even aware of these pages.  If you are interested in 88.212.223.233 for example you would need to trawl through all the pages in edit mode until you find it, make a note of the section number, display the page, edit the section and press preview.
 * Not very user friendly, even compared with simply typing.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC).


 * I have added a comment at Category_talk:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. The key problem is not that using too much space on the servers will result into a melt down of the polar bears, but that $$12000-\varepsilon$$ IP are tagged "IPVandals" as a result of an undocumented process that happened nine years ago and was stopped after only one per cent completion. I have summarized the informative part of this huge list into User:A._B./Sandbox10/fr.wikipedia_open_proxies_commented. It contains only 123 items! And obviously, nine years later, most of the IP have been reassigned. Using "IPVandals" for not guilty people rise a BLP concern, doesn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am inactive to the point of almost but not quite gone. I am not using these pages -- I suggest just getting rid of them if nobody else is using them. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count)
 * Many thanks, I will tag them . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC).


 * I deleted them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

AN/I
FYI, I referenced a talk page comment you made a few years ago regarding school blocks over at AN/I. Just thought I'd let you know. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!  20:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jclapham/draft article


A tag has been placed on User:Jclapham/draft article, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. creffett (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)