User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/4

Kissle
I'd like to try out Kissle, so would you please add me to User:Tim Song/Kissle/kisslepermissions.css? Thanks. :)  American Eagle  ( talk ) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They both did it to my user page
I did not do it without reason look up my history. ThanksIslamuslim (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not mean you should do it in return. Period. Tim Song (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake understood. ThanksIslamuslim (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yusuf_Ali
The article was deleted by you with reasons ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) Please note the person in question was not a living person. The page itself contained information about his murder. I also feel that the article cannot be called an attack page as the original article was mainly started to question the legal process under which this person was convicted in a court of law. As further people edited the original article it started taking a balanced shape. I strongly recommend undeleting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.160.58 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Declined. Just as you can't create an article saying "XYZ is a convicted criminal" citing only a blog, you can't create one saying "XYZ is a convicted criminal who was executed" citing merely a blog. There's no way we can tell whether he's dead without a reliable source. Tim Song (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conviction can be confirmed from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/867454.stm and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/867449.stm

I am looking for referencing about death. There are a lot of references in off-line non-english material. Will that suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.160.58 (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way he was murdered in Jail by another prisoner while his appeal was pending in a higher court so he was not actually executed on court orders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.160.58 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found this site that mentions his murder http://www.hvk.org/articles/0803/212.html --111.119.160.58 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Found another reference of his murder here http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-law:-a-long-list-of-injustices-%28An-overview%29-16718.html It uses an alternate spelling of his name Muhammad Yousaf Ali. Following sentence in this news confirms that this is the same person : "Yousaf Ali, 55, had been sentenced to death for blasphemy on 5 August 2000. " --111.119.160.58 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry for being impatient. Just want to make sure that you have noticed additional comments I have added in the Deletion ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yusuf_Ali above --111.119.160.58 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You rejected the undeletion request on the ground that there are no reliable sources confirming death and conviction.

I have gathered following resources: Conviction reference can be seen here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/867454.stm and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/867449.stm

Murder reference http://www.hvk.org/articles/0803/212.html

Another reference of his murder herehttp://www.asianews.it/news-en/Blasphemy-law:-a-long-list-of-injustices-%28An-overview%29-16718.html

It uses an alternate spelling of his name Muhammad Yousaf Ali. Following sentence in this news confirms that this is the same person : "Yousaf Ali, 55, had been sentenced to death for blasphemy on 5 August 2000. --111.119.160.58 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay. The sources look fine. I'll undelete it once I get some time to restore and add the sources, or, if you want to work on it, I can move it to the article incubator and it can be moved back to mainspace once it is adequately sourced. Tim Song (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I am willing to work on it within incubator --111.119.160.58 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, incubated at Article Incubator/Muhammad Yusuf Ali. I have hidden the original content from displaying, but they are still visible in the wikicode. Let me know when you're done with it. Also, please do not start a new thread whenever you post a new response. Perhaps contrary to popular perception, I'm not online 24 hours a day. Tim Song (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re AE closure
Hi Tim, While I have no problem with the closing of the AE thread, wikifan and I have since discussed the matter at length and I hope the issue of WP:BURDEN has been put to rest for now, I do take objection to the closing remarks to the effect that I was trying to get an upper hand in a content dispute. The rationale for such a statement is unclear to me and I find it to be contradicting both my personal motivation and the facts as presented. Please refactor or substantiate. Thank you!, Unomi (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see where I made a statement to that effect. It was a content dispute, which AE is not for. My brief statement to that effect does not, and is not meant to, imply any misconduct or suggest any improper motivation on your part. If you have a problem with Sandstein or Stifle's comments, please contact them. Tim Song (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it was not a content dispute. I asked for clarification as to why Sandstein thought it was a content dispute, and he simply stated that I hadn't shown any edits using poor sources. I intentionally didn't include any article edits as it was, not a content dispute. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am online at the moment and the next few hours if you have a few minutes to spare. Unomi (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry
Hello there, Mr. Tim Song. Today, you banned my brother [hmstrrnnr] for abusing editing privileges. Now, I am the vandal that tried to vandalize the [Howard Dean] article, and yes; I'm the one who started the argument about the [dyatlov passing incident], and I wish to apologize to you-and to all of Wikipedia-for acting like a [Troll]. Believe me when I say that I didn't mean for my brother to get into trouble; I was just expressing my beliefs about the subject of the Dyatlov Passing Incident. So please; look into you heart and have sympathy for me and my brother, and-hopefully-you and Wikipedia will forgive me.

Sincerely, 99.189.77.240 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BROTHER. Tim Song (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Another sock
Another sock from the History of IBM saga. Also, FYI, I believe these all to be meats or socks of Edwin Black -- he arrived shortly after the socks were blocked, and this latest IP showed up right after he was indefblocked for legal threats. Is it permissible to semi-prot a talkpage? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31h. Not when the article is protected. Tim Song (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New little pile
Heya -- I just knocked out a little sock ring that turns out apparently to be a continuation of User:Brunodam's activities. What's the right form for adding these accounts to Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam? They'll also want to be retagged correctly, I guess. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Piggy Awards Scheme
If I cant put my awards on other users pages, why do you have barnstars on yours? --PiggyAwards (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Barnstars are normally put on a user's talk page, who may or may not choose to move it then to their userpage. In addition, this is not a social networking site, and users who come here to socialize instead of actually build an encyclopedia may find themselves blocked. Finally, your username arguably violates our username policy, in that it implies some sort of authority when none exists. Tim Song (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BoopBoopaDoop socks
I didn't notice this until now, but take a look at the contributions of. It seems likely that this is the same person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No edit since March 28, so I'm not inclined to block now. Tim Song (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. JFTR, seems to be her as well, but it's even more stale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee (arsonist)
Is the use of the G10 criteria a recent change to reduce the BLP mess and "delete, then create with better sources" way of thinking? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw a horrendously sourced bio saying that someone's an arsonist. I'm all for restoring it if you can source it better. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

War (Jay Sean song)
Since you are familiar with the Wiki-11233 situation, I thought I would bring the problem directly to you. Technically, I could have speedied under db-banned, as it was created by a banned user. He also managed to perform massive copyright violation in the course of creating it, so it can go under those terms as well. However, it is a potentially useful redirect, and I've put a redirect on top of all the banned-user contributions and copyright violations. Could I get you to speedy-delete the article and recreate it as the redirect? That way, all the material that needs to go gets deleted, and the useful redirect gets preserved.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

spihelper
I noticed some or your archives seemed quick. Mind if I use it? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI for CoralRosie
Thank you for your block of CoralRosie, but I'm very concerned that the user ID has lead to the assumption he is a sock of 1989Rosie, which the evidence makes clear is not the case (she barely spoke English, for a start.) I'm concerned that the real puppetmaster, who used this account as a WP:SPA for the sole purpose of edit warring on one page has now walked away with no consequences, having hidden behind a userID he knew would lead to the assumption that a problem editor had another new sockpuppet to evade a block. My question, then, is what is the next step to assure the puppetmaster is at least correctly identified, assuring no further such brazen use of sockpuppets? Drmargi (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked a checkuser to take a look, and he says that it's between a and an, but there's no other apparent sockmaster he can find. Regardless, the account can stay blocked for trolling and impersonation, if nothing else. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK
I am again [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Arcuri#Disappearing_.27controversy.27_section. being called a "vandal"] by these valued contributors, who now are so far gone they think I'm the subject of the article. (I am not.) If the situation quacks like a duck, are you going to block? If you can't block per WP:DUCK, please block per WP:NPA; these users have a partisan axe to grind and are editing and attacking accordingly. Şłџğģő 05:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked by MuZemike. Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV process
Hi Tim,

I don't frequent DRV much. A few weeks ago, you closed Deletion review/Log/2010 March 19 as "Deletion endorsed, recreation not permitted absent a userspace draft". The user has a draft, and wants to know what's next. I am not a fan of this article, and it has been deleted so many times under so many names it isn't funny, and I'm not amused that it appears to be the same person doing it each time with a new account name, tho I can't prove it. The draft still has some issues, and I will talk to them about that as well. But assuming for the moment they fix those issues, I should probably answer their question, and I'm not sure what the next step is, typically. DRV again? Or if I (or some other admin) are OK with it, just move it to mainspace? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If and only if it has addressed the original reason for deletion. – xeno talk  14:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I'm talking to them about that now. But if IMHO it ever does seem to address it (semi-big "if"), is it my call? Or DRV again? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is the slightest doubt I suggest you refer it to DRV for review, especially since you did a G4 rather then closing the actual discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that it adequately addresses the original arguments offered for deletion, then you can make the call. Touching base with the administrator that closed the original AFD won't hurt tho. – xeno talk  16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Spartaz & Xeno said. Thanks guys... Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all three of you. My takeaway from this is that "official procedure" in a case like this is to take it back to DRV again, but that sometimes if it's glaringly obvious the new article is now good enough, you can IAR around it.  It's starting to look like this was a theoretical question anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Socks & stuff
I just noticed you blocked Jmcnamera and Mohummy as sockpuppets, per this case, but I didn't see one of his static IPs, User:68.25.103.189, mentioned in the report or similarly blocked. If this was intentional (and already known information), please disregard this message. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there's no attempt to evade the blocks (yet), I'd leave it unblocked for now. Tim Song (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You Blocked Me!
My exile from Wikipedia is finally over. I am deeply upset by your actions while I tried to clear my name. You called me a liar when I said that I was not using two accounts on the same computer. You are wrong about that and your arrogance led you to take away my right to defend myself. I still maintain that I was not using the same computer as Kingtut and I have never sockpuppeted or meatpuppeted. In my first request to have my ban lifted I angrily compared this practice of silencing users without proper trial to the Nazi regime. It seems as though I was right, especially in your case. Silencing those who are unjustly condemned is fascism!--Johncoracing48 (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip: calling other editors "Nazis" and "fascists" is very likely to get you blocked again. Better to take a deep breath, put this whole issue aside, and go do something of value to the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen to yourself! Getting banned again because I call editors fascist is the definition of fascisim! This is rediculous that at least a dozen people have said almost the exact same thing to me since this whole thing began. "Two weeks isn't very long. Just be quiet and wait it out." "You don't make very many edits so just wait until your ban is lifted." "Better to take a deep breath, put this whole issue aside, and go do something of value to the encyclopedia." This is WRONG! This has become a dictatorship by the administrators! What you are really saying is, "Don't make them mad or they will block you." Do you not see a problem with that?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. I tried to help out with some practical advice, but you seem determined to continue travelling down a road that (a) will not get you what you want and (b) will almost certainly get you even deeper into the mud.Please remember, that this is a private website, that you have no inherent right to edit here, and that if the rules were changed so that people with wisdom teeth were banned from editing, well, then people with wisdom teeth would not edit!  There's no outside authority you can appeal to, the world is not going to take up your cause and come down like a hammer in your favor.  Your fate is in your hands, in how you behave, and anger and name-calling isn't going to do one darn bit of good.But, as I said, it's your decision.  You can edit, and contribute, or you can take off on a quest for "justice" and "fairness" which will not succeed.  Your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Thanks for the quick response in blocking that sockpuppet... he likes to follow people (including me) around. All the best, Breein1007 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo
I'm obviously missing something about the deletion of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, and I hope you can clue me in. (An editor is asking for restoration at WP:REFUND). The last edit to the article was yours, declining a G4 speedy because the article was not substantially the same as the previously deleted version. I'd quibble a bit with the edit summary, only because the previous version wasn't deleted as a result of the discussion (instead the discussion was closed early because the article was speedied as an attack page), but the result is the same. What I don't understand is that 2 minutes later, you deleted the article with a deletion summary of G4, the speedy criterion you had just declined. Was there some information you saw that I'm missing? Thanks! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, I reconsidered. Looking at the AfD in closer detail (which lasted a good 5 days and could probably be closed as snowball delete, so I took it as a valid AfD), I see a consensus that the subject is at best of marginal notability, and since deletion was requested it should be deleted. As the recreated version is basically a copy-paste of the old article's first several sentences, I decided after reconsideration that it did not address the notability concerns, though it did address the G10, hence the G4. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

HIStory World Tour
If you would follow the history of the edits that are being made, you will find that they are frivolous and ruin the information that is presented.

An example is the set list which is currently nicely formatted and supplies lots of information. the unnamed editor keeps changing it a to poorly constructed table with most of the underlying information gone.

Another example is the performers second, I personally worked this tour and provided information on the talk page as to the true performers and again an unnamed editor added unreferenced material.

The multiple undos are required because the unnamed editors make their changes over several edits forcing.

If you will take a close look at the IP address of the unnamed editors you can surmise that they are the same person and if you follow back their trail of edits you will find that they have been warned by other about make frivolous and unreferenced changes. Mercenary Roadie (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Soft block
Regarding the soft block you applied on User talk:ResignBen16, can this User:Ben16R esign really be considered just another coincidence? RashersTierney (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardblocked both. Tim Song (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kissle login failure
Sorry to bother, but I can't seem to login to Kissle. I've triple-checked my info, but it's returning a login error nonetheless. Simply says: "Login failed. Check your username and password." Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? avs5221 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, this seems to be a much broader issue due to this] security fix. Huggle and AWB are down as well. It's a great program, anyway. :D avs5221 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * in version 0.5.3749.11391, which I just uploaded. Tim Song (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! avs5221 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CheesyBiscuit
Hey, I probably should have mentioned it earlier, but I figured you were already aware of the WP:ANI thread regarding this editor ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kissle not working
Why is that Kissle isn't working? When I logged in there was a message that told me to check my username and password. What's wrong?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See the thread above. Tim Song (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Inspect All Information
Hello Tim, would you mind informing of the WP:ARBPIA case and logging it on the case page?  nableezy  - 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RiCEST article
As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikitech-l issues
Every time I see an email from Tim Starling I briefly get confused and think it's you. Literally every time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hubert Joly
Hi, Tim,

I'm very new to Wiki and would appreciate knowing what we need to do to get biographical information and a photo posted in the main section. Our team is a bit confused because the information that we receive indicates the bio, which includes footnotes and embedded links, meets Wiki standards. Also, we are clear on the copyright details.

I appreciate any guidance you can provide. 20:27, 8 April 2010 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Hubert Joly ‎ (moved Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Hubert Joly to Talk:Hubert Joly: Article now meets Wikipedia standards and is ready to graduate from the Article Incubator)

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.carlson.com/overview/bios/hubertjoly.cfm. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2010032210054341. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Best, Samuelfmacalus (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, what's "your team"? Is this account controlled by more than one person?Second, no, the article is far from ready. It needs to be wikified by adding internal links. It needs more third-party sources - press releases and other stuff from the company won't cut it. It needs rewriting so that it sounds like an encyclopedic article and not a CV. Tim Song (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

John Denner AfD
You recently closed the AfD discussion about John Denner, saying that there was no consensus to keep, but you gave no other explanation other than that. However, it seemed to me that, at the weakest, it would have just been no consensus in general, which defaults to keep according to policy. Which is why I am confused about why you deleted the article, when that didn't seem in line with the discussion. Silver seren C 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus on a BLP where the subject requested deletion defaults to delete. See this. Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I do not see the section that you are trying to direct me to there that states what you just said. I would also like to ask about the Joseph Patrick Dwyer discussion, as you didn't provide any deletion rationale for that one at all. Silver  seren C 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." As to Joseph Patrick Dwyer, the consensus of the discussion seems to be that he is, at best, WP:BIO1E. Tim Song (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained on the discussion about Dwyer, the sources in the article were about three separate things, the photo at the beginning of the Iraq War that was taken of him, his PTSD after the end of his tour, and then when he killed himself two years later. Since there were entirely separate sources about these different events, they showed that he was not a single event person. Silver  seren C 02:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to disagree with you. Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was just the one editor that ever responded to my comments. And he never responded to my question about whether the sources met the general notability guideline. Silver  seren C 02:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And others think he's not notable at all. I stand by the close. WP:DRV is that way if you want to challenge it. Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. DRV policy is just that I should talk to the closing admin first before I make a review. Now that i've done that, i'll go make one. Thanks for your time. Silver  seren C 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Joseph Patrick Dwyer
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joseph Patrick Dwyer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Silver seren C 04:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note
Can you please take a not of this: User_talk:TheDarkLordSeth. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR at District of Columbia voting rights
Hi. I saw your comment on WP:AN3 about a report I had made in regards to District of Columbia voting rights. I just wanted to let you know that the original user is has returned making wholesale edits to the page. I have responded in more detail on the Adminitrators' noticeboard. Thank you, epicAdam(talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours. Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should do the same for 207.172.146.226, as that user has committed the same types of edits under that IP and has admitted that 207.172.146.226 is him/her at that article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby
I noticed that 3 accounts were checked for scibaby, but a 4th account, not in the list, was blocked. Am I missing something? I thought that permission was required before checking IP addresses. And the other day, user:Gherton was blocked at 1:47 but the checkuser entry was posted at 16:47, about 15 hours after the user was blocked. Q Science (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not. Checkusers run checks on their own discretion, subject only to the checkuser policy, which basically says that you must have reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or other abuse before running the check. One important purpose of checkuser is to discover previously-undiscovered socks ("sleepers"). We also block on behavioral evidence - and if that is convincing, we do not wait for CU results before blocking. Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for the response. Q Science (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Brutonlegend
No sock puppet template for ? Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I find it extremely unlikely that a new account could happen to discover on their very first edit the talk page of an indefinitely blocked sock who has not been editing since February. Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Extremely. Dougweller (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you have a fan...
...I'll recommend ya comment here. Lock his talkpage if you disagree. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Joly/Wiki bio
Thank you for your comments, Tim. When I refer to team, I mean people I've contacted here to get advice on how to submit material for Wiki and how to format information.

I will re-write the material and submit it for reconsideration.

Best. Samuelfmacalus (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rusty trombone SPI
Did you intend to block the latest ip, User:207.237.230.164? I think the 207.xx range you hardblocked doesn't catch the ones he's been recently using. If you didn't intend to, never mind. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's included in 207.237.230.0/24. Tim Song (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'm not that technically savvy. His block log doesn't show the block, but i'm guessing that's because when you block a range it doesn't end up in each IPs block log. Sorry for misunderstanding. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Somehow Mediawiki thinks he's blocked?!
What was that all about? – Steel 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your name shows up as blocked with my "mark blocked" script - and when I went to Special:Block/Steel it said you were already blocked for a username violation... Apparently, when what is now User:Steel (renamed) got renamed, some part of the block failed to migrate with the rename, so you show up as being blocked in some parts of the system - without actually being blocked from editing. I know, it's confusing... Tim Song (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

99.88.78.94
He's done it again.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI note
Notifying you that I've referenced at ANI an RFCU you previously fielded. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your help on User talk:Salomonsuissa, I don't think you would like the idea of someone else trying to pass himself/herself off as you. Once again, thanks and regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I know... Tim Song (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork
You will be glad to hear that I do not recognize your authority to ban editors from editing. There is a group of people that tries to make Wikipedia a forum as free as the former Soviet Union or present-day Iran. You are cooperating with these people. You have no authority to judge nor to impose punishments on me. I will continue editing as I will, and you can do what ever you like about it. It is sad to see how Wikipedia educates people to totalitarianism. I think you ought to think well if you are good enough for this project. DrorK (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, my authority to impose a topic ban comes not from your recognition but from the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. If you violate your topic ban, you will be blocked. Tim Song (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are cooperating with people who came here to destroy the project by abusing community decisions and rules. This is an outrageous conduct, and I hope you think well about what you are doing here. WP was never meant to be a refuge for people intoxicated with power. Would you like to prove otherwise? DrorK (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request made by user within your recent rangeblock.
Thought I would point it out for you to check. User talk:207.237.230.157. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tim, Taelus. Much appreciated that you were able to handle it so quickly. With kind regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rapid attention Tim, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One question: My IP, 207.237.230.157, is still blocked. Since there are times where I just want to correct something quickly as I happen upon it and don't feel like logging in, would it be possible to unblock my IP, since it never did anything wrong. Thanks for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't unblock the IP without unblocking the range. Sorry. Tim Song (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

68.236.155.129
This IP user is vandalizing his user page, a page he claims that he is retired from. I have requested page protection, but you stated on the talk page when you blocked him that you would not allow the user to edit until he has retracted his legal threat. He has not done so, so I am asking for another block. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has moved from RPP to ANI. You can see the current ANI thread about this user here. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP user was blocked by Cirt for 2 weeks for vandalism and personal attacks. Discussion continues on the IP user's talk page. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban question
When I was topic banned on April the third I was actually not concerned at all. I considered and still do it to be an unfair sanction, but I had absolutely no reason for any concern. Why should I have been concerned? From around 12000 edits I have not more than 5% that are related to the topic of my ban. I've never been I/P conflict editor. I've never been a single purpose account. So, at first I even laughed over the ban, and decided to look at it as a new experience. Well, after 24 hours block for this edit at Rothschild family!!! article I was no longer laughing, and after 48 hours block for this edit concerning only Wikipedia policy I was crying. You said "No, you are not banned from editing Israel-related articles. But since it appears you can't properly distinguish between Israel-related articles that are outside your ban and those that are within your ban, it is probably to your benefit if you take a voluntary break from Israel-related editing altogether." The thing is that a normal person,and I mean normal person, cannot "distinguish between Israel-related articles that are outside the ban and those that are within your ban". Topic ban works as a trap now, and as a very, very harsh punishment. Few days ago I paused for 5 minutes! before reverting vandalism from Iceberg. I had to check and re-check myself, if a vandal did not add anything that could fall under the topic of my ban. Implantation of topic bans as they are implemented now is an absolute absurdity IMO. And now my question: Have I violated the topic of my ban by posting this message to your talk page? I would also like to ask you to reconsider the sanctions you imposed on Gila. I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I will share my own hard-earned experience with the editor, and will try to explain to them how to stay out of the troubles, how to play by absurd rules imposed on us. I guess I've violated the topic of my ban once again, haven't I :) :( by asking you to reduce Gila's sanctions because I guess my topic ban prohibits me to voice support for a friend too. That topic ban of ours reminds me Marxist Russia on its worst. May I please ask you, Tim to respond my questions yourself. You are the admin, who has experience with topic bans, and I am very interested to learn your own opinion versus opinion of the wikihound just below. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, perhaps you should take Ynhockey's or Lar+'s offer of mentorship up, that would probably help you resolve these questions in the future. Kind Regards, Unomi (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you stay away from anything that mentions/arises out of something that mentions Israel or Palestine or the Middle East, you should have no problem avoiding running afoul of the ban. "Broadly" means that you should avoid any edit that could reasonably be taken as having something to do with the Arab/Israel conflict, and since you are treading on rather thin ice here, I would avoid anything that is even remotely related. No one is going to argue that you violated your ban if you edited articles like titin or sarcomere instead of Israel. Oh, and I'm not going to voice any opinion on whether your post here violates your topic ban. I'm not in the habit of blocking people for posting on my talk page, except for vandals. Tim Song (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DrorK and his topic ban
Despite being topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli subject area yesterday, User:DrorK is back at Talk:All-Palestine Government today. I'd block him myself, but I'm involved in that area. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Malik Shabazz was never able to adhere to the idea of free exchange of knowledge. He constantly asks to ban editors and silence views which he prefers not to hear. Malik Shabaz could argue with my points on the talk page, but he prefers to silence me. And he was appointed admin! DrorK (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism
Hi. I noticed you had protected Pan-Arabism, a protection that was now lapsed. Please consider protecting the article again, there is still endemic sock-puppetering going on there. --Soman (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Bot
Whoops! The dummy edit used to be dealt with, but a change to make the bot recognise Requests for permissions is evidently breaking this. As for the redundant re-ordering, that's because both the requests were made at the same time, and the function I wrote to reorder works in such a way that equal dates are reordered. Both problems are now fixed :). Thanks for letting me know. BTW, while we're on the subject, I wrote a slightly improved version of GetCSD, want me to send it across to you? - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, still the same interface, right? Tim Song (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Yusuf Ali (deleted?)
Hi I would like to add some information on the above topic but I found it has been deleted.


 * It's at Article Incubator/Muhammad Yusuf Ali. Tim Song (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand's block
You have got to be kidding me. Neither Mossad or Eilat as a whole fall under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even broadly defined, and the edits -- really, look at them -- have nothing to do with the conflict. If you are seriously sticking with this outrageous block, I will take the matter up at ANI. Not a threat; just requesting a confirmation that you really stand by your move. --  tariq abjotu  15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't follow through with that, I certainly will. If you do not feel strongly about your decision, I urge you to reconsider both the context and the actual edits in question. What you are doing here is sending a message to Factomancer and users like Factomancer that will only perpetuate this petty series of events that has developed over the last few weeks. They will see this as a success in their WP:BATTLE and proof that if they report everything that can possibly be construed as a violation to AN/I and AE, some shit will eventually stick. I think you mentioned something about gaming the system? Indeed. Breein1007 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Factomancer hasn't even edited most of those articles. It's obvious she just went through Gilabrand's contribs looking for things to report. It's a shame this sort of behavior gets rewarded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I suggested earlier, I brought this block to ANI. --  tariq abjotu  17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The hasty and questionably-based block of Gilabrand should be reconsidered and rescinded. In addition to being unjust and disproportionate, this unfortunate block sends the wrong message to others. Along with other blocks and bans in the past 24 hours or so, it has already had negative consequences on the health of Wikipedia by encouraging one of the most disruptive of anti-Israel editors to resume activity, with the comment seen here. Gilabrand, with an outstanding record of diligent contributions, is blocked, while Ani medjool, who finds it difficult to write the words Israel or Israeli without quotation marks, is free to edit. I hope the irony is clear to everybody. Please. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim -- I think you're one of our best sysops, and do feel that the I/P area needs careful scrutiny, as it is a magnet for edit warring. At the same time, having looked at the diffs, I generally agree w/the above comments.  Just my two cents.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it is appropriate to point to Ani Medjool as a reason why Gilabrand should not be held accountable to the 3rd or so topic ban violation she has managed to do. I think there is some merit in the argument that it could have been less severe, but as a person with no experience admin'ing such contentious areas that is an easy claim to make. Just the one edit of A seventh daughter was killed in 1948 by Jordanian shelling. should be enough to demonstrate that the topic ban was breached, regardless of the information being in the article already, the edit most certainly made it more prominent. Unomi (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so clear to me. That article and edit has very little to do with any controversy, and nothing to do with Palestinians.  It has to do (in that very narrow part of the entire edit) with the Israel/Jordanian conflict.  Remember, when Jordan took control of the West Bank, its not like they started a Palestinian state there.  This ban is not an Israel/Jordanian conflict ban, or an Israel/Arab countries ban.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. My mistaken impression was that it was Israel-Arab, I see now that it is I-P broadly construed. Unomi (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche: wrong. The WP:ARBPIA states: The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict (see, in particular, the prior Arbitration cases regarding Allegations of apartheid, PalestineRemembered, Deir Yassin massacre, Israel-Lebanon, Israeli apartheid, Zeq, and Yuber). Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project; deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel have been transferred to Wikipedia. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. Factomancer (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The excessive nature of G's block can be argued on its own merits. At the same time, it does send a wrong message - if not to A.M., then to others. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Factsontheground--you will see at the page that you directed me to that some blocks are given relating--by their terms--specifically to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Others are directed to the I/P conflict.  Gilabrand's fell into the latter category.  Coupled with the AGF incumbent upon the blocking sysop, that discrepancy must be determined in Gila's favor.  Plus -- as I point out elsewhere -- the British Mandate is not part of the Palestinian conflict that is at issue (nor is the U.K. Arab).  Yet Tim saw an edit that could relate only to Israel and Palestine as one that fell within the ban, and indicated that it was a major reason for his imposing a ban.  That's a clear error, and I would hope he would acknowledge it and take the appropriate remedial actions.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The length of the block is determined by the standard escalating block sequence - their last block was two weeks.If some other user is acting disruptively because of the block - and they should not be; WP is not a battleground regardless of whether one is "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine" or something else - then file a report at WP:AE and either I or another admin will deal with it.As I noted in the ANI thread, removing a trivia section with a reference to the P/I conflict - and Munich massacre is definitely within the P/I conflict topic no matter how you put it - is within the scope of the topic ban. I might have let the user off with a warning if this were their first violation - but it is not, and the pattern of violation-block-another violation-longer block-yet another violation-even longer block displayed here convinces me that it's an attempt to game the system rather than a good faith failure to recognize the scope of the topic ban.I'll reiterate what I have said before. Topic bans are blunt instruments. They are employed when less blunt measures have failed. Because of that, they do have a certain draconian character to them. The purpose of a ban is to force the user to take a break from the topic - and go edit some other topic. For the purpose of deciding whether there is a topic ban violation, the "quality" of the edit does not matter. Tim Song (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused what the best example was of the ban violation. I see that you hung your hat on this, for example.  You go so far as to call it "a clear violation" of the topic ban.  There is nothing there that relates to the I/P conflict.  It relates to Israel's independence -- which as we all know is Israel's independence from the United Kingdom.  If someone says to me I can't cross the Canada-US border without getting a ticket, its not appropriate for them to give me a ticket for crossing the US-Mexico border.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think that given the scope of Sandstein's topic ban, that diff is actually ambiguous, and you are right that I should not have put it in as a "clear violation". Nonetheless, the other diff I cited, coupled with the long-term behavioral pattern, IMO more than supports the sanctions I imposed, and I'll not alter it. Tim Song (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Tim. It's that sort of conversation that I've come to expect from you (which led me to mention my high opinion of you -- I wouldn't be one to butter you up ... if it were untrue ... ;-) ... I wonder if, like a three legged-stool that loses a leg, since it was one of your primary two points, it might not be the case now that (coupled with the AGF called for on the I/P page, when considering blocks) the initial sanction might not be worthy of reconsideration.  (Personally, I can easily see, how assuming good faith, the lone remaining major issue might be understood to be anything but apparent, and easily missed by an editor ... and, quite frankly, the whole nature of her ban is that she was engaging in pro-Israel edits, and there she was reducing the visibility of the accomplishments of Israel's cia ... so it is very easy to AGF, I would suggest).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Had it been their first violation, I might have agreed with you. But it was not. It is her fourth topic ban violation in six weeks - and three of those six she spent being blocked. The pattern here is not an occasional, innocuous violation, but repeated attempts to skirt the limits of the ban. Having been blocked three times already, it is her responsibility to tread especially lightly. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I've not looked at her prior blocks (best I can recall).  I'll take it on faith they were all richly deserved.  I'm a big fan of blocks, where they are deserved.


 * If AgF disappears after three blocks, then I would have to reconsider things carefully.


 * If, however: (a) AgF is still our starting point (as it appears to me to be, even in the P/I guidance); but (b) the effect of her already having 3 blocks is not that we throw out AgF, but that we still assume AgF but -- if she deserves yet a 4th block -- make that 4th block even longer ... then, I think that we might well reach a different conclusion.


 * Said a different way, by analogy: If a driver speeds, we have criteria to determine if they were speeding.  A cop needs a radar detector reading, or the like.  Each time the driver speeds, they get punished.  The punishment increases with each infraction.  They may get charged with loss of their license if, say, convicted of a 4th infraction.


 * But one thing we don't do is say: Hey -- he was found to be speeding 3 times, and therefore this time instead of requiring a radar detector reading, we will go with lesser evidence to determine whether he even committed the 4th infraction (e.g., the cop just has to say he felt the driver was going really fast, and had a guilty look on his face).  We don't do that.  We require the same level of proof, and just punish them more heavily for future infractions--as in taking away their driver's license.  I would think the same should be the case here.


 * So ... Given our discussion of the first leg of the two-legged chair above, and now discussing the second leg from an AgF viewpoint, I wonder whether it might not perhaps be reasonable for you to ask Gila to honestly say whether she was intending to flout the P/I ban there. Assume good faith, consider her response, and see if that might, on reflection, possibly lead to a different result.


 * If she were to say anything other than "It was absolutely not my intent", or words to that effect, I would whole-heartedly support the harshest punishment a fourth offender might receive. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To take your speeding analogy: Say the limit is 60 km/h(or mph, whichever one you prefer), and the speed was actually 63 km/h, a bit over the limit. If this is their first speeding incident, it might be reasonable to warn them and not issue a ticket - but if this is their fourth incident, then it's definitely their responsibility to keep track of their own speed. Tim Song (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's different in km/h. ;-)  Here (State-side), the traffic cop would apply the law the same way to everyone going 63.  The judge, however, would yank the license on the fourth offense.


 * All I'm saying is that if we AgF, for the reason stated above it's more like giving a ticket for a 60.5 offense -- one that highway patrol here would never give. Unless they were short on their quota.  I'm suggesting we AgF, and that she be encouraged to say just what she had in mind.  She has been blocked for violating bans, I assume, not for lying to sysops (or tell me if I'm wrong).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or the judge might be more lenient towards first-time offenders if it's just a little bit above the limit, even if they got ticketed equally. Tim Song (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All I'm saying is that the determination of whether there has been a violation is made at the traffic cop stage.  If assuming good faith, and not focusing on her prior violations, given all the above discussion (and assuming a mea culpa by her) you could see not "issuing a ticket", I would urge you to reconsider.  But I know I've taken up a lot of your time, and you've been kind to listen to me.  If you feel that even having addressed one of the two legs of the argument above, and looking at the second through AgF eyes, the same block should stand as originally imposed, I accept your good judgment.  Again -- I much appreciate your having taken the time to consider the issue again, and you're having been frank about the first of the two legs of the argument, upon your reconsideration.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the stool metaphor is the best way to describe it, but if you want to use it, IMO there are more than two legs to that stool. But regardless, it is my view that (1) there is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban; (2) the pattern of edits demonstrates a deliberate attempt to game the system by pushing the limits of the ban; and (3) any assumptions of good faith that might otherwise mitigate the sanction is negated by (2). Given the block history, I have no doubt that I would have imposed the same sanction had  been the only diff presented. Thus, I'm not going to alter the sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the time you spent considering my thoughts. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kissle access
I've requested for Kissle access 4 days back at User:Tim_Song/Kissle/Requests. Please approve it when you find time. Thanks. Vipin Hari ||  talk  17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry about the delay. Tim Song (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Vipin Hari  ||  talk  18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Jeromels
Hi Tim,

Seems like your block of has flushed out a sockpuppet of his. . Comparing their edits, I wouldn't be surprised that every article Jeromels has had a hand in creating are hoaxes and he may have started using multiple accounts in a bid to avoid detection. I've passed this on to CheckUser and hope that they can see how far this has gone undetected. Thanks,  Netsnipe  ►  11:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Ban... not working
Hi Tim Song, Factomancer has violated her topic ban and after informing Sandstein, he said he would prefer if another admin takes required action. I informed admin Beeblebrox on his talk page, and he responded that he won't get involved because Factomancer has in the past accused him of personal attacks. It doesn't make much sense to me, but regardless, here I am informing you of the violation. This is my last attempt, because I really don't want to waste my time on this. If this constitutes a violation of the interaction ban, I hope you will do something about it. And I hope it won't be another 24 hour block, because the past 3 (or 4? 5?) haven't seemed to lead to any improved behaviour. Anyway, rather than rewriting it all, here is the link to my post on Sandstein's talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Tim, this is an official request to implement the rules of interaction ban.
 * Today the user violated the interaction ban with me by posting this to AN/I
 * Not only the ban itself was violated, but the differences about me were interpreted in untruthful, misleading way by the user. Not a single time I repeated any report. Not a single time my report could have been called "spurious".


 * 1) was not complain at all. I asked, if the user's new user name that was used at least once at the editing of main space should be added to interaction ban description. The second part of my message was the question about my own topic ban, and had absolutely nothing to do with the user.


 * 1) This complaint resulted in the user removing contest from the user talk page:here (btw with yet another violation of interaction ban "so you all can stop the drama now"). It was suggested to be removed earlier by Sandstein, but the user never removed it.


 * On the other hand here is a clear violation of the ban from yesterday "How come they can gripe about me all the time :for spurious reasons" but I let it go, and I would not have complained about it, if it were not for today's report at AN/I


 * I could present few other instances of the ban violation that were never reported.
 * I have never violated my interaction ban, and I am getting increasingly tired of the user violating it over, and over, and over again, and bringing me up to AN/I in such misleading and untruthful way. This have already resulted in that statement that has no any merits as it was explained earlier.
 * The only thing I would like to do now is to concentrate on the positive contributions outside my topic ban, but constant violation of the interaction ban by the user makes my work here to be very stressful.
 * I did not ask for that ban, I did not write the rules, but I believe, if the community made the user and me the subject of the ban, it has to be implemented the very way as topic ban is.
 * Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another admin blocked her. Thanks for your help!!! Breein1007 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Listen300
Hi Tim, This template and associated files Template:Listen300/core, Template:Listen300/sandbox, Template talk:Listen300 where incorrectly deleted as TFD - notification was not done and without notification I was unable to explain why they are required. Can you restore these files to my userspace as that would be sufficient. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, notification is not required. ✅ for Template:Listen300/core and Template:Listen300; userfied to User:SunCreator/Template:Listen300. The other two are just redirects. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." Anyway, thanks for restoring them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but nonetheless it is optional, in the sense that the lack of notification does not invalidate the result. Tim Song (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Re User:Abductive
Regarding your block here, I just noticed that this editor was engaged in an edit war only a month ago you cleaned up and protected. . This user seems to have a history of disruptive behaviour and edit warring. When his account first showed up he admitted to use multiple accounts to prod and nominate mass amounts of articles for deletion (most of which didn't work). I'm wondering if a more in depth look is required here. He seems to have been engaged in an edit war here --Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find it strange he says on his user page he's been here over 3 years but both accounts were created less than a year ago. Since he's used them disruptively, there may be a sock puppet issue here.--Crossmr (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI is that way. The SPI you cited closed as no action. If you think a more in-depth look is necessary, compile a list of diffs and go to ANI or RFC/U. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The accounts were created a year ago, SPI wouldn't be able to do anything with that now unless he was still using one of the accounts. If he was a returned blocked user that data would be long gone. I was just asking your opinion as to whether or not you felt this was a larger issue worth looking at or not.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive
Hi Tim. Thank you very much indeed for banning that IP for a month. The person in question has been disrupting WT:CRIC for two years now and, if you were to look through some of that page's archives, you would see that the members there are absolutely sick of it. The ban you have placed creates a precedent in case one month isn't long enough and he is back in May, so I'm sure I speak for all the site's cricket writers when I say: Well done. All the best. Jack | talk page 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18
Tim, thanks for closing Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18 and undeleting the 170 redirects. Did you use a script? Undeleting 170 redirects in two minutes is quite fast. By the way, would you redirect 东方红 to The East Is Red? And 朝阳区 and 朝陽區 to Chaoyang District? Remember to add the following to the pages:   Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tim Song/massrestore.js, and ✅. Tim Song (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks! Cunard (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI comment
You wrote "Please be reminded that frivolous or vexatious SPI requests may lead to sanctions." The recent report had a diff showing reasoning that was enough to get multiple editors, including admins, on board with the idea that something is amiss. This was not provided in the last request. I really don't mind that it is not being done but it was far from being frivolous. I'll keep that reminder in mind but it is lame if you were attempting to equate my intent to anything less than preventing disruption to the project.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Something bad" is not necessarily sockpuppetry. Unless you have evidence that shows that sockpuppetry is more likely than other explanations, it does not belong at SPI. Tim Song (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the diff provided was enough to convince several editors. I assume you read it. I really don't mind that it wasn't enough to convince you but I do mind it being equated to a frivolous report.Cptnono (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You provided zero evidence that suggests AM is linked to SD. Yes, your diff suggests that there might be something wrong with AM, but you have yet to show any evidence that SD is related. Alleging someone (SD) to be socking when there's no evidence of that is frivolous. Tim Song (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't allege. I opened it up under the other user and someone moved it. I said that he and two other editors were accused but made sure to clarify that it wasn't my position.Cptnono (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is academic since the case was declined by a checkuser. It also had to be denied by four separate clerks before that. Although I am sure that you had every best intention in mind when reporting this case, continuing to do so after previous declinations is generally frowned upon. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no plans to make a new one and I am not concerned that the check user will not happen. However, I feel his comment was inappropriate and needed some feedback. He's got the trout on his page so I can only assume it doesn't hurt his feelings. If he is going to imply I was making a frivolous report I am certainly going to express my concern. And I was pretty clear that I did not think SD was the sockmaster so it appears that he misread the situation to a certain extent.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Userfication request
Hey Tim,

I see you deleted the two essays at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is more than just two apes. That's fine, but could I get the longer one in my user space please? I liked it, and maybe I'll work on it at some point so it's more up to project space standards. Anyway, most of the objections seemed to be to having it in project space, and I think that it'd be appropriate in my userspace (even though I'm not the original author). Thanks a lot. Buddy431 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim, Can you please revert the Vmware intern apr 2010 page back i will add that to my talk page and wont link it in the main wiki. Did not know that thanks,

Vmware intern Apr 2010 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Vmware intern apr 2010
 * . As pointed out in the MfD discussion, Wikipedia is not your blogging service. This includes everywhere on the site. Tim Song (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Userification of Eric Ely
Tim, you probably missed my request buried in the AfD discussion for Eric Ely and talk page to be placed in my user space. Would you mind? I may need access to the history for future actions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, so ✅. Tim Song (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't a blatant BLP violation, in any form, not allowed within the project here? If all that is wanted is the editing history, that can be provided via other means, like when the named-after-an-athlete's-mishap page was moved to WP:FOOTSHOT, the old history was placed at Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot like this. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm having problem seeing how the current contents of the page is a BLP vio. Now, If DC restored the old BLP-violating content, it would be entirely another matter. Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is blanked and has been . Nothing links to it. I am interested in the content of the actual edits, not just a textual listing. I will ask for the article to be deleted when I no longer require it. Ok? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all of the junk material is only a click or two away, but, whatever. Just raising a concern. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One possible alternative to hosting it here would be to use Special:Export. Of course, reading the raw XML is a little difficult... – xeno talk  20:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest Special:Export too, but I see that xeno beat me to it... Tim Song (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am troubled by this. This is a BLP violation, that an overwhelming consensus has agreed should be deleted. It has had extensive work done on it - so is unlikely that userfication will result in usable content being developed. What is the justification for keeping this anywhere on Wikipedia? I concede the harm is low, but we need at least an understandable reason for keeping even low harm? DC, can you articulate why this should be kept in userspace even for a short time?--Scott Mac 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am considering asking that the admin rights of Bearian (and possibly also UpstateNYer) be removed. In my opinion, no one who is so blind to the BLP issues created by this article should remain an admin. I'm not sure that it is worth the effort or the likely retribution, so I wanted to have access to the history while I mulled it over. I have taken dumps of the history, so if this is causing concern, go ahead and delete the article. I may ask for it to be recreated if I decide to take further action. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. The only reason this got as much attention as it did is because Bearian brought it to the BLP noticeboard himself. . AniMate  21:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redeleted. I'll undelete if it's required for arbcom etc. I make no comment on Bearian's role, which I've not reviewed.--Scott Mac 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SharkJumper
His lunacy has given me the giggles! SGGH ping! 20:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork
Could you look at the contribs of ?  nableezy  - 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see you blocked this guy as a sock. I reported him/her for 3RR -violation here, could you possibly look at it, if you have time? I see Pantherskin has questioned my actions, also. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lustright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Quesilophonosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZSnomi_wilkerson

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Surprise

 * Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

 * Thanks! Tim Song (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Your name was invoked in a discussion which led to this. Just letting you know, in case you can add any insight. :) BOZ (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the range block. I could be wrong, but User:Lotusfield sure feels like a WP:DUCK to me:, , , , , . BOZ (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Tim. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 April 25
Would you undelete Astrotite per the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2010 April 25? Please make sure that the article isn't a copyvio, though. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Chen
Please reconsider your choice to delete a couple of hours after User:Mono had previously closed the deletion discussion with a no consensus result. If you don't reconsider, please explain your reasons for overriding Mono's decision that there was no consensus and replacing it with your own. I'm particularly puzzled about the weight given to the comments of Rankiri and Nuujinn when Mr. Chen has had a regular column in Technet, Microsoft's primary magazine for its technical customers, since it was founded in 2005. Hard to see how a column that has been ongoing for five years now and seems likely to continue plus a book from major technical publishing house Addison-Wesley could allow the single event WP:BLP1E argument to apply. Similarly, both a magazine of that stature and a book published by such a notable publisher seem to suggest that Mr. Chen meets the general requirement of notability, since neither is likely to feature a person who is not notable in their field. Jamesday (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not counting the fact that Tim Song's closure is clearly correct&mdash; and that "no consensus" would have been a dubious close even if it weren't a BLP (which it was)&mdash; a non-admin probably shouldn't close a debate that isn't a mostly unanimous keep because they are unable to actually delete an article, and that pretty much by definition a "no consensus" means the matter is a matter that is close or controversial (which they shouldn't be closing). &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren's discussion w/r/t no consensus NACs. That per se is reopenable. As to the merits, WP:GNG concerns sources written about, not by the subject, so the book/column he authors is irrelevant for that purpose. The relevant guideline for this is WP:AUTHOR, which everyone in the debate conceded was not satisfied. The only significant coverage of the subject pointed out in the debate is his spam collection, which is BLP1E. If you disagree, WP:DRV is the next step. Tim Song (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:660gd4qo
Sorry to bother you, but the above named is straight back from your block and making the same edits (not to mention incoherent ramblings on my talk page). Would you have a quick look? -- Snowded TALK  19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my poor english. My english skill is not good. so, i attacked by fluent english editor. I blocked as 3rr by this user report, after that, This user try to stalking all my edits, and continually reverting and give warning to me. Even I point out wrong edit. he did not discuss topic, and try to accusing me as bad editor. I have a right reason to revert POV and vandalism, hoax edit, I have a right reason to edit But, he is a fluent english speaker, so he can depict me as vandalism editor by his fluent english skill. I really feel unfair. Even admin believe this user than me. I really feel unfair. I know My english skill is not good, so i have not persuade skill. I can't point out what is the wrong edit by this user. I can't touch any edit by this user. I want discuss and editing article. I'm not want engaging edit war. He try to harrasing every single my edits, I can't point out Even '100% wrong'(hoax) edit by this user. I want espacing from this bad faith user's stalking. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 660gd4qo blocked one week for edit warring. You also went over 3RR, Snowded, but I'm not blocking because it looks rather clear to me that 660gd4qo is the problem here. Next time please try to be more careful - another admin might take a different view than I do. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried compromise amendments to see if it would work- but fair comment I think I allowed myself to be driven to distraction! -- Snowded  TALK  03:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Snowded
Sorry to bother you, but the above named keep reverting exactly same edit. and vio 3rr. Would you have a quick look?

revert exactly

revert exactly

revert exactly

revert exactly

revert exactly

660gd4qo (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
The user has requested unblock, and I have looked at the scenario. There seems to be an on-going dispute at the article, thus full protection may be appropriate as there are still content disputes between users and an IP address here. Either way, I would appreciate your comment as I may be missing out on context. Thanks for your time Taelus (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Civility Enforcer
Who was that a sockpuppet of? Parrot of Doom 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure, and I don't really care. Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ulmgambolputty
WP:SPA account on topic of Scientology, see only edits to articles on Wikipedia, and. This has been a prior pattern of SPA accounts on this topic, to show up and remove the word "controversial" from appearing anywhere in the lede of articles relating to front groups of the organization. Can you please give the account a warning, notifying it of the relevant applications of WP:ARBSCI? I will refrain from doing it myself, as I have been involved in improvement of quality-rated content on the topic. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim Song, after your comment to this user, the WP:SPA account proceeded to do this and this. Does this need to go to WP:AE, or can you handle it from here to apply the appropriate remedy(s) from WP:ARBSCI? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Topic banned for one year as an agenda-pushing SPA. In the future, though, I'd rather these cases be taken to AE. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I had not noticed this earlier. This account is just the latest among hundreds of likely socks of banned user. Compare with prior edits to that same article, by another blocked sock of DavidYork71 and. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now at Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Can you take a look at the contributions of User:99.88.78.94 and User:Timmy Polo? They seem identical and its obvious enough not to even start up an SPI.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reset the block, made the IP block a hardblock, and blocked the account for the same duration. Tim Song (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)