User talk:Samuel Blanning

Contents 1 DUMBA on DRv 2 FYI 3 Deletion review question 4 Oops! 5 Portfolio for ArbCom 6 User 159.191.12.27 7 Afd Request 8 Your question page. 9 Signpost updated for December 4th. 10 The paradox of the oppose votes against you 11 Block of Chilleh 12 Range block please? 13 Personal attack 14 WP:AFC 15 Rootology 16 RfC on Mitsos 17 Ian Lee 18 Creating A User Page. 19 Ps3queen 20 Obmij Selaw 21 Pmanderson up for RfA 22 Wikipedia:Headless_Chickens 23 The Irascible Professor on deletion review 24 Right To Vanish 25 Discussion on how to fight vandalism 26 Popups related error? 27 Blocked 28 BooyakaDell 29 Re:Block 30 BLP Issues on ANI 31 IP 208.107.24.23's vandalism 32 Leyasu Sock 33 WP:AIV 34 Signpost updated for December 11th.

[edit] DUMBA on DRv

Thanks for your comments. I figured that such an eloquent appeal deserved an eloquent response. I hope it didn't come across as WP:BITEing :-) Chris cheese whine 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I admire your willingness to be polite to new contributors, I don't see what was 'eloquent' about the nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

For your information, the reason I write the proposed decisions is that if I don't, no one does. At least not towards the end of the year. Fred Bauder 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with that view is that the more you do a job "because no-one else will", the less others will be inclined to do it because "oh, Fred Bauder will do it". This may seem stunningly irrelevant, but I have the same problem with people answering the doorbell in the nine-bedroom student-shared house I live in.

While I don't want to tell you how to do your job, if you don't write a proposed decision, I would think someone would pull their finger out before the entire process ground to a halt. The end-of-year thing may be a factor but I can't believe that you're the only one with free time around Christmas. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review question

Is this a good suggestion for when people bring up Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages/templates on DRV??:

• Salt the page, and prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages.

I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should bother, to be honest. If it's useful for fighting the vandal then we should keep it; otherwise, prurience isn't a good reason to retain vandal shrines. However, your suggestion does make sense - it's just that I disagree with it, so feel free to propose it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Sam, you're entitled to your opinion. As regards the pages/templates, I don't see the point of the LTA pages (with the exception of Primetime and JarlaxleArtemis) per WP:BEANS, however, in the case of Primetime and JarlaxleArtemis, their abuse is more severe, so such pages are warranted. --SunStar Net 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the SPA that started the kitten vandal nomination does turn out to be a vandal trying to resurrect his own LTA page, then a more clear-cut case of WP:BEANS we could not hope to see; but as long as he doesn't ask for briefsism to be undeleted as well then I'm going to leave him and the nomination alone for now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope he's not; that briefsism article seems to be a troll magnet, I'm glad it's salted. --SunStar Net 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• My mistake for suggesting the history-only undeletion, Sam. Your point on DRV summed it up well. --SunStar Net 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I still think it was worth suggesting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's OK. I just wanted to try and satisfy both sides at the same time. --SunStar Net^talk 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Haha, thanks for letting me know...my RC patrolling has been slipping in quality lately... Gzkn 13:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Np. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Well, User:Sam Blanning, which you added as an alternate account, doesn't belong to me, it was created by User:Flameviper12 in one of his... incarnations. I have added my actual former name. I'm not sure what else I should add, though - if I was the one adding 'model cases' they probably wouldn't be very representative of my abilities. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I can see your concern: If candidates were only judged by their best behavior then you feel that may not be fair, correct? Maybe my attitude is a I bit more optimistic. I believe that people can learn - not just from their mistakes, but from their successes, as well - or even better. I believe one can be one's own role model. Someone who adds a success to their portfolio is (with some WP:FAITH) not just doing propaganda, but also holding themself to a standard. — Sebastian (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If I see any more neologistic neuter pronouns I think I'll go mad. Someone was using 'xyr' on some page like they were playing Scrabble the other day, and now I've got 'their' with an invisible 'th'. And I know there's also 'Sie and hir' around somewhere. 'He' and 'They' have both always been gender-neutral in the right context, what's wrong with them? I think I might invent my own pronoun just to annoy people if this goes on :-).

*cough* Anyway... I can't think of any finest hours at the moment, at least not that I haven't already mentioned in response to questions (though I think it's questionable whether everyone reads every single one of those). And apart from the Iain Lee thing (also already mentioned) I can't think of any particularly spectacular @#%&-ups either. But if I think of any I'll add them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation! As for Spivak pronouns, I'd be more than happy to discuss their pros and cons in a dedicated place, if you would like to move your comment there. How about that article or one of our talk pages under a dedicated headline? — Sebastian (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that's a serious complaint that I would bother taking to a dedicated forum, you need to recalibrate your humour radar :-). It's just that when I heard about sie and hir, I thought it was an interesting idea; but now I know there are at least three different sets of alternative pronouns competing for people's attention, when none of them have a realistic chance of becoming mainstream (language doesn't even work that way), I wonder why Spivak et al bothered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If it bothers you that you get confused with User:Sam Blanning, why do you keep that as your signature? You may also want to rename ".../Questions for Sam Blanning" to ".../Questions for Samuel Blanning". — Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't get confused with User:Sam Blanning, it's an account that another user created solely to put redirects in the userspace. There is no other Sam Blanning on Wikipedia, as far as I know there are no other Sam Blannings in the world, and I've signed as Sam Blanning ever since I changed from a pseudonym to my real name, long before the other user created that account, so I don't see where the confusion is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to quibble over a word. Replace "confusion" with "the fact that someone wrote 'User:Sam Blanning' instead of your other user name". I thought it was an issue for you since it was the first thing you brought up in a conversation that had nothing to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with that; it's normal.

But the whole point of this section was to get examples of your arbitration skills. Instead of providing any, you chose to create several mountains out of molehills. So, this is the only example I have of your skills, and I'm afraid it doesn't look good. — Sebastian (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I explained why I had chosen not to add any examples, and while I had fingers to keys I mentioned the one thing I did add to your list, which seemed to make more sense than, well, not mentioning it. I wasn't aware that I was making a mountain out of a molehill by correcting an error and then mentioning it in passing, particularly as you didn't say anything about it in your initial reply. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 159.191.12.27

I know you've had to block this user in the past. I just removed some more vandalism this morning. Just a heads up. EOBeav 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, though WP:AIV will usually give you a faster response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Request

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryan_Brandenburg

It needs more input from seasoned editors.

Thank you, Linux monster 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get round to it, but it looks like it's ended the right way for now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question page.

FYI. I've added another question. JoshuaZ 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a follow-up if you don't mind. JoshuaZ 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The paradox of the oppose votes against you

So, you're getting oppose votes in the election because despite the fact that you've been a great admin, some people disagree with your philosophy about an arbcom that get's it's hands dirty. I just gave you one such oppose myself, although I tried to spend more words praising you than opposing you.

Here's what bugs me though-- ultimately, when people oppose you, you're just being punished for your honesty. You could have written a bland, completely uncontroversial statement which lacked any substantial 'position statements' on anything that could have been controversial. You could have played the poltician, but you had the integrity not to go that route. Instead you stood up, said what you thought, were a very transparent and honest candidate, said what kind of an Arbcom member you'd be. Because of that, you might just barely miss being elected.

So, anyway, I don't have anything substantive to say other than to give you major thumbs up for being so forthright and to tell you that even though I didn't support you as a candidate, I strongly support you as a person. I caught just the tiny tail end of the ED mess, and by the time I heard about the whole debate, by and large, people didn't want to listen to my thoughts on the matter, because everyone else had been over it and over it ad nausem, and they were finished with dealing with it. I'm sure you were sick of the whole thing too. But you listened anyway. You seriously considered, for just a moment, the possibility that you might have been wrong. You heard me out, and in the end you decided that you weren't in error--- but you considered the question, and that's a quality that would make you a truly excellent arbiter-- albeit one I'd probably disagree with on a lot of things. :) --Alecmconroy 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I had posted a bland statement, I don't think it would actually make that much difference. I don't have the name recognition of some admins and the areas I work in mean my views were already controversial before I posted my statement. Jimbo doesn't necessarily pick the 5 people with the most votes or most support; he can choose anyone who has more support than opposition. So while I think there's no chance of me getting into the top 5 either in terms of numbers or percentage (not that I particularly mind if it would mean watering my statement down), it's still possible that Jimbo might pick me.

Of course, he generally goes for those with the most support, and of the five people who are at the top of the table right now, I don't think there's any reason why he shouldn't just pick all five of them :-). But no matter how slim my chances are, some of the expressions of support have been very encouraging; so has some of the opposition, like yours. So it's been a very worthwhile experience. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Chilleh

Thanks ... much appreciated ... when I logged it at WP:AIV and saw the huge backlog, I was worried that it was admin's night off tonight. ;) BigDT 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Poker Night. I went all-in on a flush and Can't sleep just had to have a full house, the jammy bar steward. So I had to get back to work early. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 ;) BigDT 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range block please?

Hi, Sam, I saw you blocked User:213.48.109.2 for messing with Newyorkbrad's page. Could you softblock the whole range, and preferably a bit longer? You'll see why if you cast a look at Brad's page history. I've lost confidence in doing stuff like that myself. I'm too ignorant of ranges and open proxies and such. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Same here, I'm afraid - I'd try WP:ANI for rangeblocks. But it seems to have been just those two IPs, and they've stopped now, at least on Brad's page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

I would like to report Emeraude for a personal attaack left on the British National Party Talk Page. The comments asserted that at some point during my life i was either a racist a nazi or a closet nazi. I find it highly offencive that i have been labelled as one of these things as i was simply trying to clarify a point in the article to prevent edit wars.--Lucy-marie 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible that Emeraude wasn't directing the comment at you, but all members of "right wing groups that claim that they are not what they are". In "if you are or were" I think "you" is the generic you, i.e. 'one'. Emeraude may well clarify this himself when he responds to your post; in the meantime I'll watch the page for a bit, but I don't think this was a deliberate personal attack, just poor choice of words. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I have explained as much in the Talk Page. Lucy-marie's complaint above even accuses me of using words that aren't there ('racist'). Incidentally, I am more than slightly upset that someone can make a complaint about me and I only find out about it by accident more than 24 hours later! Emeraude 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're upset - with complaints on more public forums, such as admin noticeboards and talk pages, it's polite to inform someone that they're being talked about - but this was just my talk page and didn't go any further than one request and reply. If I felt that I actually needed to do anything I'd certainly have let you know about it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AFC

Maybe you could give us some help out at this. I've looked, and the often has a ridiculous backlog to it which is never addressed. I've asked because I've seen you at WP:HD. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I may give it a go, but there are some things I don't understand. For example, would I be able to decline this entry because, though it has assertions of notability, it's completely unsourced? It avoids speedy deletion but I still wouldn't create it in that state. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's a lot of fringe cases. Even half the articles I've created, I later went to regret. But the fact is, someone has to do it, and right now, it's got almost no volunteers (I hope to take a wikibreak). It's quite rude to say, "create this article, we'll look at it", and then to never even decline it. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it could be made clearer that editors are allowed to decline articles, not just pass over them and leave them for someone else, if they're not up to standard, I'd be willing to help out; but I can't if it means posting sub-standard articles just because someone asked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The instructions state, If the article does not look suitable for Wikipedia..., with further instructions on how to decline. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rootology

Following up from my question in the elections; I did find this particular arbitration somewhat disturbing. I fully support MONGO's right to defend himself. And rootology did burn his bridges. But the only justification I can see for anything approaching the severity of an indefinite ban is the belief that he is Fuckface on ED. The only evidence that I am aware of for this is that Fuckface posted a picture on ED which was taken by PrivateEditor. Rootology's answer to this was: "I was in a freenode IRC chat, and someone asked what all the nonsense was about that I was chatting with, and I sent them the image privately when they asked what all this was about. It apparently got back to the ED people, but I have no control over that. Why would I be uploading things that would point a clear light at me if I were doing things like that, AND bring about this Arbitration if that were the case? That's just ridiculous." Whether this is true or just rootology blowing smoke, I don't know, but in the absence of the Fuckface evidence, what crime would he have committed, exactly? He got involved in a highly controversial 'freedom of speech' dispute that involved attacks on Wikipedia editors, and he got on the wrong side of various admins.

I personally find it sad that a user who had never been blocked before the arbitration case, which he brought, has now been essentially given a lifetime ban. It's like me suing someone for defamation of character, and the judge telling me that because he believed (without an enormous amount of evidence) that someone I was involved with had physically attacked the person I was bringing the case against, I was being sent to prison with no possibility of parole.

It was a very difficult case. Personally I think ED needed to be removed from Wikipedia, and editors needed to be defended. But an indefinite ban for a previously unblocked editor, based on disputed evidence, seems too much to me.

--Merlinme 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely going for "blowing smoke", myself, given his blatant lying over whether he was an ED editor in the first place. I can see quite clearly where you're coming from because that's where I started, until I'd gone into the whole thing, at which point I could see no alternative than the remedy 5 against 0 Arbitrators went for. I don't necessary like to cite the 5-0 result as showing that the remedy was justified, as the Arbcom has been accused of hivemindedness and I've been tarred with that brush at least once already, but the Arbcom does not ban people lightly.

Some users are still on edge even after the banning of the principal troublemakers and ED links, and I find the possibility that the Arbcom might have let the issue just drop, and leave us with ED's drama games eating like a cancer at the centre of our community, rather scary. If the Arbcom had done that I probably wouldn't even want to be in it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of which is fair enough, however I remain unconvinced that rootology was guilty of anything very much other than association with ED people. Reading his contributions at some length, I found him on the whole to be perfectly reasonable. He could be pedantic, fail to assume good faith, and on a few occasions lost his temper, but then so did just about everybody else in the ED case.

To support an indefinite ban, you have to believe that rootology is Fuckface, and the evidence for that seems debatable to me. Nothing that rootology said on Wikipedia makes me think he would vindictively and actively pursue Wiki editors on ED, which (as I understand it) is what Fuckface did. You've said that the ban was a community ban because it actually went in before the ArbCom decision was final, but it was actually brought in immediately after the proposed remedy of banning Rootology, so what admin would ever remove that? (And to be honest, I have some objections to what appears to me to be passing sentence before you've even got agreement from all the ArbCom members yet, although you could make a case that Rootology had lost his cool by this point.)

What I do not want to see on Wikipedia is some sort of version of McCarthyism: "are you now or have you ever been involved in editing of Encyclopedia Dramatica?"

I actually support the ArbCom taking a firmer line in many areas; however if you are elected to ArbCom, I would hope that you would consider cases carefully based on the evidence before you. The evidence against rootology seems tenuous to me. His main crime seems to have been to have got on the wrong side of MONGO (and I should say I understand why MONGO was very sensitive on this). In this environment, the revelation that a picture he took ended up on ED was taken as evidence that he was responsible for some of the worst personal attacks on ED; and for me, that's a non sequitur. I mean, even the reason given for the ban: "links to harassment articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica" seems a bit flaky. Since when is it a crime to have "links"? If I have a relative who is in prison, does that make me a bad person? People should not be guilty by association with nasty people.

--Merlinme 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't buy the IRC explanation, which given that the screenshot could only have been taken by PrivateEditor (I don't know if you've seen it, but it shows him logged in) is the only possible one. "Someone asked... I sent the image privately... it apparently got back to the ED people"? The words "it apparently got back" just beg the question what exactly this is supposed to mean - they imply some shadowy figures passing an image in the Internet equivalent of dark alleyways, which just strikes me as ridiculous when we're talking about a screenshot of a public Wikipedia page that anyone could have taken. The excuse is, of course, absolutely impossible to completely disprove, and yet nonetheless utterly implausible, in my opinion.

Rootology's bridge-burning doesn't help either - it's exactly what I'd expect from someone who's tried to keep his disruptive behaviour low-profile, made one trivial blunder, blown his cover and left himself with nothing to lose.

Anyone could definitely have overturned Fred's block, by the way - it's only binding if it's an Arbitration decision, and it wasn't until the case closed. All administrators willing to unblock Rootology at least until his ban expired should have known that, Fred certainly did.

We definitely don't have a McCarthy attitude - plenty of editors with links to ED are still here. We even have editors associated with Wikipedia Review, which has been a focal point for off-wiki harrassment of editors much longer than ED. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I haven't actually seen the screenshot, as I couldn't find a working link to it, so it's difficult to comment fully. All I would ask is that, if the ArbCom is to become tougher in its sanctions in the future, it give people a fair hearing, based on the evidence against them, and not (for example) on whether they've got on the wrong side of a particular admin.

--Merlinme 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No argument there. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mitsos

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll give it a read. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Lee

Ever get tired of reverting? No need to answer, just an offer to let off some rant if you wish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it's not like I didn't use to do dozens of reverts a day on RC patrol - I don't see the occasional revert on one particular article as that annoying. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating A User Page.

Sorry if the article is a bit annoying, but would you please explain to me how I can create my own user page? Salmans801

You can create your userpage the same as any page - just go to it, click 'Start the page' and type away. A good starting point is some information about what you're interested in contributing to and what your areas of expertise are, as this is of most interest to other Wikipedians. This includes what languages you speak - we have a special page for this at Wikipedia:Babel. Many users also give some basic biographical information, like age, education level, area of work (best not to be too specific though, like anywhere on the Internet).

Some useful templates you might like to display on your userpage for your own reference are the daily featured picture, the tip of the day, and the current open tasks template.

Wikipedia:Userpage has a fuller explanation of what you can use a userpage for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it. Could it be possible for you to help me make my user page. Right now it look like its going nowhere.Thank you.Salmans801

Your userpage is about you, and everyone's userpage is different, so other people can't really write it for you. Don't feel you have to have a userpage, especially when you're new - there are Wikipedians who've been here for months and haven't made one, or have written just a couple of sentences. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ps3queen

I listed it at AIV because I can tell from her contributions (by using solely "RV" when reverting) as well as a comment left on my user talk that show that the user is a sockpuppet of the now banned Bobabobabo.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, blocked indef. I can see the characteristic you were talking about now - apart from anything else, he/she uses 'RV' in all caps when most people don't bother holding down the shift key.

But it would have been helpful if your report had contained more information - at least that the user uses 'RV' in all caps, because it's not immediately obvious that the capitalisation is the giveaway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And why did you add a tag to the userpage saying the connection was established by CheckUser? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It will be once I bug a checkuser/steward to prove it (and none of the other ones are any good :( )—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it's not established by Checkuser. It's my head on the block if someone asks me 'Why did you block this account, who did the Checkuser?' so I removed the notice. You can replace it with {{blockedsock}} if you like, which doesn't mention Checkuser, but personally, I wouldn't bother. We've got a big enough collection already, WP:DR and all that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it has.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Essjay has also proven that User:Ryulongisgay is also Bobabobabo.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obmij Selaw

Why did you remove him. Aren't alternate spellings of Jimbo Wales prohibited? *Is confused.* -WarthogDemon 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't actually mean to remove it - accidents happen sometimes on frequently-edited pages like AIV. I've blocked the account, thanks for bringing it up. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob and I know what you mean. I actually made a bigger mess there just the other week. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pmanderson up for RfA

Did you realize that Pmanderson, who voted against you, is up for RfA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Please do not canvas people whom you think will vote a certain way in a discussion. This is severely frowned upon by the community. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Headless_Chickens

The mfd header is still on the page after you closed the mfd and I don't know how to fix this and have the record on the talk page to link the closed mfd. Ta. --Spartaz 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I've removed the header. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Irascible Professor on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Irascible Professor. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. dryguy 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right To Vanish

Hello, I'm invoking the right to vanish from Wikipedia asking that my userpage and talk page be deleted, and my account be blocked indefinatley to prevent impersonation or future use by someone else. Thanks much. Knowing Is Half The Battle 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on how to fight vandalism

At the virtual classroom, we've got a discussion going on about vandalism. You are invited to join in add your comments and share your expertise. Ask any question, answer any question, raise any issue, start any subtopic. Anything goes. I hope to see you there.

Virtual classroom assignments 3. Budgiekiller, on vandalism 2. Grutness's guide to stubbing 1. Compare your user interfaces with what others use 0. Admin coaching - general and specific advice on preparing for adminship -  Miscellaneous questions and comments - anything goes  .  .  .  .

The Transhumanist    01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but from the look of your 'assignment' it's focused more on those at the sharp end of vandal fighting, that is, reverting vandals (and how to do it with more speed and accuracy), whereas most of my recent experience is with blocking them. I haven't even ever used the external anti-vandalism tools, for example, apart from popups. If you decide to do a piece on something more in my area, then I'd be happy to help out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popups related error?

Hey there, I see that you reverted my reversion. :) Was this intentional or an error through the popups tool? --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups-related edit conflict, I think - I definitely didn't mean to revert you. Sorry about that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Just confirming before I restored the warnings. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I'm sorry my web browser froze up dang it!!!--Hornetman16 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BooyakaDell

Samuel, just letting you know that an incident report has already been filed over this - to no effect. The mediation has also failed. Please reconsider. Curse of Fenric 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV is for simple vandalism - anything that you've filed a request for mediation for is definitely not simple vandalism. (No-one compromises with vandals.) Try the incidents noticeboard for more admin comment, requests for comment to get the opinion of the general community, or, when/if you honestly believe you've exhausted all other options, try requests for arbitration. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Block

'(continued from e-mail)'

If it was an autoblock, then how come it showed you as the blocking admin?

(thanks for the unblock)

Tyson Moore es 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I blocked the account that triggered the autoblock. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Issues on ANI

I appreciate your input, especially concerning allegations of my intent. Thanks. Frise 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are a sockpuppet, then I'm not surprised you didn't want to go through this with your main account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP 208.107.24.23's vandalism

Please see these diffs: Steve Nash, 10/29 & Steve Nash, 12/11. Do you really believe that this just happens to be from two different people who BOTH hate Steve Nash, and BOTH use the same IP, and BOTH vandalize articles about South Dakota? I suppose it's possible, but not terribly likely.

If I may say; your reaction to this report is terribly discouraging to me as a vandal fighter. I don't make false reports, and I don't overwarn; I look for patterns and I act on them. When admins don't trust these reports, it makes one not want to make reports at all. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point - but fact remains that he hasn't vandalised since getting the big red hand on his talk page. When you said 'last warning' I assumed you meant 'most recent' - and no matter which way you put it, he hasn't vandalised since the most recent warning - yours. As he isn't currently vandalising, there's no point in blocking. If editors had kept giving him final warnings, and he kept going away and coming back, then I'd block him, but as it stands I'm treating him as a user who may well have stopped after realising we mean business.

I'm sorry if you feel that your reports aren't being taken seriously, but for some reason people keep reporting vandals when they haven't vandalised since their last warning, AIV is a rapidly-moving page and I have to be brief about why I'm not blocking something. Your efforts in keeping our encyclopaedia free of nonsense are appreciated, believe me. (Though it would help if you shortened your sig. Sometimes it takes a while to select the right amount of post to remove because of all that colour-coding.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point is a good one as well; as was your advice about my sig. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leyasu Sock

Since I saw you blocked one of his others. 81.157.65.172 (talk • contribs) is his most recent sock IP. He is currently trying to edit by brute force on Gothic metal. --Wildnox 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now hes changed IP again81.153.143.62 (talk • contribs), maybe semi-protection on his target article? I'm not going to try to keep reverting him any more as it seems rather pointless. . --Wildnox 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPs and semi-protected the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, sadly it seemed like that was the only option besides waiting for him to get tired. Thank you for the quick action. --Wildnox 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Wow, that was kind of funny. Your edit summary said 75 blocked, and for a second I was like "WTF? Why are there 75 users at AIV?" Then I realized :P Wow, that was really stupid of me. ♥ Fredil 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)